<scp>GKC‐CI</scp>: A unifying framework for contextual norms and information governance

Shvartzshnaider, Yan; Sanfilippo, Madelyn Rose; Apthorpe, Noah

doi:10.1002/asi.24633

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Connecting to this broader literature on the unequal (Fuchs, 2011; Miller, 2020) and contextual nature of privacy (Badillo-Urquiola et al , 2018; Nissenbaum, 2009), recent studies have illustrated the importance of critically engaging with conceptual and theoretical frameworks to strengthen empirical studies of privacy (Sanfilippo et al , 2018; Shvartzshnaider et al , 2022), spanning qualitative, quantitative and mixed research designs (Li, 2011; Sanfilippo et al , 2021). The research community elucidates the social and networked nature of privacy, critically examining the implications of sociotechnical systems on individual collaborators’ (Wardrip et al , 2013), experts (Emami Naeini et al , 2018) and users’ (Badillo-Urquiola et al , 2018), as well as on communities’ privacy (Khojasteh et al , 2019) as experienced.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy governance not included: analysis of third parties in learning management systems

Sanfilippo,

Apthorpe,

Brehm

et al. 2023

ILS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to address research gaps around third party data flows in education by investigating governance practices in higher education with respect to learning management system (LMS) ecosystems. The authors answer the following research questions: how are LMS and plugins/learning tools interoperability (LTI) governed at higher education institutions? Who is responsible for data governance activities around LMS? What is the current state of governance over LMS? What is the current state of governance over LMS plugins, LTI, etc.? What governance issues are unresolved in this domain? How are issues of privacy and governance regarding LMS and plugins/LTIs documented or communicated to the public and/or community members? Design/methodology/approach This study involved three components: (1) An online questionnaire about LMS, plugin and LTI governance practices from information technology professionals at seven universities in the USA (n = 4) and Canada (n = 3). The responses from these individuals helped us frame and design the interview schedule. (2) A review of public data from 112 universities about LMS plugin and LTI governance. Eighteen of these universities provide additional documentation, which we analyze in further depth. (3) A series of extensive interviews with 25 university data governance officers with responsibilities for LMS, plugin and/or LTI governance, representing 14 different universities. Findings The results indicate a portrait of fragmented and unobtrusive, unnoticed student information flows to third parties. From coordination problems on individual college campuses to disparate distributions of authority across campuses, as well as from significant data collection via individual LTIs to a shared problem of scope across many LTIs, the authors see that increased and intentional governance is needed to improve the state of student privacy and provide transparency in the complex environment around LMSs. Yet, the authors also see that there are logical paths forward based on successful governance and leveraging existing collaborative networks among data governance professionals in higher education. Originality/value Substantial prior work has examined issues of privacy in the education context, although little research has directly examined higher education institutions’ governance practices of LMS, plugin and LTI ecosystems. The tight integration of first and third-party tools in this ecosystem raises concerns that student data may be accessed and shared without sufficient transparency or oversight and in violation of established education privacy norms. However, these technologies and the university governance practices that could check inappropriate data handling remain under-scrutinized. This paper addresses this gap by investigating the governance practices of higher education institutions with respect to LMS ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Privacy governance not included: analysis of third parties in learning management systems

Sanfilippo,

Apthorpe,

Brehm

et al. 2023

ILS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Roadmap for Applying the Contextual Integrity Framework in Qualitative Privacy Research

Kumar,

Zimmer,

Vitak

2024

Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Privacy is an important topic in HCI and social computing research, and the theory of contextual integrity (CI) is increasingly used to understand how sociotechnical systems-and the new kinds of information flows they introduce-can violate privacy. In empirical research, CI can serve as a conceptual framework for explaining the contextual nature of privacy as well as an analytical framework for evaluating privacy attitudes and behaviors. Analytical applications of CI in HCI primarily employ quantitative methods to identify appropriate information flows but rarely engage with the full CI framework to evaluate such flows. In this paper, we present a roadmap to guide HCI and social computing researchers on how to apply the full CI framework to qualitative projects. To help researchers envision what such an analysis can look like, each step includes an example analysis using interview data from projects on privacy and fitness tracking. We conclude by discussing how harnessing the full CI framework can address critiques of CI and identify opportunities for further theory development.

show abstract