Fair Debate Research Articles

Validity Arguments Meet Artificial Intelligence in Innovative Educational Assessment

AbstractWe have dramatically advanced our ability to create rich, complex, and effective assessments across a range of uses through technology advancement. Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled assessments represent one such area of advancement—one that has captured our collective interest and imagination. Scientists and practitioners within the domains of organizational and workforce assessment have increasingly used AI in assessment, and its use is now becoming more common in education. While these types of solutions offer their users the promise of efficiency, effectiveness, and a “wow factor,” users need to maintain high standards for validity and fairness in high stakes settings. Due to the complexity of some AI methods and tools, this requirement for adherence to standards may challenge our traditional approaches to building validity and fairness arguments. In this edition, we review what these challenges may look like as validity arguments meet AI in educational assessment domains. We specifically explore how AI impacts Evidence‐Centered Design (ECD) and development from assessment concept and coding to scoring and reporting. We also present information on ways to ensure that bias is not built into these systems. Lastly, we discuss future horizons, many that are almost here, for maximizing what AI offers while minimizing negative effects on test takers and programs.

Toward Argument‐Based Fairness with an Application to AI‐Enhanced Educational Assessments

AbstractThe field of educational measurement places validity and fairness as central concepts of assessment quality. Prior research has proposed embedding fairness arguments within argument‐based validity processes, particularly when fairness is conceived as comparability in assessment properties across groups. However, we argue that a more flexible approach to fairness arguments that occurs outside of and complementary to validity arguments is required to address many of the views on fairness that a set of assessment stakeholders may hold. Accordingly, we focus this manuscript on two contributions: (a) introducing the argument‐based fairness approach to complement argument‐based validity for both traditional and artificial intelligence (AI)‐enhanced assessments and (b) applying it in an illustrative AI assessment of perceived hireability in automated video interviews used to prescreen job candidates. We conclude with recommendations for further advancing argument‐based fairness approaches.

The Legitimizing Effects of the OECD's Fairness-Based Narratives

The base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project and the creation of the Inclusive Framework on BEPS are ambitious initiatives that could transform the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from a rich-countries club into the standard setter and a consensus facilitator on matters of global tax governance. In some areas, where the interests of many states have aligned, this transformation has already occurred. However, in highly disputed areas, such as the taxation of business profits in the digital economy or other distributive concerns, the OECD can only rely on shared values, which, if not entirely reconciling the conflicting interests of states, could at least encourage collective action. Since fairness underlies many common values, fairness-based narratives are a plausible source of soft power for the OECD and potentially a tool in facilitating tax cooperation. This article argues that this may be one possible explanation for the OECD's reliance on the concept of fairness in its BEPS documentation. Using the OECD's BEPS action 1 narrative as a case study and focusing on the social dimension of fairness, this article finds that this narrative is inconsistent with the states' narratives and is unjustified; it lacks fidelity (story integrity) and is only weakly persuasive, at least where the fairness argument is concerned. These flaws may not affect the OECD's legitimacy as a standard setter and consensus facilitator, but they may undermine the legitimacy of the OECD standards that are founded on fairness arguments, especially if those standards affect the distribution of the benefits and costs of tax cooperation.

More than just a regime type: how Southeast Asian countries respond to COVID-19

As early as the pandemic has spread to Southeast Asian countries and elsewhere, observers have been tempted to associate regime type with COVID-19 responses. This trend encompasses the debate between democratic vs. authoritarian regimes that has been particularly helpful in identifying the normative basis to global pandemic responses. However, it leads into an inquiry whether the comparison of regime as part of variable isolation is scientifically viable in assessing the public policy, given the fact that the comparative matrix is vague. The comparison between democracy and the authoritarian regime will not bring a fair debate, but only to insinuate epistemological obstacle due to socially constructed dichotomy between the two even if the authoritarian regime has done any good practice. Furthermore, such a dichotomy only reflects a binary oversimplification of reality, which neglects an alternative explanation. Drawing on the framework of typology of COVID-19 responses by Greer et. al. (2020)–which includes four key foci, i.e., social policies and crisis management, regime type, formal political institutions, state capacity–this article will extend the framework by applying to the case of Southeast Asian countries, where these countries share similar structure and challenges, yet some countries arguably have been more successful.

The Publishing Race

In October 2020, The Thinker received an open letter from Waghied Misbach as part of a call for papers on a special edition on “Race. Racism. Anti-Racism.” As this letter was about what he termed, “the erasure of black lives” in publishing, I decided to publish the letter and invited Terry Morris from Pan Macmillan to respond in the interests of fairness and open debate.
 Terry Morris, in turn, sent the letter to Fiona Snyckers. While Fiona Snyckers send me a response, it was not addressed as an open letter. As such, it has not been published here. What follows is the original open letter from Waghied Misbach, Terry Morris’ response and finally Waghied Misbach’s response in return. Due to publication deadlines for this issue, we have not been able to follow up on this debate any further at this time. The Thinker supports open debate and academic freedom. However, a portion of the first letter has been redacted with the author’s permission, due to the potential for litigation. The Thinker encourages a scholarly engagement of ideas and does not serve as a vehicle for potentially litigious comment.

The Charitable Continuum

Abstract There are powerful fairness and efficiency arguments for making charitable donations to soup kitchens 100% deductible. These arguments have no purchase for donations to fund opulent church organs, yet these too are 100% deductible under the current tax code. This stark dichotomy is only the tip of the iceberg. Looking at a wider sampling of charitable gifts reveals a charitable continuum. Based on sliding scales for efficiency, multiple theories of fairness, pluralism, institutional competence and social welfare dictate that charitable deductions should in most cases be fractions between zero and one. Moreover, the Central Limit Theorem strongly suggests that combining this welter of largely independent criteria with the wide variety of charitable gifts results in a classic bell-shaped normal curve of optimal deductions, with a peak at some central value and quickly decaying to zero at the extremes of 0% and 100%. Given that those are the only two options under the current tax code, the current charitable deduction regime inevitably makes large errors in most cases. Actually calculating a precise optimal percentage for each type of charitable donation is of course impractical. This Article suggests, however, that we can do much better than the systematically erroneous current charitable deduction. Granting a 100% deduction only for donations to the desperately poor, along with 50%, 25%, and 0% for gifts yielding progressively fewer efficiency, fairness, pluralism, and institutional competence benefits, promises to deliver a socially more desirable charitable deduction.

Fragility, Not Superiority: "Substantial Burdens" on Religion and the Fairness of Special Protections

Fragility, Not Superiority: "Substantial Burdens" on Religion and the Fairness of Special Protections

The Charitable Continuum

There are powerful fairness and efficiency arguments for making charitable donations to soup kitchens 100% deductible. These arguments have no purchase for donations to fund opulent church organs, yet these too are 100% deductible under the current tax code. And this stark dichotomy is only the tip of iceberg. Looking at a wider sampling of charitable gifts reveals a charitable continuum. Based on sliding scales for efficiency, multiple theories of fairness, pluralism, and institutional competence, social welfare dictates that charitable deductions should in most cases be fractions between zero and one. Moreover, the Central Limit Theorem strongly suggest that combining this welter of largely independent criteria to the wide variety of charitable gifts results in a classic bell-shaped normal curve of optimal deductions, with a peak at some central value and quickly decaying to zero at the extremes of 0% and 100%. Given that those are the only two options under the current tax code, the current charitable deduction regime inevitably makes large errors in most cases. Actually calculating a precise optimal percentage for each type of charitable donation is of course impractical. This article suggests, however, that we can do much better than the systematically erroneous current charitable deduction. Granting a 100% deduction only for donations to the desperately poor, along with 50%, 25%, and 0% for gifts yielding progressively fewer efficiency, fairness, pluralism, and institutional competence benefits promises to deliver a socially more desirable charitable deduction.

The connection between moral positions and moral arguments drives opinion change.

Liberals and conservatives often take opposing positions on moral issues. But what makes a moral position liberal or conservative? Why does public opinion tend to become more liberal over time? And why does public opinion change especially fast on certain issues, such as gay rights? We offer an explanation based on how different positions connect with different kinds of moral arguments. Based on a formal model of opinion dynamics, we predicted that positions better connected to harm and fairness arguments will be more popular among liberals and will become more popular over time among liberals and conservatives. Finally, the speed of this trend will be faster the better the position connects to harm and fairness arguments. These predictions all held with high accuracy in 44 years of polling on moral opinions. The model explains the connection between ideology and moral opinions, and generates precise predictions for future opinion change.

Subverting the Idea(l) of Equal Opportunity in Global Trade: The Paradoxes of Differentiation for Peripheral States

The existing multilateral trade regime is often beleaguered for unfairly privileging its Western guarantors. Since not all countries command the same opportunity sets to compete in global markets, world trade rules sanction über-rich markets to extend autonomous trade concessions to capital-poor countries without demanding any reciprocal treatment. Given the entanglements of trade in the thorny issues of international development and distributive justice, this paper joins a crowded trade as/and fairness debate by judging how the present global economic order (dis)favors developing and least developed countries on the basis of equal opportunity. In a Roemerian-Rawlsian reading of economic fairness, I start by elevating the demands of diffuse reciprocity over the misguided minimalism of mutual reciprocity in a twin attempt to morally defend asymmetric exchanges between asymmetric trading partners and to redress background inequalities in access to the merits of commerce. While the notion and praxis of altruism in international trade generally allude to northern democracies in modern political thought, this article also unmasks parallel models of special and differential treatment projects lorded over by two seemingly unusual suspects: the Eurasian Economic Union and the People’s Republic of China. In juxtaposing weak and strong conceptions of equal opportunity vis-à-vis leading compensatory measures presently open to needy nations, I articulate how the strong standard of equal opportunity is partially cantilevered by existing level-playing-field structures and yet brutally bulldozed at once by the politics of donor discretion. Finally, although a diluted form of diffuse reciprocity grows more fashionable among affluent and emerging economies, unlocking the strong standard of equal opportunity still insists on a solidaristic system of preferences to diffuse both opportunities and obligations arising from a less tilted trading order as widely and deeply as possible.

Assessment accommodations for multilingual learners: pupils’ perceptions of fairness

ABSTRACTA challenge in designing tests is ensuring fairness for all test takers. Pupils who are not yet sufficiently proficient in the language of schooling taking a test that was designed for native speakers is unfair, since they will not be able to demonstrate their true abilities (Abedi, J., and C. Lord. 2001. “The Language Factor in Mathematics Tests.” Applied Measurement in Education 14 (3): 219–234.). Multilingual pupils should be provided with accommodations to overcome these challenges but most studies on assessment accommodations for multilingual pupils focus on effectiveness and validity, rather than on fairness (Li, H., and H. K. Suen. 2012. “Are test accommodations for English language learners fair?” Language Assessment Quarterly 9 (3): 293–309). This study fills a gap in current research by viewing accommodation practices through an insiders’ lens. Pupils (n = 35) in the fifth grade of primary education were interviewed about a hypothetical test situation which displayed a range of accommodations. Pupils interpret the benefits of accommodations as leading towards more inclusion, as contributing to better understanding, and as increasing learning of both L1 and L2. Results contribute to the fairness debate on which pupils should be given accommodations and who should not.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Publication Bias in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Publication bias in medical journals is detrimental to the free exchange of ideas regarding controversial issues. From 2000 to 2017, a premier publication, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), has shown considerable bias in only publishing articles and editorials highly favorable toward human embryonic stem cell research and abortion, without permitting valid discussion and publication of contrary opinion. The recent strong editorial defense by NEJM of Planned Parenthood Federation in their sale of aborted fetal body parts seems particularly striking and disproportionate. Publication bias suppresses legitimate contrary viewpoints with merit and validity, suppressing fair debate in controversial issues.

Fair Value Measurement for Long-Lived Operating Assets: Research Evidence

This paper reviews research evidence on the usefulness of fair value measurement of long-lived operating assets for financial reporting. Although economically material, these assets have been sidelined in the current fair value debate that largely centers on financial assets, from which operating assets differ in important respects. Our review provides several insights. First, fair value measurement is pervasive for investment property, while nearly non-existent for PP&E and intangible assets. Second, external fair value appraisers help enhance the decision usefulness of fair values. Third, the determinants of fair-value-related reporting choices vary by context and are not yet well-understood. Fourth, fair value measurement is largely useful when it comes to the valuation role of financial reporting, but this usefulness varies across recognized and disclosed fair values. Fifth, the contracting implications of fair value measurement for long-lived operating assets are severely under-researched. Overall, whereas extant research provides relevant insights, it is derived from diverse settings employing different measures and research designs, and does not yet provide an accumulation of evidence sufficient for final clarity about the determinants and consequences of fair value measurement for long-lived operating assets. Based on this conclusion, we develop several suggestions for future research in this area.

Controversy and Debate: Memory Based Methods Paper 3: Nutrition's ‘Black Swans’: Our reply

We sincerely appreciate the response from our esteemed colleagues, Nerea Martín-Calvo and Miguel Ángel Martínez-González, and welcome the opportunity to continue the scientific discourse. Controversy and debate: Memory-Based Methods Paper 4Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 104PreviewWe appreciate the opportunity to end up this debate by rebutting the response by Edward Archer, Michael Marlow, and Carl Lavie. Once again, we want to show our deepest disagreement with their opinions and philosophical–theoretical considerations about the self reported dietary assessment methods (SR-Ms) in nutritional epidemiology. Expert debates are, without any doubt, a highly valuable tool to guarantee the progress of scientific knowledge. However, a fair debate requires that scientists conform to the truth and be unbiased in their arguments. Full-Text PDF

Lex Artis y debido proceso: presupuestos de la disciplina parlamentaria contemporánea

La disciplina parlamentaria constituye un conjunto normativo tendente a facilitar el funcionamiento ordenado y el debate, a cuyo efecto se dota a ciertos órganos parlamentarios de un abanico de facultades cuyo uso proporcionado es condición sine qua non para el cumplimiento de los objetivos para las que fueron diseñadas. Para evitar que se produzca una vulneración de los derechos de los parlamentarios en el ejercicio de sus funciones, la jurisprudencia exige la aplicación de principios propios del ámbito sancionador, si bien tamizados por las peculiaridades de la vida parlamentaria.

Debt Restructuring and Notions of Fairness

This article examines concern for fairness in the way in which loss is distributed when a company or financial institution facing financial difficulties is restructured. It shows how this concern is often grounded in loose notions of fairness, or generalisations from one situation to another, rather than in detailed analysis. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, it builds an analytical frame for the fairness debate in debt restructuring. It shows why rigour is important in identifying fairness concerns, in weighing them against other considerations, and in applying concerns which arise in one scenario to another, and illustrates the types of policy mistake or policy incoherence which can arise if this is not done.

Fortune and Fairness in Global Economic Life

This paper develops John Rawls’s famous objection to the system of natural liberty as against the contemporary system of international trade. Even as “dynamic” policies have proven successful in several recent development success stories, the current system enforces a “static,” laissez-faire system of comparative advantage that threatens to consign poorly-endowed countries to a low-productivity, low-income destiny in agriculture and raw materials. I discuss two very different fairness arguments in favor of allowing and encouraging “dynamic,” pro-development polices: an argument from “structural equity” and an argument from “equity of fortune.” I suggest that the former is of more central importance, and that the difference between the two kinds of fairness argument shows why Rawls’s original objection to the (domestic) system of natural liberty does not imply “luck egalitarianism.”

Overcoming the barriers that hamper a large-scale integration of solar photovoltaic power generation in European distribution grids

Solar photovoltaic is increasingly seen as a key technology for low-carbon electricity generation. However, the deployment of growing shares of this technology is not without important challenges for their efficient integration in power systems. This paper aims to contribute to overcoming the barriers that hamper a large-scale integration of photovoltaics in the electricity distribution grids. The methodology followed is problem oriented. The paper firstly reviews the technical solutions available to integrate distributed photovoltaics, classifying them in three areas: Distribution System Operator (DSO) solutions, prosumer solutions and interactive solutions. Then, the set of barriers that hinder the implementation of the solutions in a European context are identified, assessing the relevance of each barrier in different countries. Four major barriers are discussed in detail: (1) DSO regulation does not promote smart grid investments, (2) rules limiting PV curtailment, (3) missing frameworks enabling DSOs to access advanced PV inverter capabilities, and (4) regulation hampering storage solutions. Finally, recommendations to overcome these barriers are presented, highlighting that DSO regulation should shift the focus from a short-term to a long-term cost assessment and revenue setting framework, equalizing the treatment of capital and operational expenditures, and implementing specific incentives for DSO innovation. Moreover, a fair debate on the definition of the boundary conditions for the use of renewable curtailment when the other technical solutions cannot be applied or are not economically optimal is required. Regarding the provision of services to DSOs by prosumers and the deployment of distributed storage, the roles, rights and limitations of the different stakeholders need to be clearly defined.

The Mainstream Media and United States' Policy in El Salvador

As far as the press of such a democratic political system is concerned, one would expect the American mainstream media to act independently of the government's will by putting the official pretexts and objectives for interference abroad under serious questioning -before accepting or rebutting them- looking for alternative sources of information, and instituting the conditions for a fair debate -by offering the opportunity to several conflicting opinions to argue and debate and then come out with the most convincing conclusions. In order to check if the US mainstream media acted as an independent organ during U.S. interference in El Salvador, I will examine their treatment of the official objectives for intervention as well as the most prominent themes and methods they applied during their coverage of a typical case study of American Global Realism.

The Media and Operation Just Cause in Panama

At a time when the Cold War was ‘agonizing’ and the ‘new world order’ taking a life of its own, the government of the US found new arguments in favor of its December 1989 invasion of Panama. Like any other military action, operation ‘Just Cause’ was preceded by a well-orchestrated public relations campaign meant to gain the support of the US Congress, press, and public opinion and, thus, to generate a national consensus over the administration’s most crucial decisions. As far as the press of such a democratic political system is concerned, one would expect it to act independently of the government’s will by putting the official pretexts and objectives for invasion under serious questioning -before accepting or rebutting them- looking for alternative sources of information, and instituting the conditions for a fair debate -by offering the opportunity to several conflicting opinions to argue and debate and then come out with the most convincing conclusions. In order to check if the US mainstream media acted as an independent organ during the Panamanian episode, I will examine their treatment of the official objectives for intervention, their coverage of the military operation, and their assessment of the invasion with regard to international law.