Abstract
The use of artificial intelligence in a learning increasingly mediated through mobile technology makes inclusion problematic. This is due to the ubiquity of mobile technology, the complexity of the machine learning regimens needed to function within increasingly sophisticated 5G cellular networks, and the legions of professionals needed to initiate and maintain these AI and mobile ecosystems. The promise of artificial intelligence in inclusion is curtailed due to the accumulated advantage (the Matthew effect) presented in such a technological sophistication: only those with the most sophisticated of educational systems will stand to benefit, a scenario that poses significant impact on inclusion strategies increasingly mediated through ICT. Inclusion operates as an outlier in these data-driven environments: as an equitable model in education, it is designed to counter prevailing societal biases, rather than conforming to them. As more and more education is engaged through mobile technology and more and more of that mobile education is driven by an artificial intelligence emerging from curricula of greater and greater sophistication, a situation emerges that poses great challenges for any sort of meaningful inclusion, particularly in the potential acceleration of entrenched advantage. This chapter explores the problematic intersections of AI, mobile technology, and inclusion.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Aaronson, S. A., & Leblond, P. (2018). Another digital divide: The rise of data realms and its implications for the WTO. Journal of International Economic Law, 21(2), 245–272.
Antonelli, C., & Crespi, F. (2013). The “Matthew effect” in R&D public subsidies: The Italian evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1523–1534.
Azhar, A. (2016). Coding is not enough, we need smarter skills. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/7babc12c-f662-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db.
Bayne, S., Gallagher, M. S., & Lamb, J. (2014). Being ‘at’ university: The social topologies of distance students. Higher Education, 67(5), 569–583.
Bebchuk, L. A. (2009). Pay without performance: The unfulfilled promise of executive compensation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bothner, M. S., Haynes, R., Lee, W., & Smith, E. B. (2010). When do Matthew effects occur? Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 34, 80–114.
Bridge International Academies (2016). Model. Accessed January 22, 2016. http://www.bridgeinternationalacademies.com/approach/model/.
Bridge International Academies. (2018). Teaching tools. Accessed July 13, 2018. http://www.bridgeinternationalacademies.com/academics/tools/.
Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356, 183–186.
Chouliaraki, L. (2012). Cosmopolitanism as irony: a critique of post-humanitarianism. In After cosmopolitanism (pp. 87–106). London: Routledge.
Dignum, V. (2018). Designing AI for human values. ITU Journal, 1(1). Available at: https://www.itu.int/en/journal/001/Pages/01.aspx.
Ericsson. (2018). Future mobile data usage and traffic growth. Available at: https://www.ericsson.com/en/mobility-report/future-mobile-data-usage-and-traffic-growth.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.
Fortunati, L., & Taipale, S. (2017). Mobilities and the network of personal technologies: Refining the understanding of mobility structure. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 560–568.
Gallagher, M. (2019 Forthcoming). Moving beyond microwork: Rebundling digital education and reterritorialising digital labour. In M. A. Peters, P. Jandrić, & A. J. Means (Eds.), Education and technological unemployment. Berlin: Springer.
Gergen, K. J. (2003). Self and community in the new floating worlds. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), Mobile democracy: Essays on society, self, and politics. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Goggin, G. (2012). Cell phone culture: Mobile technology in everyday life. London: Routledge.
GPPP. (2014). The 5G infrastructure public-private partnership. Available at: https://5g-ppp.eu/.
Graesser, A., & McDaniel, B. (2017). Conversational agents can provide formative assessment, constructive learning, and adaptive instruction. In The future of assessment (pp. 85–112). London: Routledge.
GSMA. (2018a). The mobile economy 2018. Available at: https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Mobile-Economy-Global-2018.pdf.
GSMA. (2018b). A toolkit for researching women’s internet access and use. Available at: https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/GSMA-Women-and-Internet-Research-Toolkit_WEB.pdf.
Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22.
Heeks, R., & Renken, J. (2018). Data justice for development: What would it mean? Information Development, 34(1), 90–102.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (Ed.). (2011). The handbook of emergent technologies in social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2017). ICT facts and figures 2017. Available at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf.
Joh, E. E. (2018). Artificial intelligence and policing: First questions. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3168779.
Khetselius, O. Y., Glushkov, A. V., Buyadzhi, V. V., & Bunyakova, Y. Y. (2017). New generalized chaos-dynamical and neural networks approach to nonlinear modeling of the chaotic dynamical systems. Photoelectronics, 26, 29–40.
Lavery, M. P., Abadi, M. M., Bauer, R., Brambilla, G., Cheng, L., Cox, M. A., … & Marquardt, C. (2018). Tackling Africa’s digital divide. Nature Photonics, 12(5), 249–252.
Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rythmanalaysis: space, time and everyday life. London: Continuum.
Li, R., Zhao, Z., Zhou, X., Ding, G., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., et al. (2017). Intelligent 5G: When cellular networks meet artificial intelligence. IEEE Wireless Communications, 24(5), 175–183.
Mansell, R. (2017). Are we losing control? Intermedia, 45(3), 4–7.
McVeigh, K., & Lyons, K. (2017, May 5). ‘Beyond justification’: teachers decry UK backing for private schools in Africa. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/05/beyond-justification-teachers-decry-uk-backing-private-schools-africa-bridge-international-academies-kenya-lawsuit.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.
Merton, R. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4) (1988), 606–623.
Miller, F. A., Katz, J. H., & Gans, R. (2018). The OD imperative to add inclusion to the algorithms of artificial intelligence. OD PRACTITIONER, 50(1).
Min, W., Frankosky, M. H., Mott, B. W., Wiebe, E. N., Boyer, K. E., & Lester, J. C. (2017, June). Inducing stealth assessors from game interaction data. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 212–223). Springer, Cham.
Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 11(98), 20140378.
Piezunka, H., Lee, W., Haynes, R., & Bothner, M. S. (2017). The Matthew effect as an unjust competitive advantage: Implications for competition near status boundaries. Journal of Management Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617737712.
Pype, JK. (2018). Mobile secrets. Youth, intimacy, and the politics of pretense in Mozambique by Julie-Soleil Archambault (review). African Studies Review, 61(1), 275–277.
Raizada, R. D., & Kishiyama, M. M. (2010). Effects of socioeconomic status on brain development, and how cognitive neuroscience may contribute to levelling the playing field. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 3.
Riep, C. B. (2017a). Fixing contradictions of education commercialisation: Pearson plc and the construction of its efficacy brand. Critical Studies in Education, 1–19.
Riep, C. B. (2017b). Making markets for low-cost schooling: The devices and investments behind Bridge International Academies. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(3), 352–366.
Sangam, P. (2018). Living on the wireless edge with AI And 5G. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2018/09/06/living-on-the-wireless-edge-with-ai-and-5g/#71cc8de6b6b4.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38, 207–226.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2016). Mobilizing the new mobilities paradigm. Applied Mobilities, 1(1), 10–25.
Sinha, S. (2018). Gender digital divide in India: Impacting women’s participation in the labour market. In Reflecting on India’s development (pp. 293–310). Singapore: Springer.
Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behavior. Behavior & Information Technology, 24(2005), 111–129.
Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189, 23–55.
Star, S. L. (1998). 13 Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems. Cognition and communication at work, 296.
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
Taipale, S. (2016). Do the mobile-rich get richer? Internet use, travelling and social differentiations in Finland. New Media & Society, 18(1), 44–61.
Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 2053951717736335.
Teevan, J. (2016). The future of microwork. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 23(2), 26–29.
The AI Now Report. (2016, September 22). The social and economic implications of artificial intelligence technologies in the near-term. AI Now (Summary of public symposium). Available at: https://artificialintelligencenow.com/media/documents/AINowSummaryReport_3_RpmwKHu.pdf.
Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (2013). Framing theory: Towards a critical imagination in heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), 546–561.
We Are Social. (2018). Digital Report 2018. Available at: https://digitalreport.wearesocial.com/.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (learning in doing: social, cognitive and computational perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whitty, G. (2017). The marketization of teacher education: Threat or opportunity? In A Companion to Research in Teacher Education (pp. 373–383). Singapore: Springer.
Yang, X., Gu, X., Wang, Y., Hu, G., & Tang, L. (2015). The Matthew effect in China’s science: Evidence from academicians of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Scientometrics, 102(3), 2089–2105.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gallagher, M. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and the Mobilities of Inclusion: The Accumulated Advantages of 5G Networks and Surfacing Outliers. In: Knox, J., Wang, Y., Gallagher, M. (eds) Artificial Intelligence and Inclusive Education. Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8161-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8161-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8160-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8161-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)