Out of Control

Institutions must carefully consider decisions to give up data and flexibility to digital platforms.

By Aditya Johri

After two years of uncertainty, it is starting to look like higher education institutions (HEIs) are entering a post-pandemic reality. Among all our adaptations to get through the pandemic, the increased reliance on technology is one that is certain to endure. It is possible we would have reached this level of technological dependence at some future stage, but the acceleration necessitated by the pandemic has brought changes with a speed and in ways we could not have anticipated.

One of the primary drivers of technology adoption across higher education has been the use of digital platforms. In everyday usage, platforms are raised objects people stand on to voice their opinions and concerns. In the context of the digital economy, platforms are infrastructures that enable multiple parties to interact digitally to complete transactions. Uber is a platform for drivers and riders to coordinate rides; eBay links buyers and sellers; and Facebook facilitates the interaction of friends, acquaintances, and strangers to share information and buy and sell goods. Within academia, platform use is now routine for communication and information sharing (Zoom, Microsoft Teams); learning management (Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai); and functions such as HR, financial aid, and alumni engagement (Ellucian, Salesforce, or TargetX).

Although platforms can improve efficiency and productivity within organizations, their use also introduces the following concerns:

Data generation, capture, and reuse. Most platform-based services produce and capture large amounts of data. Much of this is not needed by the service for its current performance or for improving future offerings. That raises concerns of privacy, data sharing, and misuse. Contracts provide certain protections, but it is hard to predict or plan for all the future ways the data could be used. Moreover, data rights are negotiated between the organization and the provider with no input from the users whose data are in the system. Product owners have the privilege of immediate access to the data and ability to use it in ways that data producers do not.

System opacity. Another common worry across platforms is lack of transparency about how the system works. This concern has increased recently due to the use of algorithms—including machine learning—that are embedded across different features. Research has shown that many algorithms introduce bias into a system, but the “black box” nature of platforms, in which the algorithms are not open to examination (often due to proprietary reasons) and possibly not even interpretable (due to their inherent complexity), makes it hard to assess and correct their faults.

Lock-in and gatekeeping. Platforms by nature tend to lock people in. Users spend significant time and energy on platforms, and once a learning management system, for example, has been populated with their information and data, it is hard to move to an alternative. This lock-in allows platforms to control what users can or cannot do with the system and data, including moving to an alternative. Platform owners can change features, reduce services, and add charges. Given the high cost of changing a platform, once an HEI has adopted a system, it tends to persist with it, even if it’s suboptimal, with negative consequences for users.

The use of platforms within HEIs comes with a cost, and critical questions need to be asked to ensure just, responsible, and transparent implementation. First, how are decisions about technology purchase and use being made, and how can this process be improved? Second, what principles of responsibility and ethics are institutions following? Such technology guidelines, frameworks, and codes are becoming increasingly common across industries, especially for novel tools with an AI-related feature. Third, what priorities of users—staff, faculty, students—do these platforms address, such as achieving work-life balance? Finally, what influence do the firms operating these platforms have over what users do, and what does institutional dependence on them mean for the future of the university?

At a time in which HEIs are increasingly cognizant of the need to be more inclusive and equitable, it is imperative that they integrate technology into their ecosystems responsibly. A failure to do so would not only jeopardize the goal of HEIs to be socially just but also irrevocably break down the trust between institutions and their members. If every operation of the university is transformed through cloud-based platform services, then the university itself could be argued to increasingly resemble a platform—a site for exchange of services and nothing more.

 

Aditya Johri is a professor of information sciences and technology at George Mason University.
Image Courtesy of Creative Services/George Mason University