#Ectel2019 Covadonga Rodrigo from #UNED @cova_rodrigo #gender #AI #bias

From here a couple of cases and projects (slides will follow)

Great presentation by UNED Covadonga Rodrigo: will AI be sexist? @cova_rodrigo (liveblog)
Referring to male/female recruitment of Amazon. AI had a biased in favor of men. Why?
Because the AI was trained with historical data, so more males, which made the system think male candidates were preferable.
Microsoft (2016) had the same result with their AI system: automated bots on twitter, this bot was getting sexist in the end due to AI learning.

So who is programming the AI systems: up to 90 % are men (2015), it changes gradually, but at the moment women are only 16 to 19% of the programmers. This results in differences in terms of bias. By 2023 it will probably be 27,7% (= number of software developers in the world) this is not the critical threshold of 33% that we know is critical from social sciences in order for a group to get their voices heard).

Some issues Glass ceiling, identity of what engineers are, school atmosphere, more female references in the curricula. It is not only in engineering, also in other areas.
The AI assistants are also mostly female-voice based => the female secretary, not female leads.

Ethics: curricula are biased, ethical subjects in curricula. Lack of humanistic studies in education, we need to transform this.

Mentions that she is 50+ and she was an engineer from early on, so there were women engineers, so no problem with entry of women. So we have male domination, which results in biases in terms of gender, and differences that exist in society.

Sources of sexism (slides will follow)

#ECTEL2019 Workshop #AI in #Education #liveblogpost #AIED @cova_rodrigo @paco

This is a live blog, so bits and pieces noted.

Paco Iniesto (The Open University, IET, AIED) is the workshop lead, and he is looking good and giving a strong overview.
AI is all around us: cars, games, robotics, AlphaGo (see netflix), predictive policy, dating apps, thispersondoesnotexist.com (3 min video is of interest, how they generate these images), ...

What is AI?
It isn't easy to define AI and many people have an idea, but there is no definition.
computer systems desinged to interact with the world ... (Luckin, Waynes...)

The promise of AI is not yet realized, although it has been developing for 40 years.
It's big business
AI shines a spothlight on existing educational practices
AI rehashes what we have at this point in time

Implications of AIED: algorithms and computation: what are the algorithms, what are their consequences, how to control them... accuracy and validity of assessments, are we treating students as human beings?

Lumilo augmented reality glasses for teachers (https://hechingerreport.org/these-glasses-give-teachers-superpowers/), video can be found here: https://kenholstein.myportfolio.com/the-lumilo-project This got some negative critiques from teachers and learners.

Ethical questions
Connection between effect and psychological traits of learners, but where can this lead to? (cfr Cambridge analytics).
What if we have the data for 'good', what if others use it for 'bad' ideas.
What about GDPR, who owns the data, how does this affect funding, if students opt out of the system and all their data is erased; can we use blockchain in order to keep the data connected to the learners?
Where is the data in order for the data be erased, how does this affect future employment?
Will the system be able to evaluate actual learning, if this is the case, what benefits will it bring to teaching and learning?
Does the support of learners lead to limiting the self-directed learning-to-learn of the learners
Starting from the technology to move to support the learning seems to be the other way round then it should be done,
What is the educational progress using these technologies?
What is the difference between monitoring and surveillance? (where is the barrier)
Can learners hack the system to get more or less support?
Does the teacher have enough time to support learners with difficulties? And does their help actually benefit the learning?
Consent forms of those who are not able to give consent?
marginalized people are in need of technological support, but how do we support them in a secure way?

Sources:
Sheila project: https://sheilaproject.eu/
Methods of mass destruction book

The post-it notes with ideas from three different groups addressing some of the questions mentioned in the above slide.

#OEB16 opening plenary live blogpost on owning learning

Owning learning: A great session with a range of experts on the topic of current learning problems… and possible solutions. This is a live blogpost.

Tricia Wang (designing for perspectives: the secret for learners to thrive in the 21^st Century)

The individuals are getting too much of the blame. We need to design for perspectives, (@triciawang ).

Sally Ride was the first female astronaut. Once she stopped flying she developed earthKAM, which enables teachers to use the camera on the space station. The students can select the coordinates, and it gives the students a hands-on space experience.

The power of using tech and learning, at best the students really feel science. It introduces a new perspective for students. Video and photography provides participatory options for learning. Technology has seen so many innovations now applied to learning, it is mindblowing. Machine learning is a fancy term to describe what we do with computers, where computers get actions from humans.

Machine learning is a 3;7 billion industry, but what are its limitations? Machine learning still requires human designers and quality data. If the humans overseeing the training are not aware of their own biases, these biases result in the output.

Technology has not increased our understanding of the world. Example: the white interpretation of google photo’s. It is a result of failing to see outside of our perspective.

These technology mishaps happen a lot. Machine biases, Propublica 23 May 2016. (the high risk offender example).

Machines are directing our learning, as such biases in these machines might result in more biases in learning. No one wants these biases to be embedded in machine learning. But the outcomes reveal the limited perspectives of their creators. And this happens easily, perspective collisions happen.

Representing heterogeneity is a difficult challenge. We are still not truly globally connected. The social part is something all of us have a hard time with. Getting a multiplicity perspective is the challenge. There s a lot of confusion, as everyone gets to speak, this means all of that ends up into the social texture of life. So we need to teach people to navigate their own lives through this new social, machine lead system. Perspective shifting, a new form of media literacy, taking into account people that are not like you. This will be one of the most critical skills, but humans need to be trained for this. It is a learning behaviour, so qualitatively learning these skills is possible and should be a priority to enable a global world with true equality.

Relying only on quantitative data, it risks us to be blind by the known. This is why we need people that can actually address these multiple perspectives. To get outside the binary: replace the binary divide with the connected network, to ask different questions (computers replace humans), but why do we not ask what humans can do to work with computers to reduce biases. Always integrate both quantitative AND qualitative data to eliminate the risk of bias. In a pluralistic society, we need this approach.

Look up caroline synders or sinnders… for work with machine learning and ethonographers.

Andreas Schleiger (supporting learners globally to own learning)

The last couple of years we all got experienced at coping with economic crisis. If you look at who found solutions, skills seem to be the key driver to battle inequality or crisis. People at the high end of the skill spectrum see themselves as actors, while the low end sees themselves as objects.

Even today, corporates tell us there are no skilled workers, yet more people are looking for jobs.

So it is about skills and using them, learning them.

How to be ready for social problems, like jobs that will be erased. It is not about robots, just about automation. But augmented reality can bring the real world into any location. Google knows everything, and there is a huge challenge that is coming our way. There is no longer a digital economy. The economy is a digital economy.

People work harder now, then ever before, but the declining levels of productivity is affecting work. There is a growing divide that people with the right skills have less opportunities, thus those without skills have even less options.

The race between technology and skills.

Digital problem solving skills: finding solutions for every day problems. Only 1 in 5 people above 50 years can do this. Even if we look at people 16 – 24 suffer, as only one in two young people can solve every day challenges.

Lots of people are being left outside. The only area where employment grows is the high skills jobs. This is where the economy is quite stable (admittedly, the pay is decreasing for these jobs).

What skills are important: knowledge, integration of different fields of knowledge (think like historian, philosopher, technology… all at the same time will increase your skills and stability). And then looking at details to solve problems via different viewpoints.  

The world rewards for the opposite, for thinking about systems, not the details.

Digital literacy, global literacy… those different perspectives become the challenge.

Skills that matter today is critical thinking, creative thinking. Solving complex problems, social skills, communication…

But something controversial as skills is: resilience, figuring out problems when you cannot see the solutions, curiosity, mindfulness, ethics, courage, leadership, inclusion, empathy. Making judgments becomes more important, that is complex. Self-awareness.

Everything we do reinforces what we did when we were young. If we think of the science changes… it is amazing, we have developed 3D printing, iphones, google maps… you no longer need to teach people something, but skills.

Fundamental success in life: numerical skills (eg data), there is a direct relationship between low skills and declining jobs.

You no longer need to accumulate degrees, but contemporary skills mentioned above.

Literacy skills, learning to learn, cross-sectional skills. We need to teach people these skills to enable them to be able to find the right jobs. 

Roger Schank (who owns learning, not you, maybe AI can help).

This is a person you just need to talk to. The talk will be hilariously invigorating. 

Who owns learning is my question. Everyone but yourself. As the system tells you what to learn, with similar requirements, interpretations of what is best. 

Eliminate testing. The politicians support the testing industry. And forcing testing, forces what teachers need to teach.

Let’s built online learning that does not suck and really teaches us a lot of useful skills. 

Artificial Intelligence: at a certain moment it was put in the freezer due to over-expectation at some point. But now it is again a big business.

At present models human intelligence, but it is not. Schank mentions AI mentor (look up). 

#EDENRW9 The increasing im-possibilities of justice and care in open distance learning

Paul Prinsloo (https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-prinsloo-226a8716) was looking particularly good this morning in his light blue jacket and his radiant presence. And what he said hit home! Really great presentation.

Liveblogging what he said here. (@14prinsp ) slides on slideshare (http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/the-increasing-impossibilities-of-justice-and-care-in-open-distance-learning ).

Achieving justice and care was a concern from early on in distance education. Spending time and resources to take down barriers. AT this point in time, the opportunities for justice and care have grown over the years. On the other hand the impossibilities for justice and care have seen new challenges arise.

Intergenerational weight, colonialism, … education is often seen as a key initiative to counter these. Yet, challenges arise against the belief that education and equality is possible. All of societies problems cannot be addressed or erased by education. Students need to be made aware of what education entails from the start to be able to attain access to higher education. Access to education is not enough.

Ethics of care is essential to create equality.

Government subsidies have tumbled while student numbers rose in South Africa.

The amount of funding spend per students are decreasing (see slides).

The problem lies in completion rates of undergraduate degrees, not only on completing individual courses.

In DE there is still this grey area of not knowing where it will take us, what student success entails.

Education is not broken, and technology cannot mend it. Paul believes advances in tech, AI, machine learning can address some of the challenges we face. But what are the conditions. Paul refers to the chatbot, a female chatbot to support students and answer their questions.

AI can get awfully wrong. Can robot replace teachers? It does allow for some light relieve, but it might also endanger jobs. If we consider the role of AI, algorithms to change education, where equity, equality is reached, than what this imply: cost, access, quality and care.

How do we talk about university care with top ranking of universities, the rankings increase marginalisation of knowing. Most of the people are still offline. See most recent report of the Worldbank (http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016 ).

Can we increase access, maintain quality and address the issue of cost through implementation of these new techs? Student data is the contemporary greatness… our obsession with metrics turn academics/researchers into data drones. Students and surveillance. What could we learn of tracking everyone? How much more student data do we need to move to justice and care? How much is enough data to achieve justice and care?

Will having access to more data answer challenges? Knowing more about our students does not, necessarily, result in understanding. Can we respond in appropriate ways?

We need to realise that our digital lives are more than the clicks. Data does not exist without assumptions, data have contexts, and it impacts on the integraty of data. Knowing what is happening, does not say why things are happening. We do not even have the time to think about why it is happening. Biesta quote (in slides).

Correlation is not causation. 

We need to be careful with accountability and AI. 

HOw can we use algorithms to structure a learning journey, allocation of resources, addressing inter-generational disadvantage? Red-lining?

What are the implications of tech to the justice and care for open distance learning to actually remove barriers and to reach more justice and care. 

People should know who makes algorithms, what it implies, to question conclusions, to have access, to opting out or in, to keep ethical oversight of all these possibilities. 

The increasing (im)possibilities of justice and care in open, distance learning from prinsp

Join #MobiMOOC for an #ethical debate on #mLearning #philosophy

As the free and open online course on mobile learning (MobiMOOC) is approaching its starting date (if you have not signed up for the free course, simply become a member here), the specialized topics are getting populated with wonderful content. For all of you interested in discussing technologies and its impact, get involved in the John Traxler's week on the impact of mobile devices on the world.

John Traxler has paved the way for many mobile learners and he is philosopher at heart looking at the benefits and potential pitfalls of learning with mobile devices in the current world.

What is your opinion on these random questions?

• When the North is providing technology for the South, is this empowering for the South, or only opening up a profit for the North? 
• Up until now education has not been able to reach all children and provide primary education for all (United Nations Millennium Goals), so is it reasonable to think that mobile learning will achieve this, or is this yet another technological utopia?
• When will we see the first African cell-phone companies challenging the global market?
• Is it possible to build a durable mobile learning strategy for all, if poor people (any region) can only afford low budget phones?
• Is the use of mobile devices in the classroom another addition to the digital divide, creating an ever growing gap between the have's and the have not's in all regions?

John has been adding content to the course wiki, creating an interesting set of resources (movies, papers...) so feel free to have a look already.

If you feel a growing interest, or if you have strong ideas on the subject, get to the MobiMOOC google group, become a member for free and get engaged in the MobiMOOC course! There is a growing number of wonderful people gathering there, from 6 (SIX!) continents. Only Antarctica is missing ... what do these scientists do there? Don't they use mobile devices?

Here is a movie where John Traxler gives his view on mobile devices and their impact:

Ethics, technology and learning

This last couple of days have drained my spirit, mainly because my ethics were challenged on different levels. I did not find the energy to write about it until today and it is with a sad heart that I reflect on why I have felt a bit in despair.

Why do governments politicize education? (Becta in the UK, long-term vision in Belgium)

Belgium and long/short term educational vision

In Belgium education was in the hands of a visionary politician for some years. During his reign long-term vision constructed results in getting young learners from other national backgrounds integrated in our school system (and society), and in restructuring education so it would no longer be discriminatory for youngsters who were not good in languages/maths but good in technical intelligence. He was a visionary politician because he cared about results and he crossed political boundaries while gathering his cabinet (people with lots of experience and who belief in durability, loose from political views). After yet another fall of the government a different politician became minister of education, a different one though from the same political party. He had a short term vision and wanted to profile himself, he immediately started cutting initiatives. Which one’s? the ones that got good results with young learners from vulnerable socio-economic groups and the restructuring theme that would rectify some of the big Belgian education problems (e.g. less respect for hands-on jobs).

But a society is only as strong as its weakest link: get everyone educated in something they feel comfortable with to build a strong society.

Becta in the United Kingdom

Becta is the government agency leading the national drive to ensure the effective and innovative use of technology throughout learning. It got great results and – in my opinion – Becta single handedly got Britain into the 21^st century teaching by taking all (well, many) of the teachers along the learning path into the knowledge era. They produced an amazing amount of publication, accessible to all and tackling technology/learning issues that matter to many of us.

But the government changed, and because of this Becta will be shutting down in November 2010, in spite of many good learning outcomes and products.

So why do governments politicize learning?

Why can the military achieve what civil society cannot

In the last weeks I had the pleasure of meeting people actively involved in training soldiers. I am against violence, and I do belief no one on earth, no country, should have a military, but e.g. civilian aid army. But I cannot deny that the military offers opportunities for some young adults that they would otherwise never have (but they also risk their lives). No matter what group of human society, it is always a group of humans with all their nice and less friendly characteristics.

While talking to the teachers and exchanging ideas I wondered how they managed to reach learners that society could not reach. For example: many young recruits do not master basic calculations and/or reading/writing skills. This means that society and its education missed the boat. It is true that this is a joint responsibility, schools, parents, government should work together to improve the overall state of human comprehension in our young people.

The strange thing is military does reach them, and some of these young adults actually learn content that they did not absorb before (although I assume they had the chance). So why is that? Is it because the military actually use learning techniques that attract these young adults? (e.g. some of them got a Nintendo DS to learn simple math skills. Why? All of the peers were using Nintendo DS to play games, so if anyone was using a Nintendo DS, the peers would think “ah, he or she is playing a game” – so not loosing face while actually learning to count.

Another thing was language: recruits got language training, okay basic, but still it worked and they were actually eager to learn more (at first only words were offered, but on demand of the recruits complete sentences were offered for learning).

With new technology they were also provided just-in-time first aid help lessons, with simulations they were trained for in-the-field situations….

Say results would show learning outcomes improve drastically with the use of simulations, games… (Which is proven for some digital learning activities), than why can’t the government invest more money in them to reach those hard to reach learners that the military actually reaches?

Why is it still about technology and not about learning?

All of us that depend on funding know that if you stick the latest technological hype into a funding proposal, linking it to learning in some way or another, you have a far bigger chance to get your proposal accepted. Currently European politicians linked to EU funding say: we should get more learning results from the learning projects that run/ran, what are the long-term results (if any)? And indeed learning results are what count, not the technology. But is learning today actually about learning, or is it just another economic reason to sell stuff to regions or people that sometimes simply do not have the budget to sustain these technical solutions once the funding stops?

What are we to do?

How can we all insure that no matter what, learning and human consideration will improve with any technology for learning we introduce? How can we put education on the foreground and not technology? How can we opt for long-term actions leaping across political boundaries instead of ‘look-at-what-I-did’ projects from short term leaders?

CCK09: does Connectivism want to change the world?

The last couple of months I have been thinking more then I am writing. I am still thinking. In fact the more I think, the dumber I get and I start to see it as fact. So less writing is done. My network is amazing, however and so I keep connecting them if that seems like a good idea. My network consists of people trying to improve the world, meaning reduce conflicts, access to health facilities, access to education, etcetera. A lot of people in my network are scientists with a vision to improve the world and make it a better place to live in, with quality of life for all (in a variety of forms they define it).

Although still a bit reluctant to write, seeing as I feel in a cognitive slow period of life, this post had to be written. Especially after reading Stephen Downes’ article on Group vs Networks: the class struggle continues. Some quotes from the article:

“It's hard to believe that something like freedom of speech is a radical concept, but there it is. In their own ways, a person in a network should be able to send their message any way they want in their own language using their own computer encoding, using their Macintosh computers, using standards that are non-standards.”

“In networks we have communities of practices where a ‘community' is defined as collections of individuals that exchange messages and ideas back and forth without being impeded. Copyright, trademarks, proprietary software, all of these things are barriers for the communication of thought and ideas. If you allow that using content, images, text, video is a way of speaking to each other, then copyright, trademark, all these things are ways of locking down our speech, saying, "I own the word such and such and you can't use it."

“You can't build a society with walls. …In the longer term we have to do something more imaginative than blocking this technology. We need to live and teach and learn where the students live and teach and learn. That means that we have to stop blocking to their spaces and go to their spaces. So we explore their world. But, you know, there's the age-old danger of explorers that when we go to their world, we're going to want to colonize it. And we're going to want to make them like us. And we're going to want to take them from their mountains and put them in rooms and put walls around them and put locks on their doors and say, "This is civilization."

While picking up parts of the CCK08 last year, I found it enlightening and in sync with some of my world beliefs. This year I enrolled, but I was not actively producing anything. However, I love to lurk and I learn a lot from it which suits my current state of mind. To me Connectivism is more related to Critical Social Science (CSS) then Interpretive Social Science (ISS). This idea matters to me, because I had the feeling that Connectivism had or has an activist agenda incorporated as well. But than, maybe a tainted what I learned or I tainted it in order for Connectivism to suite my preferred worldview.

For those not familiar with the distinction between Critical Social Science and Interpretative Social Science, I give a short list of features for each, as cited by Neuman (2006) in the book ‘Social Science Methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches’, for the CSS frame see p. 102, for the ISS see p. 94.

Interpretative Social Science

Critical Social Science

The purpose of social science is to understand social meaning in context. A constructionist view that reality is socially created (a constructionist orientation is an orientation toward social reality that assumes the beliefs and meaning people create and use fundamentally shape what reality is for them). Humans are interacting social beings who create and reinforce shared meaning. A voluntaristic stance is taken regarding human agency (voluntarism is an approach to human agency and causality that assumes human actions are based on the subjective choices and reasons of individuals). . Scientific knowledge is different from but no better than other forms Explanations are idiographic and advance via inductive reasoning (idiographic: a type of explanation used in which the explanation is an in-depth description or picture with specific details but limited abstraction about a social situation or setting). Explanations are verified using the postulate of adequacy (a principle that explanations should be understandable in commonsense terms by the people being studied) with people being studied. Social scientific evidence is contingent, context specific, and often requires bracketing. A practical orientation (pragmatic orientation in which people apply knowledge iin their daily lives. The value of knowledge is ability to be integrated with a person’s practical everyday understandings and choices) is taken toward knowledge that is used from a transcendent perspective (the researcher develops research together with the people being studied, examines people’s inner lives to gain an intimate familiarity with them, and works closely with people being studied to create mutual understandings). Social science should be relativistic regarding value positions.

The purpose of social science is to reveal what is hidden to liberate and empower people. Social reality has multiple layers. People have unrealized potential and are misled by reification (reification = when people become detached from and lose sight of their connection to their own creations and treat them as being alien, external forces); social life is relational. A bounded autonomy (human action is based on subjective choices and reasons but only within identifiable limits) stance is taken toward human agency. Scientific knowledge is imperfect but can fight false consciousness (the idea that people often have false or misleading ideas about empirical conditions and their true interests). Abduction (= an approach to theorizing in which several alternative frameworks are applied to data and theory that are redescribed in each and evaluated) is used to create explanatory critiques (the explanation simultaneously explains (or tells why events occur) and critiques (or points out discrepancies, reveals myths, or identifies contradictions). Explanations are verified through praxis (a way to evaluate explanations in which theoretical explanations are put into real-life practice and the outcome is used to refine explanation). All evidence is theory dependent and some theories reveal deeper kinds of evidence. A reflexive-dialectic orientation (dialectic= a change process in which social relationships contain irresolvable inner contradictions; over time they will trigger a dramatic upset and a total restructuring of the relationship) is adopted toward knowledge that is used from a transformative perspective. Social reality and the study of it necessarily contain a moral-political dimension, and moral-political positions are unequal in advancing human freedom and empowerment.

From all these points, I love this one from CSS the best: Social reality and the study of it necessarily contain a moral-political dimension, and moral-political positions are unequal in advancing human freedom and empowerment. For I feel that fighting to keep communications open and accessible for all is an absolute priority, also in education. But even now, even at the most liberal of educational institutions (university) some of these educational rights are challenged, blocked. So is it not the responsibility of the scientist to actively participate in opening up or keeping the door open to enable all of us interested to use these educational tools?

Why is it important to me to know whether Connectivism is either or, or both? Because it matters to me what a theory does and what its goal is. To me science has a function to serve society, to make all of our lives better.

Sorry for the lengthy post, I should probably do some more thinking.

Do you think Connectivism or its researchers should actively take part in society?

Using transparency to get citizens alert and active, or how Christian Kreutz influenced my thinking

It has been a very hectic period over the last couple of weeks. A tight workshop, planning a facilitator training, a short course with a lot of online activity, budget hassles, my master starting up … and this kept me from writing posts on a regular basis. I was also in an existential dip on blogposting.

Lucky for me I had one fresh and inspiring encounter at the middle of these chaotic weeks: meeting Christian Kreutz. His blog has been an inspiration for the last couple of years and all of a sudden I had the chance to meet him in Brussels.

Engaging citizens by analyzing (internet) data – civil society
We had an informal meeting, but a lot of what I learned from him made sense and sharpened my overall thinking on the use of websites and the internet to get civil society moving.

So what did Christian say that I found so enlightening? He simply said that we have all this data at our fingertips (google statistics, geo information, …), and all of these available data could be used for the better of society and its citizens.
In the past he has been writing about it. He wrote on metrics for social networks and what really happens, focusing on knowledge sharing and learning, he wrote about 6 innovative mashups for transparency, in which you could see the impact certain decisions have on the social fabric of regions (I was especially struck by the Healthcarethatworks – website that shows the New York City wide status for hospitals and its disproportionate impact that recent hospital closures have on low-income communities.) and his most recent post was on maptivism as a new approach of activism (based on the estimate that as much as 80% of data contains geo-referenced information. So, a lot of information can be displayed through maps. Digital maps allow easy ways to present large amounts of data and reduce complexity.)

The internet started out as a Utopia for me. It would benefit people around the world and make the globe a better place. With the increased absorption of internet initiatives into corporate environments, some of that euphoric belief in the WWW disappeared. But after reading the possibilities posted by Christian and after our talk in which he put forward the extra’s a transparent use of existing data (both on regional, national and international level) could bring… I am again a radiant believer. He gave a wonderful and simple example to get people interested in their own social environment. What if we take the data from a specific part of a city and open this data up to the citizens, e.g. people could see where trash bins are located, light poles are implemented, benches are placed... if city council than wants to change the outlines of that specific areas, or do something to create a better living space for all its citizens in that location, it could show the citizens what is already there, and ask them how they think their living area could be improved. I agree that a lot of debate could come from this, but coming to a consensus as a group can also adds to the social fabric of a region. All this data is already available, but in many occasions very little is done with it.

Christian Kreutz blogs qualitatively, which makes his blog a gem, check it out. He is thinking about going fully into consulting, so if you feel the need for a very professional, citizen-oriented web-analysis-expert, send him a note.

If you know of any data being used to make society more transparent, let me know, I would love to get more ideas.

The ethics of research in low resource areas

Focusing on a winning article by medical colleague Rafael Van den Bergh (PhD student at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp and VUB), I will focus on the ethical part of innovation for eLearning projects.
While I was following a course on international issues in distance education at Athabasca University, the discussion on 'innovative projects' was already touched by a couple of students and Barbara Spronk who facilitated and moderated the course. It was an informal discussion that grew into one of the most interesting one's I had during the course. The fact is that I wonder about the ethics behind the term 'innovation' that - when applied in a funding proposal for eLearning - will increase your chances of success for the proposal.

But innovation is not always what is needed in eLearning and certainly not in low resource areas. Just think about the very successful radio courses that have set-up across remote areas and over decades of time, but radio is no longer considered as an innovative learning choice, so funding is decreasing and stopped in certain areas. Nevertheless sometimes these areas are better off if they would just be part of an eLearning project that has been proven successfully and can keep on growing to reach all of the learners it can potentially reach. In a lot of cases successful eLearning projects (both web-based and especially mobile ones) end and fade into nothing as soon as funding dries up. Although durability is featured as a word in a lot of these projects, it is not really a long-term strategy, as it does not imply new technologies will be used, or new innovations will be tested. So who does benefit from using new technologies and innovations, if not the learners for whom they are constructed or produced?

Well, this question is raised by the article I mentioned and which was selected as a winner of a Lancet / Global Forum for Health Research competition to find the best ideas on innovation for health (their were 8 winners, see the picture). In the article of Rafael Van den Bergh, PhD student at the ITM (promoter: Guido Vanham) and the VUB, entitled 'Who is at the receiving end of our innovation?', he mentions that the researchers and funding agencies might have more benefit from these projects than the people they are meant to serve (paraphrasing heavily). He does not do this one sided, but with a lot of nuance and I must say I agree that as a researcher one can sometimes wonder if the ideals that pushed you into research or a professional choice, are not perverted by a system that is meant to help, but not always helps in the best way possible.

Let me look at web-based and mobile learning projects. In a lot of cases funding will be given to high-profile projects with the latest technologies featuring computers and smartphones. But this is in many cases an unrealistic long-term venture. In the past some great simple mobile learning projects were launched, but will they be able to keep on growing once the project's funding deadline draws near? What about buying or keeping the equipment working? the cost of calling or connecting to learning materials? the production of learning materials? If a project is not relying enough on local knowledge and financial possibilities, it risks on ending abruptly, without adding to the long-term development of a region. In that case only the researchers and companies funding the project got some PR out of it, but not the ones the project was aimed at.
With technology becoming increasingly important in this global world, it is easy to jump onto the technology train as the overall solution for everything, including poverty. But no matter how you twist and turn it, technology is never the sole solution for survival. At best it will relieve some part of life.

So technology is not always the best or only way to go and let's face it technology is never a solution, only an instrument that might bring a solution a bit closer. A solemn belief in learning technology to solve global poverty might not be enough to really tackle the problem. Certainly not if you look at what does make a difference for a country or region: peace, investing in regional security and trust...

So if you want to read a very well written, argumented article, look at the one from Rafael Van den Bergh (only 3 pages) and let me know your remarks.