Polarized platforms? How partisanship shapes perceptions of “algorithmic news bias”

Calice, Mikhaila N.; Bao, Luye; Freiling, Isabelle; Howell, Emily L.; Xenos, Michael A.; Yang, Shiyu; Brossard, Dominique; Newman, Todd P.; Scheufele, Dietram A.

doi:10.1177/14614448211034159

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Interest in public engagement by scientists, and academic faculty more generally, is expanding across a range of disciplines as the scientific community becomes increasingly vocal about the necessity of public engagement with science [ 1 , 2 ]. Engagement is especially important when emerging issues such as COVID-19 [e.g., 3 ], human genome editing [e.g., 4 ], and artificial intelligence [e.g., 5 ] raise questions in public debate that cannot be answered solely by more scientific research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

Calice

Beets²,

Bao³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of faculty engaging in meaningful dialogue with different publics instead of simply communicating their research to interested audiences has gradually morphed from a novel concept to a mainstay within most parts of the academy. Given the wide variety of public engagement modalities, it may be unsurprising that we still lack a comprehensive and granular understanding of factors that influence faculty willingness to engage with public audiences. Those nuances are not always captured by quantitative surveys that rely on pre-determined categories to assess scholars’ willingness to engage. While closed-ended categories are useful to examine which factors influence the willingness to engage more than others, it is unlikely that pre-determined categories comprehensively represent the range of factors that undermine or encourage engagement, including perceptual influences, institutional barriers, and scholars’ lived experiences. To gain insight into these individual perspectives and lived experiences, we conducted focus group discussions with faculty members at a large midwestern land-grant university in the United States. Our findings provide context to previous studies of public engagement and suggest four themes for future research. These themes affirm the persistence of institutional barriers to engaging with the public, particularly the expectations in the promotion process for tenure-track faculty. However, we also find a perception that junior faculty and graduate students are challenging the status quo by introducing a new wave of attention to public engagement. This finding suggests a “trickle-up” effect through junior faculty and graduate students expecting institutional support for public engagement. Our findings highlight the need to consider how both top-down factors such as institutional expectations and bottom-up factors such as graduate student interest shape faculty members’ decisions to participate in public engagement activities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

Calice

Beets²,

Bao³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, we drew on a recent data set fielded by the authors' research group, Science Media and the Public (SCIMEP) [30].…”

Section: Secondary Data Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For most, direct experience with AI comes through their cell phones and smart personal assistants, such as Alexa (Amazon) and Cortana (Microsoft Corporation), Siri (Apple), and Google Assistant (Google). A 2020 survey by the SCIMEP research group (n=2700) found that 83% of Americans used smartphones and 29% of Americans reported using smart personal assistants "at least once" to "a few times a week" [30].…”

Section: Knowledge Awareness and Experience With Ai In Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surveying Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care in the United States: Systematic Review (Preprint)

Beets¹,

Newman²,

Howell³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND This paper reviews nationally representative public opinion surveys on artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, with a focus on areas related to health care. The potential health applications of AI continue to gain attention owing to their promise as well as challenges. For AI to fulfill its potential, it must not only be adopted by physicians and health providers but also by patients and other members of the public. OBJECTIVE This study reviews the existing survey research on the United States’ public attitudes toward AI in health care and reveals the challenges and opportunities for more effective and inclusive engagement on the use of AI in health settings. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of public opinion surveys, reports, and peer-reviewed journal articles published on Web of Science, PubMed, and Roper iPoll between January 2010 and January 2022. We include studies that are nationally representative US public opinion surveys and include at least one or more questions about attitudes toward AI in health care contexts. Two members of the research team independently screened the included studies. The reviewers screened study titles, abstracts, and methods for Web of Science and PubMed search results. For the Roper iPoll search results, individual survey items were assessed for relevance to the AI health focus, and survey details were screened to determine a nationally representative US sample. We reported the descriptive statistics available for the relevant survey questions. In addition, we performed secondary analyses on 4 data sets to further explore the findings on attitudes across different demographic groups. RESULTS This review includes 11 nationally representative surveys. The search identified 175 records, 39 of which were assessed for inclusion. Surveys include questions related to familiarity and experience with AI; applications, benefits, and risks of AI in health care settings; the use of AI in disease diagnosis, treatment, and robotic caregiving; and related issues of data privacy and surveillance. Although most Americans have heard of AI, they are less aware of its specific health applications. Americans anticipate that medicine is likely to benefit from advances in AI; however, the anticipated benefits vary depending on the type of application. Specific application goals, such as disease prediction, diagnosis, and treatment, matter for the attitudes toward AI in health care among Americans. Most Americans reported wanting control over their personal health data. The willingness to share personal health information largely depends on the institutional actor collecting the data and the intended use. CONCLUSIONS Americans in general report seeing health care as an area in which AI applications could be particularly beneficial. However, they have substantial levels of concern regarding specific applications, especially those in which AI is involved in decision-making and regarding the privacy of health information.

show abstract

“…Son ya incontables las publicaciones académicas, working papers de grupos de investigación e investigaciones periodísticas que destacan el vasto poder infraestructural y de gatekeeping de las grandes tecnológicas, quienes gobiernan sobre la arquitectura tecnosocial de la red (Calice et al, 2021). Por citar algunos ejemplos, la mayor parte de las comunicaciones personales y profesionales online en el Estado español se llevan a cabo a través de alguna plataforma en propiedad de grandes corporaciones estadounidenses.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

¿Es posible gobernar a las plataformas digitales? Análisis crítico de la Ley Europea de Servicios Digitales

González

Cancela

2022

Rev. Teknokultura

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El siguiente texto presenta los hallazgos provisionales de una investigación en curso sobre regulación de plataformas digitales en el Sur de Europa. El artículo, situado en los debates de la regulación y gobierno de las plataformas, apunta a dos objetivos. En primer lugar, contribuir a los estudios de gobierno de las plataformas en los países periféricos de la Unión Europea; un enfoque que, al margen del ámbito laboral, apenas ha sido explorado en la literatura. Para ello analiza tanto el actual modelo de regulación del discurso online como los aportes y limitaciones de la nueva ley Europea de Servicios Digitales (2022). En segundo lugar, ofrecer una agenda progresista que permita imaginar la democratización del sector tecnológico.

show abstract

Polarized platforms? How partisanship shapes perceptions of “algorithmic news bias”

Cited by 13 publications

References 63 publications

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

Public engagement: Faculty lived experiences and perspectives underscore barriers and a changing culture in academia

Surveying Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care in the United States: Systematic Review (Preprint)

¿Es posible gobernar a las plataformas digitales? Análisis crítico de la Ley Europea de Servicios Digitales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About