Stefaan Verhulst

Data Was Supposed to Fix the U.S. Education System. Here’s Why It Hasn’t.

Curated on January 16, 2019January 17, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Simon Rodberg at Harvard Business School: “For too long, the American education system failed too many kids, including far too many poor kids and kids of color, without enough public notice or accountability. To combat this, leaders of all political persuasions championed the use of testing to measure progress and drive better results. Measurement has become so common that in school districts from coast to coast you can now find calendars marked “Data Days,” when teachers are expected to spend time not on teaching, but on analyzing data like end-of-year and mid-year exams, interim assessments, science and social studies and teacher-created and computer-adaptive tests, surveys, attendance and behavior notes. It’s been this way for more than 30 years, and it’s time to try a different approach.

The big numbers are necessary, but the more they proliferate, the less value they add. Data-based answers lead to further data-based questions, testing, and analysis; and the psychology of leaders and policymakers means that the hunt for data gets in the way of actual learning. The drive for data responded to a real problem in education, but bad thinking about testing and data use has made the data cure worse than the disease….

The leadership decision at stake is how much data to collect. I’ve heard variations on “In God we trust; all others bring data” at any number of conferences and beginning-of-school-year speeches. But the mantra “we believe in data” is actually only shorthand for “we believe our actions should be informed by the best available data.” In education, that mostly means testing. In other fields, the kind of process is different, but the issue is the same. The key question is not, “will the data be useful?” (of course it can be) or, “will the data be interesting?” (Yes, again.) The proper question for leaders to ask is: will the data help us make better-enough decisions to be worth the cost of getting and using it? So far, the answer is “no.”

Nationwide data suggests that the growth of data-driven schooling hasn’t worked even by its own lights. Harvard professor Daniel Koretz says “The best estimate is that test-based accountability may have produced modest gains in elementary-school mathematics but no appreciable gains in either reading or high-school mathematics — even though reading and mathematics have been its primary focus.”

We wanted data to help us get past the problem of too many students learning too little, but it turns out that data is an insufficient, even misleading answer. It’s possible that all we’ve learned from our hyper-focus on data is that better instruction won’t come from more detailed information, but from changing what people do. That’s what data-driven reform is meant for, of course: convincing teachers of the need to change and focusing where they need to change….(More)”.

All of Us Research Program Expands Data Collection Efforts with Fitbit

Curated on January 15, 2019January 18, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

NIH Press Release: “The All of Us Research Program has launched the Fitbit Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) project. Now, in addition to providing health information through surveys, electronic health records, and biosamples, participants can choose to share data from their Fitbit accounts to help researchers make discoveries. The project is a key step for the program in integrating digital health technologies for data collection.

Digital health technologies, like mobile apps and wearable devices, can gather data outside of a hospital or clinic. This data includes information about physical activity, sleep, weight, heart rate, nutrition, and water intake, which can give researchers a more complete picture of participants’ health. The All of Us Research Program is now gathering this data in addition to surveys, electronic health record information, physical measurements, and blood and urine samples, working to make the All of Us resource one of the largest and most diverse data sets of its kind for health research.

“Collecting real-world, real-time data through digital technologies will become a fundamental part of the program,” said Eric Dishman, director of the All of Us Research Program. “This information, in combination with many other data types, will give us an unprecedented ability to better understand the impact of lifestyle and environment on health outcomes and, ultimately, develop better strategies for keeping people healthy in a very precise, individualized way.”…

All of Us is developing additional plans to incorporate digital health technologies. A second project with Fitbit is expected to launch later in the year. It will include providing devices to a limited number of All of Us participants who will be randomly invited to take part, to enable them to share wearable data with the program. And All of Us will add connections to other devices and apps in the future to further expand data collection efforts and engage participants in new ways….(More)”.

The Future of Civic Engagement

Curated on January 15, 2019January 17, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Hollie Russon Gilman: “The 2018 mid-term voter turnout was the highest in 50 years. While vital, voting can’t sustain civic engagement in the long term. So, how do we channel near-term activism into long-term civic engagement? In her essay, Gilman paints a picture of how new institutional structures, enabled by new technologies, could lead to a new “civic layer” in society that results in “a more responsive, participatory, collaborative, and adaptive future for civic engagement in governance decision making.”

Creating a New “Civic Layer.” The longer-term future presents an opportunity to set up institutionalized structures for engagement across local, state, and federal levels of government—creating a “civic layer.” Its precise form will evolve, but the basic concept is to establish a centralized interface within a com- munity to engage residents in governance decision making that interweaves digital and in-person engagement. People will earn “civic points” for engagement across a variety of activities—including every time they sign a petition, report a pot hole, or volunteer in their local community.

While creating a civic layer will require new institutional approaches, emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and distributed ledger (e.g., blockchain) will also play a critical enabling role. These technologies will allow new institutional models to expand the concept of citizen coproduction of services in building a more responsive, connected, and engaged citizenry.

The following examples show different collaborative governance and technology components that will comprise the civic layer. Each could be expanded and become interwoven into the fabric of civic life.

Use Collaborative Policymaking Models to Build a Civic Layer. While we currently think of elections as a primary mode of citizen engagement with government, in the medium- to long-range future we could see collaborative policy models that become the de facto way people engage to supplement elections. Several of these engagement models are on the local level. However, with the formation of a civic layer these forms of engagement could become integrated into a federated structure enabling more scale, scope, and impact. Following are two promising models.

Participatory Budgeting can be broadly defined as the participation of citizens in the decision-making process of how to allocate their community’s budget among different priorities and in the monitoring of public spending. The process first came to the United States in 2009 through the work of the nonprofit Participatory Budgeting Project. Unlike traditional budget consultations held by some governments—which often amount to “selective listening” exercises—with participatory budgeting, citizens have an actual say in how a portion of a government’s investment budget is spent, with more money often allocated to poorer communities. Experts estimate that up to 2,500 local governments around the world have implemented participatory budgeting,
Citizens’Jury is another promising collaborative policymaking engagement model, pioneered in the 1980s and currently advocated by the nonprofit Jefferson Center in Minnesota. Three counties in rural Minnesota use this method as a foundation for Rural Climate Dialogues—regular gatherings where local residents hear from rural experts, work directly with their neighbors to design actionable community and policy recommendations, and share their feedback with public officials at a statewide meeting of rural Minnesota citizens, state agency representatives, and nonprofit organizations….(More)”.

The Internet of Bodies: A Convenient—and, Yes, Creepy—New Platform for Data Discovery

Curated on January 15, 2019January 15, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

David Horrigan at ALM: “In the Era of the Internet of Things, we’ve become (at least somewhat) comfortable with our refrigerators knowing more about us than we know about ourselves and our Apple watches transmitting our every movement. The Internet of Things has even made it into the courtroom in cases such as the hot tub saga of Amazon Echo’s Alexa in State v. Bates and an unfortunate wife’s Fitbit in State v. Dabate.

But the Internet of Bodies?…

The Internet of Bodies refers to the legal and policy implications of using the human body as a technology platform,” said Northeastern University law professor Andrea Matwyshyn, who works also as co-director of Northeastern’s Center for Law, Innovation, and Creativity (CLIC).

“In brief, the Internet of Things (IoT) is moving onto and inside the human body, becoming the Internet of Bodies (IoB),” Matwyshyn added….

The Internet of Bodies is not merely a theoretical discussion of what might happen in the future. It’s happening already.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney revealed in 2013 that his physicians ordered the wireless capabilities of his heart implant disabled out of concern for potential assassin hackers, and in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recalled almost half a million pacemakers over security issues requiring a firmware update.

It’s not just former vice presidents and heart patients becoming part of the Internet of Bodies. Northeastern’s Matwyshyn notes that so-called “smart pills” with sensors can report back health data from your stomach to smartphones, and a self-tuning brain implant is being tested to treat Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

So, what’s not to like?

Better with Bacon?

“We are attaching everything to the Internet whether we need to or not,” Matwyshyn said, calling it the “Better with Bacon” problem, noting that—as bacon has become a popular condiment in restaurants—chefs are putting it on everything from drinks to cupcakes.

“It’s great if you love bacon, but not if you’re a vegetarian or if you just don’t like bacon. It’s not a bonus,” Matwyshyn added.

Matwyshyn’s bacon analogy raises interesting questions: Do we really need to connect everything to the Internet? Do the data privacy and data protection risks outweigh the benefits?

The Northeastern Law professor divides these IoB devices into three generations: 1) “body external” devices, such as Fitbits and Apple watches, 2) “body internal” devices, including Internet-connected pacemakers, cochlear implants, and digital pills, and 3) “body embedded” devices, hardwired technology where the human brain and external devices meld, where a human body has a real time connection to a remote machine with live updates.

Chip Party for Chipped Employees

A Wisconsin company, Three Square Market, made headlines in 2017—including an appearance on The Today Show—when the company microchipped its employees, not unlike what veterinarians do with the family pet. Not surprisingly, the company touted the benefits of implanting microchips under the skin of employees, including being able to wave one’s hand at a door instead of having to carry a badge or use a password….(More)”.

Whatever happened to evidence-based policy making?

Curated on January 15, 2019January 15, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Speech by Professor Gary Banks: “One of the challenges in talking about EBPM (evidence-based policy making), which I had not fully appreciated last time, was that it means different things to different people, especially academics. As a result, disagreements, misunderstandings and controversies (or faux controversies) have abounded. And these may have contributed to the demise of the expression, if not the concept.

For example, some have interpreted the term EBPM so literally as to insist that the word “based” be replaced by “influenced”, arguing that policy decisions are rarely based on evidence alone. That of course is true, but few using the term (myself included) would have thought otherwise. And I am sure no-one in an audience such as this, especially in our nation’s capital, believes policy decisions could derive solely from evidence — or even rational analysis!

If you’ll pardon a quotation from my earlier address: “Values, interests, personalities, timing, circumstance and happenstance – in short, democracy – determine what actually happens” (EBPM: What is it? How do we get it?). Indeed it is precisely because of such multiple influences, that “evidence” has a potentially significant role to play.

So, adopting the position from Alice in Wonderland, I am inclined to stick with the term EBPM, which I choose to mean an approach to policy-making that makes systematic provision for evidence and analysis. Far from the deterministic straw man depicted in certain academic articles, it is an approach that seeks to achieve policy decisions that are better informed in a substantive sense, accepting that they will nevertheless ultimately be – and in a democracy need to be — political in nature.

A second and more significant area of debate concerns the meaning and value of “evidence” itself. There are a number of strands involved.

Evidentiary elitism?

One relates to methodology, and can be likened to the differences between the thresholds for a finding of guilt under civil and criminal law (“balance of probabilities” versus “beyond reasonable doubt”).

Some analysts have argued that, to be useful for policy, evidence must involve rigorous unbiased research techniques, the “gold standard” for which are “randomized control trials”. The “randomistas”, to use the term which headlines Andrew Leigh’s new book (Leigh, 2018), claim that only such a methodology is able to truly tell us “what works”

However adopting this exacting standard from the medical research world would leave policy makers with an excellent tool of limited application. Its forte is testing a specific policy or program relative to business as usual, akin to drug tests involving a placebo for a control group. And there are some inspiring examples of insights gained. But for many areas of public policy the technique is not practicable. Even where it is, it requires that a case has to some extent already been made. And while it can identify the extent to which a particular program “works”, it is less useful for understanding why, or whether something else might work even better.

That is not to say that any evidence will do. Setting the quality bar too low is the bigger problem in practice and the notion of a hierarchy of methodologies is helpful. However, no such analytical tools are self-sufficient for policy-making purposes and in my view are best thought of as components of a “cost benefit framework” – one that enables comparisons of different options, employing those estimation techniques that are most fit for purpose. Though challenging to populate fully with monetized data, CBA provides a coherent conceptual basis for assessing the net social impacts of different policy choices – which is what EBPM must aspire to as its contribution to (political) policy decisions….(More)”.

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

Curated on January 14, 2019January 16, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Shoshana Zuboff: “The challenges to humanity posed by the digital future, the first detailed examination of the unprecedented form of power called “surveillance capitalism,” and the quest by powerful corporations to predict and control our behavior.

Shoshana Zuboff’s interdisciplinary breadth and depth enable her to come to grips with the social, political, business, and technological meaning of the changes taking place in our time. We are at a critical juncture in the confrontation between the vast power of giant high-tech companies and government, the hidden economic logic of surveillance capitalism, and the propaganda of machine supremacy that threaten to shape and control human life. Will the brazen new methods of social engineering and behavior modification threaten individual autonomy and democratic rights and introduce extreme new forms of social inequality? Or will the promise of the digital age be one of individual empowerment and democratization?

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is neither a hand-wringing narrative of danger and decline nor a digital fairy tale. Rather, it offers a deeply reasoned and evocative examination of the contests over the next chapter of capitalism that will decide the meaning of information civilization in the twenty-first century. The stark issue at hand is whether we will be the masters of information and machines or its slaves. …(More)”.

China will now officially try to extend its Great Firewall to blockchains

Curated on January 14, 2019January 14, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Mike Orcutt at Technology Review: “China’s crackdown on blockchain technology has taken another step: the country’s internet censorship agency has just approved new regulations aimed at blockchain companies.

Hand over the data: The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) will require any “entities or nodes” that provide “blockchain information services” to collect users’ real names and national ID or telephone numbers, and allow government officials to access that data.

It will ban companies from using blockchain technology to “produce, duplicate, publish, or disseminate” any content that Chinese law prohibits. Last year, internet users evaded censors by recording the content of two banned articles on the Ethereum blockchain. The rules, first proposed in October, will go into effect next month.

Defeating the purpose? For more than a year, China has been cracking down on cryptocurrency trading and its surrounding industry while also singing the praises of blockchain. It appears its goal is to take advantage of the resiliency and tamper-proof nature of blockchains while canceling out their most most radical attribute: censorship resistance….(More)”.

Your old tweets give away more location data than you think

Curated on January 14, 2019January 14, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Issie Lapowsky at Wired: “An international group of researchers has developed an algorithmic tool that uses Twitter to automatically predict exactly where you live in a matter of minutes, with more than 90 percent accuracy. It can also predict where you work, where you pray, and other information you might rather keep private, like, say, whether you’ve frequented a certain strip club or gone to rehab.

The tool, called LPAuditor (short for Location Privacy Auditor), exploits what the researchers call an “invasive policy” Twitter deployed after it introduced the ability to tag tweets with a location in 2009. For years, users who chose to geotag tweets with any location, even something as geographically broad as “New York City,” also automatically gave their precise GPS coordinates. Users wouldn’t see the coordinates displayed on Twitter. Nor would their followers. But the GPS information would still be included in the tweet’s metadata and accessible through Twitter’s API.

Twitter didn’t change this policy across its apps until April of 2015. Now, users must opt-in to share their precise location—and, according to a Twitter spokesperson, a very small percentage of people do. But the GPS data people shared before the update remains available through the API to this day.

The researchers developed LPAuditor to analyze those geotagged tweets and infer detailed information about people’s most sensitive locations. They outline this process in a new, peer-reviewed paper that will be presented at the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium next month. By analyzing clusters of coordinates, as well as timestamps on the tweets, LPAuditor was able to suss out where tens of thousands of people lived, worked, and spent their private time…(More)”.

The democratic potential of civic applications

Curated on January 13, 2019January 13, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jäske, Maija and Ertiö, Titiana: “Recently, digital democratic applications have increased in presence and scope. This study clarifies how civic applications – bottom-up technologies that use open data to solve governance and policy challenges – can contribute to democratic governance. While civic applications claim to deepen democracy, systematic frameworks for assessing the democratic potential of civic apps are missing, because apps are often evaluated against technical criteria. This study introduces a framework for evaluating the democratic potential of civic apps, distinguishing six criteria: inclusiveness, deliberation, influence, publicity, mobilization, and knowledge production. The framework is applied to a case study of the Finnish DataDemo competition in 2014 by analyzing the institutional design features of six civic applications. It is argued that in terms of democratic governance, the greatest potential of civic apps lies in enhancing publicity and mobilization, while they should not be expected to increase inclusiveness or direct influence in decisions. Thus, our study contributes to understanding how civic applications can improve democracy in times of open data abundance….(More)”.