Tag: Responsible

  • Responsible AI Adoption: Empowering Educators While Safeguarding Equity

    Responsible AI Adoption: Empowering Educators While Safeguarding Equity

    Artificial intelligence is reshaping classrooms nationwide. Experts share how schools can adopt AI responsibly, ensuring equity, ethics, and human-centered teaching remain at the forefront.

    A partner in learning

    Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant promise — it’s here, and schools are grappling with how best to use it. For educational leaders, the question is not whether to use AI, but how to adopt it responsibly.

    Dr. Joseph Rene Corbeil, Professor of Educational Technology at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, reminds us of Arthur C. Clarke’s famous line: “Any teacher that can be replaced by a machine should be.” To him, AI can ease repetitive tasks like practice feedback, freeing teachers to do what machines cannot — mentor, inspire, and connect.

    His colleague, Dr. Maria Elena Corbeil, emphasizes that responsible adoption must be “curious and intentional.” She encourages faculty to experiment openly with AI alongside students, showing that technology is a partner in learning, not a shortcut.

    But both caution against widening divides. “If left unchecked, AI could create a two-tiered system where those who can afford premium tools gain an advantage,” Rene warns. Maria Elena points to unequal access to devices, internet, and faculty support as critical barriers.

    AI use shaped by classroom realities

    For Yanbei Chen, a Ph.D. student at Syracuse University, responsible adoption must also account for culture, language, and diverse learning needs. In her courses, students use AI image generators to visualize inclusive classrooms — an exercise that enhanced creativity while sparking dialogue about equity and accessibility.

    Equity also drives the work of Dr. Veronika Abramenka-Lachheb, Assistant Professor at Boise State University and Director of the LENS Lab. She argues that responsible adoption begins with respect for learner privacy, autonomy, and agency. Her call to action for schools is to create values-based guidelines rooted in classroom realities, not one-size-fits-all policies.

    Qiu (Stephen) Wang, Professor of Measurement and Research Methodology at the University of South Florida, likens AI to “handing scissors to a kindergartner.” Useful, yes — but only with oversight. In his graduate classes, students use AI for brainstorming, then critique its outputs against pedagogy, learning both creativity and skepticism.

    Across perspectives, one theme stands out: AI should amplify human teaching, not replace it. Responsible adoption means prioritizing equity, ethics, and transparency, ensuring technology empowers every learner while keeping human judgment at the heart of education.

    Source link

  • The difficult human work behind responsible AI use in college operations

    The difficult human work behind responsible AI use in college operations

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    COLUMBUS, OHIO — Artificial intelligence-based products and software for college admissions and operations are proliferating in the higher education world. 

    How to choose from among them? Well, leaders can start by identifying a problem that is actually in need of an AI solution. 

    That is one of the core pieces of advice from a panel on deploying AI technology responsibly in college administration at the National Association for College Admission Counseling’s conference last week.

    Jasmine Solomon, senior associate director of systems operations at New York University, described a “flooded marketplace” of AI products advertised for a range of higher ed functions, from tutoring systems to retention analytics to admissions chatbots. 

    “Define what your AI use case is, and then find the purpose-built tool for that,” Solomon said. “If you’re using a general AI model or AI tool for an unintended purpose, your result is going to be poor.” 

    Asking why before you buy

    It’s also worth considering whether AI is the right tool. 

    “How does AI solve this problem better? Because maybe your team or the tools that you already have can solve this problem,” Solomon said. “Maybe you don’t need an AI tool for this.”

    Experts on the panel pointed out that administrators also need to think about who will use the tool, the potential privacy pitfalls of it, and its actual quality. 

    As Solomon put it, “Those built-in AI features — are they real? Are they on a future-release schedule, or is it here now? And if it’s here now, is it ready for prime time or is it ‘here now, and we’re beta testing.’” 

    Other considerations in deploying AI include those related to ethics, compliance and employee contracts.

    Institutions need to be mindful of workflows, staff roles, data storage, privacy and AI stipulations in collective bargaining contracts, said Becky Mulholland, director of first-year admission and operations at the University of Rhode Island. 

    “For those who are considering this, please, please, please make sure you’re familiar with those aspects,” Mulholland said. “We’ve seen this not go well in some other spaces.”

    On top of all that is the environmental impact of AI. One estimate found that AI-based search engines can use as much as 30 times more energy than traditional search. The technology also uses vast amounts of water to cool data centers.

    Panelists had few definitive answers for resolving AI’s environmental problems at the institutional level. 

    “There’s going to be a space for science to find some better solutions,” Mulholland said. “We’re not there right now.” 

    Solomon pointed to the pervasiveness of AI tools already embedded in much of our digital technology and argued untrained use could worsen the environmental impact. 

    “If they’re prompting [AI] 10, 20 times just to get the answer they want, they’ve used far more energy than if they understood prompt engineering,” Solomon said. 

    Transparency is also important. At NYU, Solomon said the university was careful to ensure prospective students knew they were talking with AI when interacting with its chatbot — so much so that they named the tool “NYUAdmissionsBot” to make its virtual nature as explicit as possible. 

    “We wanted to inform them every step of the way that you were talking to AI when you were using this chatbot,” Solomon said. 

    ‘You need time to test it’

    After all the big questions are asked and answered, and an AI solution chosen, institutions still have the not-so-small task of rolling the technology out in a way that is effective in both the short and long term. 

    The rollout of NYU’s chatbot in spring 2024 took “many, many months,” according to Solomon. “If a vendor tells you, ‘We will be up in a week,’ multiply that by like a factor of 10. You need time to test it.” The extra time can ensure a feature is actually ready when it’s unveiled for use. 

    The upside to all that time and effort for something like an admissions chatbot, Solomon noted, is that the AI feature can be available around-the-clock to answer inquiries, and it can quickly address the most commonly asked questions that would normally be flooding the inboxes of admissions staff. 

    But even after a successful initial rollout of an AI tool or feature, operations staff aren’t done. 

    Solomon described a continuous cycle of developing key metrics of success, running controlled experiments with an AI product and carefully examining data from AI use, including by having a human looking over the shoulder of the robots. In NYU’s case, this included looking at responses the chatbot gave to inquiries from prospective students.

    Source link

  • Responsible recruitment means fostering diverse leadership potential

    Responsible recruitment means fostering diverse leadership potential

    Unfortunately, it is no secret that the higher education sector has a long way to go when it comes to equity in progression to senior leadership.

    While the number of staff from global majority ethnic backgrounds in universities has nearly tripled over the last 20 years (now c. 24 per cent), HESA data shows that still only 3.8 per cent of black academics in the UK hold the title of Professor, and less than one per cent of all professors in the UK are black. Though there has been an incredible 93.8 per cent increase since 2012–13, still only 30.8 per cent of professors in the UK identify as women. There has been real progress, but it has been slow.

    Recruitment from the inside

    In our position as a consultancy supporting talent development across higher education and wider sectors driven by social purpose, we’re constantly reminded of the barriers faced by global majority candidates in recruitment processes. We see selection bias; we see lack of communication and clarity around promotion criteria; we see challenges in individual confidence and imposter syndrome; we see anxiety around tokenism.

    There’s additionally a risk that diversity is becoming less of a priority in these times of financial challenge, when obvious questions around sustainability come to the fore. With many institutions going through restructures and cost-saving exercises, executive boards are under enormous pressure to justify any new appointments and associated expenditure. The ability to lead change, diversify income streams, and drive growth with limited resources are now constant topics in our conversations with candidates for senior roles.

    In part due to these pressures, recruitment panels seem increasingly less willing to think widely when appointing to leadership roles. There is often an increased sense of perceived risk when considering candidates from other sectors, overseas, or who would be taking a step up into the role, rather than making a sideways move. As domestic funding challenges worsen, international student numbers continue to decline, and operational costs rise across the sector, there’s understandably often a preference for candidates who have “been there, done that.” This has obvious implications for overall diversity in the sector.

    Though there has been some improvement, staff from global majority backgrounds are still disproportionately concentrated in lower-level roles and underrepresented in senior roles across the sector. It is less likely that a candidate from a global majority background will be in a position to make such a sideways move for a senior role. In our search work, we encourage committees to place a greater emphasis on capability and competence, alongside experience, and to consider which essential requirements on the job description might be more flexible than others. We do also see a growing recognition that things have to change and a genuine commitment to strive for greater representation at all levels.

    As headhunters, we have to strike a difficult balance between supporting and challenging the organisations we work with, particularly around such questions of equity of opportunity and perceived risk. We are committed to making a difference on a very practical level, and we work closely with clients and candidates to find ways to make our search processes more equitable. We take time in briefings meetings to really get a feel for the culture of each organisation we work with; we advise on the accessibility of recruitment material; and we structure interview processes so candidates can engage with an opportunity and organisation in multiple fora, for example.

    There is an inherent limitation to the work that we do as advisors on senior appointment processes, however. Through the lists of candidates we bring together for a role, and the way we support candidates and panels through these processes, we can have a direct impact on the individual and organisation, but we often feel that the most positive impact we can have on the composition of senior teams is through our broader leadership development work.

    Insider information

    We’ve been involved in the London Higher Global Majority Mentoring Programme for the last few years. In our annual masterclass with the programme’s participants, we discuss practical topics about engaging with opportunities for development and progress including at the level of CVs and cover letters, navigating informal interviews, internal marketing, and LinkedIn. We aim to demystify the recruitment process and help equip them with some tools to help them move into their next leadership positions. These topics are framed in the context of structural barriers to progression facing individuals from marginalised groups, which often hold candidates back from bringing their authentic selves to recruitment processes.

    We often hear about candidates’ experience of covering parts of their identities in interviews, feeling imposter syndrome when interviewing with a panel of white senior leaders, and concern around being a “token” on a shortlist.

    Several years ago, we developed Aspire, which is a pro-bono programme that supports mid-career professionals from global majority ethnic backgrounds as they work to move into senior leadership positions. The programme runs over six months and explores themes such authenticity and leadership profiles alongside practical approaches to promotion and recruitment. The programme aims to create a space in which participants can share their lived experience and create a community of practice as they look for their next role.

    Launched last year, Board Prospects pairs individuals from historically under-represented groups with non-executive boards. The participants join the board without voting rights for a year, before being appointed as full members.

    Participants across the programmes we work on have reported promotions, external job offers and more – though it is of course impossible to determine exactly how much the specific programme contributed to this success. The most significant impact reported is often the networks created through the sessions, and the sense of empowerment which can develop from a space in which experiences, support, and advice are shared safely. We’ve seen research collaborations, invitations to conferences and more emerge from these communities of practice.

    Our involvement in the Global Majority Mentoring Programme, and our work on our own leadership development programmes, is valuable in helping us shape our executive search work to be as inclusive and equitable as possible. We’ve learnt (and continue to learn) a huge amount from the programmes and their participants. Through hearing about participants’ lived experiences of career progression, we learn more about where we can provide the best support for development, and how we might advise clients on the “sticking points” in recruitment processes which can be especially limiting or off-putting to individuals from underrepresented groups.

    We also recognise that recruiting diverse talent is just one step in building inclusive and equitable organisations. Creating an environment in which staff from marginalised groups can thrive and progress requires a much more holistic approach that seeks to fundamentally change working cultures. Our work with individual institutions, such as the LEAP into Leadership Programme with the University of Greenwich, in which a group of mid-career delegates from global majority ethnic backgrounds are formally paired with a senior sponsor within the institution, has also stressed to us the need to acknowledge and engage with structural barriers and allyship at all levels of an institution if we are to ever meaningfully break down barriers to senior leadership.

    While recognising the huge amount of work that still needs to be done, and the ever-growing challenges facing universities across the UK, we’re hopeful that collaborative schemes like the Global Majority Mentoring Programme, alongside a commitment to challenging and adapting recruitment processes, can ultimately have a real impact in creating more diverse leadership teams which better reflect society and are best equipped to deal with sector challenges.

    This article is one of four exploring London Higher’s Global Majority Mentoring Programme – you can find the others here.

    Source link