Predictive algorithms and racial bias: a qualitative descriptive study on the perceptions of algorithm accuracy in higher education

IF 1.6 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Information and Learning Sciences Pub Date : 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1108/ils-05-2023-0045
Stacey Lynn von Winckelmann
{"title":"Predictive algorithms and racial bias: a qualitative descriptive study on the perceptions of algorithm accuracy in higher education","authors":"Stacey Lynn von Winckelmann","doi":"10.1108/ils-05-2023-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose This study aims to explore the perception of algorithm accuracy among data professionals in higher education. Design/methodology/approach Social justice theory guided the qualitative descriptive study and emphasized four principles: access, participation, equity and human rights. Data collection included eight online open-ended questionnaires and six semi-structured interviews. Participants included higher education professionals who have worked with predictive algorithm (PA) recommendations programmed with student data. Findings Participants are aware of systemic and racial bias in their PA inputs and outputs and acknowledge their responsibility to ethically use PA recommendations with students in historically underrepresented groups (HUGs). For some participants, examining these topics through the lens of social justice was a new experience, which caused them to look at PAs in new ways. Research limitations/implications Small sample size is a limitation of the study. Implications for practice include increased stakeholder training, creating an ethical data strategy that protects students, incorporating adverse childhood experiences data with algorithm recommendations, and applying a modified critical race theory framework to algorithm outputs. Originality/value The study explored the perception of algorithm accuracy among data professionals in higher education. Examining this topic through a social justice lens contributes to limited research in the field. It also presents implications for addressing racial bias when using PAs with students in HUGs.","PeriodicalId":44588,"journal":{"name":"Information and Learning Sciences","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-05-2023-0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore the perception of algorithm accuracy among data professionals in higher education. Design/methodology/approach Social justice theory guided the qualitative descriptive study and emphasized four principles: access, participation, equity and human rights. Data collection included eight online open-ended questionnaires and six semi-structured interviews. Participants included higher education professionals who have worked with predictive algorithm (PA) recommendations programmed with student data. Findings Participants are aware of systemic and racial bias in their PA inputs and outputs and acknowledge their responsibility to ethically use PA recommendations with students in historically underrepresented groups (HUGs). For some participants, examining these topics through the lens of social justice was a new experience, which caused them to look at PAs in new ways. Research limitations/implications Small sample size is a limitation of the study. Implications for practice include increased stakeholder training, creating an ethical data strategy that protects students, incorporating adverse childhood experiences data with algorithm recommendations, and applying a modified critical race theory framework to algorithm outputs. Originality/value The study explored the perception of algorithm accuracy among data professionals in higher education. Examining this topic through a social justice lens contributes to limited research in the field. It also presents implications for addressing racial bias when using PAs with students in HUGs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测算法和种族偏见:对高等教育中算法准确性感知的定性描述性研究
目的探讨高等院校数据专业人员对算法准确性的认知。社会正义理论指导了定性描述性研究,并强调了四项原则:机会、参与、公平和人权。数据收集包括8份在线开放式问卷和6份半结构化访谈。参与者包括从事预测算法(PA)推荐工作的高等教育专业人员。参与者意识到他们的个人助理输入和输出中存在系统性和种族偏见,并承认他们有责任在历史上代表性不足的群体(hug)中合乎道德地使用个人助理建议。对一些与会者来说,从社会正义的角度审视这些议题是一种新的体验,这使他们以新的方式看待pa。研究的局限性/启示小样本量是研究的局限性。对实践的影响包括增加利益相关者培训,创建保护学生的道德数据策略,将不良童年经历数据与算法建议相结合,并将改进的关键种族理论框架应用于算法输出。原创性/价值本研究探讨高等教育数据专业人员对算法准确性的看法。通过社会正义的视角来审视这个话题有助于该领域的有限研究。它还提出了在hug中对学生使用pa时解决种族偏见的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Information and Learning Sciences
Information and Learning Sciences INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Information and Learning Sciences advances inter-disciplinary research that explores scholarly intersections shared within 2 key fields: information science and the learning sciences / education sciences. The journal provides a publication venue for work that strengthens our scholarly understanding of human inquiry and learning phenomena, especially as they relate to design and uses of information and e-learning systems innovations.
期刊最新文献
A critical (theory) data literacy: tales from the field Toward a new framework for teaching algorithmic literacy Promoting students’ informal inferential reasoning through arts-integrated data literacy education The data awareness framework as part of data literacies in K-12 education Learning experience network analysis for design-based research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1