Teresa Swist, Kalervo N. Gulson, Claire Benn, Kirsty Kitto, Simon Knight, Vincent Zhang
{"title":"技术民主设计实验:让英国考试算法争议成为游戏","authors":"Teresa Swist, Kalervo N. Gulson, Claire Benn, Kirsty Kitto, Simon Knight, Vincent Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.destud.2024.101245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Algorithmic system controversies are increasingly issues of concern for diverse publics plus a growing design challenge. For example, the 2020 UK exam controversy sparked wide-spread public debate about the role of algorithms in regard to not only student grading systems, but also the design of automated systems in the public sector. In light of this particular controversy, our study introduces a <em>technical democracy design experiment</em> to examine algorithmic system controversies. We propose an iterative, collaborative design process specific to the study of algorithmic systems which informs our collaborative making of the UK exam algorithm game: a prototype to explore controversies, generate design things, deliberate ethical tensions, and spark thought collectives. This <em>socio-technical acts of contestation model</em> offers a novel and adaptable tool to interrupt public sector design possibilities in two key ways: first, to expand collective learning and experimentation about the political design of algorithmic system controversies; and, second, to support <em>agonistic design thinging</em> about emerging technologies associated with high stakes decision-making across society.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50593,"journal":{"name":"Design Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X24000085/pdfft?md5=f2630aec93c248486aa862bd6e91ed16&pid=1-s2.0-S0142694X24000085-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A technical democracy design experiment: Making the UK exam algorithm controversy game\",\"authors\":\"Teresa Swist, Kalervo N. Gulson, Claire Benn, Kirsty Kitto, Simon Knight, Vincent Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.destud.2024.101245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Algorithmic system controversies are increasingly issues of concern for diverse publics plus a growing design challenge. For example, the 2020 UK exam controversy sparked wide-spread public debate about the role of algorithms in regard to not only student grading systems, but also the design of automated systems in the public sector. In light of this particular controversy, our study introduces a <em>technical democracy design experiment</em> to examine algorithmic system controversies. We propose an iterative, collaborative design process specific to the study of algorithmic systems which informs our collaborative making of the UK exam algorithm game: a prototype to explore controversies, generate design things, deliberate ethical tensions, and spark thought collectives. This <em>socio-technical acts of contestation model</em> offers a novel and adaptable tool to interrupt public sector design possibilities in two key ways: first, to expand collective learning and experimentation about the political design of algorithmic system controversies; and, second, to support <em>agonistic design thinging</em> about emerging technologies associated with high stakes decision-making across society.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Design Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X24000085/pdfft?md5=f2630aec93c248486aa862bd6e91ed16&pid=1-s2.0-S0142694X24000085-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Design Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X24000085\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X24000085","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
A technical democracy design experiment: Making the UK exam algorithm controversy game
Algorithmic system controversies are increasingly issues of concern for diverse publics plus a growing design challenge. For example, the 2020 UK exam controversy sparked wide-spread public debate about the role of algorithms in regard to not only student grading systems, but also the design of automated systems in the public sector. In light of this particular controversy, our study introduces a technical democracy design experiment to examine algorithmic system controversies. We propose an iterative, collaborative design process specific to the study of algorithmic systems which informs our collaborative making of the UK exam algorithm game: a prototype to explore controversies, generate design things, deliberate ethical tensions, and spark thought collectives. This socio-technical acts of contestation model offers a novel and adaptable tool to interrupt public sector design possibilities in two key ways: first, to expand collective learning and experimentation about the political design of algorithmic system controversies; and, second, to support agonistic design thinging about emerging technologies associated with high stakes decision-making across society.
期刊介绍:
Design Studies is a leading international academic journal focused on developing understanding of design processes. It studies design activity across all domains of application, including engineering and product design, architectural and urban design, computer artefacts and systems design. It therefore provides an interdisciplinary forum for the analysis, development and discussion of fundamental aspects of design activity, from cognition and methodology to values and philosophy.
Design Studies publishes work that is concerned with the process of designing, and is relevant to a broad audience of researchers, teachers and practitioners. We welcome original, scientific and scholarly research papers reporting studies concerned with the process of designing in all its many fields, or furthering the development and application of new knowledge relating to design process. Papers should be written to be intelligible and pertinent to a wide range of readership across different design domains. To be relevant for this journal, a paper has to offer something that gives new insight into or knowledge about the design process, or assists new development of the processes of designing.