This paper (43 page PDF) gets a lot of mileage out of a study involving only ten faculty as subjects, even if they "represented a rich array of fields." I recognize the value of the "case study, where the case itself is of primary interest rather than serving primarily as an illustration of broader phenomena," but the authors don't limit themselves at all, and the extensive literature review and theoretical focus all reflect a much more traditional social sciences approach, only with just ten people studies. They also feel free to generalize, offering four major "results themes" (paraphrased): shifting from fear to curiosity; ethical clarity as lacking but desired; inclusive design as amplifying equity; and faulty as designers, note gatekeepers. Now these discussions are interesting in their own right, but let's not pretend the 'data collection' provides any evidentiary basis for it. The paper would have been just as interesting, and much stronger, with everything between 'literature review' and 'discussion' elided. Via Doug Holton, who also links to the uncritical AI-generated summary in AIEd Knowledge Base, though honestly, I prefer mine.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
