AN EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR EXPLORING AI IN GOVERNMENT: PUTTING SOCIO-TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVES INTO USE

Ayse Kok  Arslan

doi:10.24297/ijct.v21i.8999

Authors

Ayse Kok Arslan University of Oxford Alumni- (Research Group, Alumni Association, Northern California, USA)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24297/ijct.v21i.8999

Keywords:

HCI , mis-information, cyber-troops, tech policy, socio-technological systems, AI

Abstract

This study explores the evolution of global AI dynamics by discussing its role in government with a focus on aspects of development and governance of social and technological systems (STS). This document reports three research questions, including the extent of the analysis: (1) theories regarding the concept of AI in the public sector; (2) expectations regarding the development of AI in the public sector; and, (3) the challenges and opportunities of AI in the public sector. This experimental study provides an experimental framework for a comprehensive approach to measuring the magnitude of AI policy that allows for the methods of evaluating different governance practices and policy priorities in different countries. The study sheds light onto areas of policy that have the potential to implement AI programs and strategies; administrative functions open to the acceptance of AI applications and strategies; and the challenges / risks that community managers may face in defining AI policies and projects in the public sector including how to deal with cyber-troops.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agre, P. E. (1994). Surveillance and capture: Two models of privacy. The Information Society, 10(2), 101–127.

Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of power. Beyond territory and networks. Routledge.

Bratton, B. (2015). The Stack: On software and sovereignty. MIT Press.

Bucher, T. (2018). If...then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.

Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1).

Decuypere, M. (2019a). Open Education platforms: Theoretical ideas, digital operations and the figure of the open learner. European Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 439–460.

Dieter, M., Gerlitz, C., Helmond, A., Tkacz, N., Vlist, F., Der, V., & Weltevrede, E. (2018). Store, interface, package, connection : Methods and propositions for multi-situated app studies. CRC Media of Cooperation Working Paper Series No 4.

Drucker, J. (2020). Visualization and Interpretation: Humanistic Approaches to Display. MIT Press. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1)

Mathias, Decuypere The Topologies of Data Practices: A Methodological Introduction Fedorova, K. (2020). Tactics of Interfacing. Encoding Affect in Art and Technology. MIT Press. Goriunova, O. (2019). The Digital Subject: People as Data as Persons. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(6), 125–145.

Gulson, K. N., Lewis, S., Lingard, B., Lubienski, C., Takayama, K., & Webb, P. T. (2017). Policy mobilities and methodology: a proposition for inventive methods in education policy studies. Critical Studies in Education, 58(2), 224–241.

Gulson, K. N., & Sellar, S. (2019). Emerging data infrastructures and the new topologies of education policy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37, 350–366.

Hartong, S. (2020). The power of relation-making: insights into the production and operation of digital school performance platforms in the US. Critical Studies in Education, 00(00), 1–16.

Hartong, S., & Förschler, A. (2019). Opening the black box of data-based school monitoring: Data infrastructures, flows and practices in state education agencies. Big Data & Society, 6(1),

Lash, S. (2012). Deforming the Figure: Topology and the Social Imaginary. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4-5), 261–287.

Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge & Society, 6, 1–40. Retrieved from http://hci.ucsd.edu/10/readings/Latour(1986).pdf

Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Psychology Press.

Lewis, S. (2020). Providing a platform for “what works”: Platform-based governance and the reshaping of teacher learning through the OECD’s PISA4U. Comparative Education, 56(4).

Lewis, S., & Hardy, I. (2017). Tracking the Topological: The Effects of Standardised Data Upon Teachers’ Practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(2), 219–238.

Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media and Society, 20(3), 881–900.

Lindh, M., & Nolin, J. (2016). Information We Collect: Surveillance and Privacy in the Implementation of Google Apps for Education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(6),

Lury, C., & Day, S. (2019). Algorithmic Personalization as a Mode of Individuation. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(2), 17–37.

Mathias, Decuypere The Topologies of Data Practices: A Methodological Introduction Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., & Lammes, S. (2018). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods. Routledge.

Lury, C., Parisi, L., & Terranova, T. (2012). Introduction: The Becoming Topological of Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4-5), 3–35.

Lury, C., Tironi, M., & Bernasconi, R. (2020). The Social Life of Methods as Epistemic Objects: Interview with Celia Lury. Diseña, 16, 32–55.

Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (2012). Introduction: A perpetual inventory. Inventive Methods (pp. 15–38). Routledge.

Martin, L., & Secor, A. J. (2014). Towards a post-mathematical topology. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 420–438.

[29] Piattoeva, N., & Saari, A. (2020). Rubbing against data infrastructure(s): methodological explorations on working with(in) the impossibility of exteriority. Journal of Education Policy, 00(00), 1–21.

Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media and Society, 20(1), 293–310.

Prince, R. (2017). Local or global policy? Thinking about policy mobility with assemblage and topology. Area, 49(3), 335–341.

Ratner, H. (2019). Topologies of Organization: Space in Continuous Deformation. Organization Studies, 1–18.

Ratner, H., & Gad, C. (2019). Data warehousing organization: Infrastructural experimentation with educational governance. Organization, 26(4), 537–552.

Ratner, H., & Ruppert, E. (2019). Producing and projecting data: Aesthetic practices of government data portals. Big Data & Society, 6(2), 1–16.

Ruppert, E., Law, J., & Savage, M. (2013). Reassembling Social Science Methods: The Challenge of Digital Devices. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 22–46.

Suchman, L. (2012). Configuration. In C. Lury & N. Wakeford (Eds.), Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social (pp. 48–60). Taylor and Francis.

Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2015). Becoming-topologies of education: deformations, networks and the database effect. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 732–748.

Thompson, G., & Sellar, S. (2018). Datafication, testing events and the outside of thought. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), 139–151.

van de Oudeweetering, K., & Decuypere, M. (2019). Understanding openness through (in)visible platform boundaries: a topological study on MOOCs as multiplexes of spaces and times. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1).

van de Oudeweetering, K., & Decuypere, M. (2020). In between hyperboles: forms and formations in Open Education. Learning, Media and Technology, Advance online publication, 1–18.

Williamson, B. (2017). Learning in the “platform society”: Disassembling an educational data assemblage. Research in Education, 98(1), 59–82.