Call Girls Bannerghatta Road Just Call š 7737669865 š Top Class Call Girl Ser...
Ā
Critical issues in the collection, analysis and use of student (digital) data
1. Critical issues in the
collection, analysis
and use of
studentsā (digital)
data
By Paul Prinsloo (University of South Africa)
Presentation at the
Centre for Higher Education Development (CHED), University of Cape Town, Wednesday 8 April 2015
Image credit:
http://graffitiwatcher.deviantart.com/art/Big-
Brother-is-Watching-173890591
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I do not own the copyright of any of the images in this
presentation and hereby acknowledge the original
copyright and licensing regime of every image and
reference used. All the images used in this presentation
have been sourced from Google and were labeled for non-
commercial reuse.
This work (excluding the images) is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License
3. Overview of the presentation
ā¢ Map the collection, analysis and use of studentsā digital data
against the backdrop of discourses re surveillance/sousveillance
& Big Data/lots of data
ā¢ Problematise the collection, analysis and use of student digital
data ā¦
ā¢ User knowledge and choice in the context of the collection,
analysis and use of data
ā¢ When our good intentions go wrongā¦
ā¢ Do students know?
ā¢ Points of departure
ā¢ Implications
ā¢ (In)conclusions
5. The collection, analysis and use of studentsā
digital data in the context ofā¦
ā¢ Claims that Big Data in higher education will change
everything and that student data are āthe new blackā and
āthe new oilā
ā¢ Our āquantification fetishā, the āalgorithmic turnā and
ātechno-solutionismā (Morozov, 2013a, 2013b)
ā¢ The current meta-narratives of ātechno-romanticismā in
education (Selwyn, 2014)
ā¢ The belief that data is ārawā, āspeak for itselfā and that
collecting even more data equals necessarily results in
better understanding and interventions
6. The collection, analysis and use of studentsā
digital data in the context ofā¦ (2)
ā¢ Ever-increasing concerns about surveillance, and new
forms of āsocieties of controlā (Deleuze, 1992)
ā¢ The āalgorithmic turnā and the āalogorithm as
institutionā (Napoli, 2013)
ā¢ A possible āgnoseological turning pointā where our
belief about what constitutes knowledge is changing
and where individuals are reduced to classes and
numbers (Totaro & Ninno, 2014). N=all (Lagoze, 2014)
ā¢ Claims that āPrivacy is dead. Get over itā (Rambam, 2008)
8. Problematising the collection, analysis and use of
student dataā¦
ā¢ Privacy as concept & as enforceable construct is fragile (Crawford & Schultz,
2014; Prinsloo & Slade, 2015)
ā¢ Legal & regulatory frameworks (permanently?) lag behind (Silverman, 2015)
ā¢ Consent is more than a binary of opt-in or opt-out (Miyazaki & Fernandez, 2000;
Prinsloo & Slade, 2015)
ā¢ Individuals share unprecedented amounts of information but yet, are
increasingly concerned about privacy (Murphy, 2014)
ā¢ Discrimination is a fundamental building block in the collection, analysis
& use of data (Pfeifle, 2014; Tene & Polonetsky, 2014)
ā¢ There are increasing concerns re the lack of algorithmic accountability
(Diakopoulos, 2014; Pasquale, 2014) & the fracturing of the control zone (Lagoze,
2014)
ā¢ There are also concerns about the unintended consequences of the
collection, analysis & use of data (Wigan & Clark, 2013)
9. Mapping the collection, analysis and
use of student digital data against the
discourses of
surveillance/sousveillance
10. From surveillance to sousveillanceā¦
Image credit: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SurSousVeillanceByStephanieMannAge6.png
11. Jennifer Ringely ā 1996-2003 ā webcam
Source: http://onedio.com/haber/tum-zamanlarin-en-
etkili-ve-onemli-internet-videolari-36465
If I did not share it on
Facebook, did it really
happen?
We share more than every
before, we are watched
more than ever before and
we watch each other more
than ever beforeā¦
Privacy in fluxā¦
15. āSecrets are liesā
āSharing is caringā
āPrivacy is theftā
(Eggers, 2013, p. 303)
Welcome to āThe Circleā
TruYou ā āone account, one identity, one
password, one payment system, per person.
(ā¦) The devices knew where you wereā¦
One button for the rest of your life onlineā¦
Anytime you wanted to see anything, use
anything, comment on anything or buy
anything, it was one button, one account,
everything tied together and trackable and
simpleā¦ā
(Eggers, 2013, p. 21)
16. āHidden algorithms can make (or ruin) reputations,
decide the destiny of entrepreneurs, or even
devastate an entire economy. Shrouded in secrecy
and complexity, decisions at major Silicon Valley
and Wall Street firms were long assumed to be
neutral and technical. But leaks, whistleblowers,
and legal disputes have shed new light on
automated judgment. Self-serving and reckless
behavior is surprisingly common, and easy to hide
in code protected by legal and real secrecy. Even
after billions of dollars of fines have been levied,
underfunded regulators may have only scratched
the surface of this troubling behavior.ā
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=97806743682
79
17. Mapping the collection, analysis and
use of student digital data against the
discourses of Big Data/lots of dataā¦
18. What is Big Data?
ā¢ Huge in volume
ā¢ High in velocity, being created in or near real time
ā¢ Diverse in variety
ā¢ Exhaustive in scope
ā¢ Fine-grained in resolution and uniquely indexical in
identification
ā¢ Relational in nature
ā¢ Flexible, holding traits of extensionality (can add new
fields easily) and scalability(can expand in size rapidly)
(Kitchen, 2013, p. 262)
19. Exploring the differences between Big
Data/lots of dataā¦ (Lagoze, 2014)
Mayer-Schƶnberger & Cukier (2013 ā
ā¢ N=all ā Big Data as presenting a ācomplete viewā of reality
ā¢ Big permits us to lessen our desire for exactitude
ā¢ We need to shed some of our obsession for causality in
exchange for correlations ā not necessarily knowing (or
caring about the why but focusing on the what
Lots of data ā methodological challenges
Big Data ā epistemological challenges
20. Big data as cultural, technological, and scholarly
phenomenon (Boyd & Crawford, 2012)
Big Data as interplay of
ā¢ Technological: maximising computation power and algorithmic
accuracy to gather, analyse, link, and compare large data sets
ā¢ Analysis: drawing on large data sets to identify patterns in order to
make economic, social, technical, and legal claims
ā¢ Mythology: the widespread belief that large data sets offer a higher
form of intelligence and knowledge that can generate insights that
were previously impossible, with the aura of trust, objectivity, and
accuracy
(Boyd & Crawford, 2012, p. 663)
21. Three sources of data
Directed
A digital form of
surveillance
wherein the āgaze
of the technology is
focused on a
person or place by
a human operatorā
Automated
Generated as āan
inherent, automatic
function of the device or
system and include
traces ā¦ā
Volunteered
āgifted by users and
include interactions
across social media
and the crowdsourcing
of data wherein users
generate dataā
(emphasis added)
(Kitchen, 2013, pp. 262ā263)
22. Different sources/variety of
quality/ integrity of data
Different role-players
with different interests
ā¢ Individuals
ā¢ Corporates
ā¢ Governments
ā¢ Higher education
ā¢ Data brokers
ā¢ Fusion centres
Different methods/types
of surveillance,
harvesting and analysis
Issues re
ā¢ Informed consent
ā¢ Reuse/contextual
integrity/context
collapse
ā¢ Ethics/privacy/
justice/care
The Trinity of Big Data
Adapted & refined from Prinsloo, P. (2014). A brave new world. Presentation at SAAIR,
16-18 October http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/a-brave-new-world-student-
surveillance-in-higher-education
25. Critical questions for big data ā boyd & Crawford (2012)
1. Big data changes the definition of knowledge ā āWho knows
why people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we
can track and measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With
enough data, the numbers speak for themselvesā (Anderson,
2008, in boyd & Crawford, 2012, p. 666)
1. Claims to objectivity and accuracy are misleading ā āworking
with Big Data is still subjective, and what it quantifies does not
necessarily have a closer claim on objective truthā (boyd &
Crawford, 2012, p. 667). Big Data āenables the practice of
apophenia: seeing patterns where none actually exist, simply
because enormous quantities of data can offer connections that
radiate in all directionsā (ibid., p. 668)
26. Critical questions for big data (2) ā boyd & Crawford
(2012)
3. Bigger data are not always better data
3. Taken out of context, Big Data loses its meaning ā leading to
context collapse
3. Just because it is accessible does not make it ethical ā the
difference in ethical review procedures and overview
between research and āinstitutional researchā
3. Limited access to Big Data creates new digital divides
27. User knowledge and
choice in the context
of the collection,
analysis and use of
data
Image credit: http://www.mailbow.net/eng/blog/opt-in-and-op-out/
28. āProviding people with notice, access, and the
ability to control their data is key to facilitating
some autonomy in a world where decisions are
increasingly made about them with the use of
personal data, automated processes, and
clandestine rationales, and where people have
minimal abilities to do anything about such
decisionsā
(Solove, 2013, p. 1899; emphasis added)
Image credit: http://www.mailbow.net/eng/blog/opt-in-and-op-
out/
29. A framework for mapping the collection, use
and sharing of personal user information
(Miyazaki & Fernandez, 2000)
Never
collect
or
identity
users
Users
explicitly
opting in to
have data
collected,
used and
shared
Users
explicitly
opting out
The constant
collection, analysis
and sharing of user
data with usersā
knowledge
The constant
collection,
analysis and
sharing of user
data without
usersā knowledge
Also see Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student vulnerability, agency and learning analytics:
an exploration. Presentation at LAK15, Poughkkeepsie, NY, 16 March 2015
http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/lak15-workshop-vulnerability-final
30. The constraints of privacy self-management ā¦
ā¢ It is almost impossible to comprehend the scope of data
collected, analysed and used, the combination with other
sources of information, the future uses for historical information
and the possibilities of re-identification of de-personalized data
ā¢ These various sources of information and combinations of
sources start to resemble āelectronic collagesā and an āelaborate
lattice of information networkingā (Solove, 2004, p. 3)
ā¢ The fragility of consentā¦ what may be innocuous data in one
context, may be damning in another
Adapted from Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: implications
for learning analytics. Presentation at LAK15, Poughkkeepsie, NY, 16 March 2015
http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/lak15-workshop-vulnerability-final
32. Using student data and student vulnerability: between
the devil and the deep blue sea?
Students (some
more vulnerable
than others)
Generation,
harvesting and
analysis of data
Our assumptions,
selection of data
and algorithms
may be ill-defined
Turning āpathogenicā ā āa
response intended to
ameliorate vulnerability
has the paradoxical effect
of exacerbating existing
vulnerabilities or
generating new onesā
(Mackenzie et al, 2014, p.
9)
Adapted from Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student vulnerability, agency and learning
analytics: an exploration. Presentation at LAK15, Poughkkeepsie, NY, 16 March 2015
http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/lak15-workshop-vulnerability-final
34. Do students know/have the right to knowā¦
ā¢ what data we harvest from them
ā¢ about the assumptions that guide our algorithms
ā¢ when we collect data & for what purposes
ā¢ who will have access to the data (now & later)
ā¢ how long we will keep the data & for what
purpose & in what format
ā¢ how will we verify the data &
ā¢ do they have access to confirm/enrich their
digital profilesā¦?
Adapted from Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: implications
for learning analytics. Presentation at LAK15, Poughkkeepsie, NY, 16 March 2015
http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/lak15-workshop-vulnerability-final
35. Do they know?
Do they have the right to know?
Can they opt out and what are the
implications if they do/donāt?
Adapted from Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2015). Student privacy self-management: implications
for learning analytics. Presentation at LAK15, Poughkkeepsie, NY, 16 March 2015
http://www.slideshare.net/prinsp/lak15-workshop-vulnerability-final
36. Points of departure (1)
(Big) data isā¦
ā¦not an unqualified good (Boyd and Crawford, 2011)
and āraw data is an oxymoronā (Gitelman, 2013) ā see
Kitchen, 2014
Technology and specifically the use of data have been
and will always be ideological (Henman, 2004; Selwyn,
2014) and embedded in relations of power (Apple,
2004; Bauman, 2012)
37. āā¦ āeducational technologyā needs to be
understood as a knot of social, political,
economic and cultural agendas that are riddled
with complications, contradictions and conflictsā
(Selwyn, 2014, p. 6)
Points of departure (2):
If we accept that
ā¦what are the implications for the
collection, analysis and use of
student data?
38. Points of departure (3):The (current?)
limitations of our surveillance
ā¢ Studentsā digital lives are but a minute part of a bigger
whole ā but our collection and analysis pretend as if this
minute part represents the whole
ā¢ We create smoke and claim we see a fire ā so what
does the number of clicks mean?
ā¢ We seldom wonder what if our algorithms are wrong,
and what are the long-term implications for students?
39. What are the implications for the collection,
analysis and use of student (digital) data?
(Prinsloo & Slade, 2015)
1. The duty of reciprocal care
ā¢ Make TOCs as accessible and understandable (the latter may
mean longerā¦)
ā¢ Make it clear what data is collected, when, for what
purpose, for how long it will be kept and who will have
access and under what circumstances
ā¢ Provide users access to information and data held about
them, to verify and/or question the conclusions drawn, and
where necessary, provide context
ā¢ Provide access to a neutral ombudsperson
(Prinsloo & Slade, 2015)
40. What are the implications ā¦? (2)
2. The contextual integrity of privacy and data ā ensure the contextual
integrity and lifespan of personal data. Context mattersā¦
2. Student agency and privacy self-management
ā¢ The fiduciary duty of higher education implies a social contract of
goodwill and ādo no harmā
ā¢ The asymmetrical power relationship between institution and
students necessitates transparency, accountability, access and
input/collaboration
ā¢ Empower students ā digital citizenship/care
ā¢ The costs and benefits of sharing data with the institution should be
clear
ā¢ Higher education should not accept a non-response as equal to
opting inā¦
(Prinsloo & Slade, 2015)
41. What are the implications ā¦? (3)
4. Future direction and reflection
ā¢ Rethink consent and employ nudges ā move away from
thinking just in terms of a binary of opting in or out ā but
provide a range of choices in specific contexts or needs
ā¢ Develop partial privacy self-management ā based on
context/need/value
ā¢ Adjust privacyās timing and focus - the downstream use of
data, the importance of contextual integrity, the lifespan of
data
ā¢ Moving toward substance over neutrality ā blocking
troublesome and immoral practices, but also soft,
negotiated spaces of reciprocal care
(Prinsloo & Slade, 2015)
42. Ethical use of Student Data for Learning
Analytics Policy
An example of the institutionalisation of
thinking about the ethical implications of using
student data
Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/students/charter/essential-documents/ethical-use-
student-data-learning-analytics-policy
43. (In)conclusions
āThe way forward involves
(1) developing a coherent approach to consent, one that
accounts for the social science discoveries about how
people make decisions about personal data;
(2) recognising that people can engage in privacy self
management only selectively;
(3) adjusting privacy lawās timing to focus on downstream
uses; and
(4) developing more substantive privacy rules.
These are enormous challenges, but they must be tackledā
(Solove, 2013)
44. (In)conclusions
āTechnology is neither good or bad; nor is it neutralā¦
technologyās interaction with social ecology is such that
technical developments frequently have environmental,
social, and human consequences that go far beyond the
immediate purposes of the technical devices and practices
themselvesā
Melvin Kranzberg (1986, p. 545 in boyd & Crawford, 2012, p. 1)
45. THANK YOU
Paul Prinsloo (Prof)
Research Professor in Open Distance Learning (ODL)
College of Economic and Management Sciences, Office number 3-15, Club 1,
Hazelwood, P O Box 392
Unisa, 0003, Republic of South Africa
T: +27 (0) 12 433 4719 (office)
T: +27 (0) 82 3954 113 (mobile)
prinsp@unisa.ac.za
Skype: paul.prinsloo59
Personal blog: http://opendistanceteachingandlearning.wordpress.com
Twitter profile: @14prinsp