Seite - 48 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

50 D.Griffiths 3.4.4 LearningAnalyticsEntwinedwithGovernance Whilewantingtoavoidsuggestingthat therewasagoldenageinwhichlecturersand studentswereawareof,andabletocontributeto,institutionalmanagementprocesses, there isnodoubt thatShattock is correct toassert that in theUK from2000 to2016, thepolicy turmoil that accompanied the increasingmarketisationof the highereducationsystemandtheintroductionofaleaguetableculturehasledtothegrowthof powerfulvice-chancellor-ledexecutive teams,whichhave transformedgovernancepractice anddecision-making inmanyuniversities. (Shattock,2017) ThisconcentrationofpowerisalsotobeseeninmanyinstitutionsacrossEurope, as described by Paradeise and Thoenig (2013), and is in many respects a global phenomenondrivenbytheNewPublicManagementmovement(seeLapsley,2009). LArepresents apotential or actual sourceofdata to feed into theKeyPerformance Indicatorsandothermethodswhichareusedbymanagers tocontrol the institutions which they are running.Whether or not learners and teachers are keen to use an LA intervention, theymay nevertheless find that they have to do so if they are to maintain their studies or jobs.Acorollaryof this argument, if it is accepted, is that ‘learning’ and ‘academic’ analytics (see Long& Siemans, 2011) cannot be kept separate for ethical purposes. Education institutions compete on the basis of their effectiveness in teaching, and an essential business target is for them tomeet the keyperformance indicators in teachingandlearningsetout for thembygovernment agencies. Similarly, management decisions about teaching contracts and pay are influencedby teachingachievement. As I have argued elsewhere (Griffiths, 2017), LAgeneratesmodels of the insti- tution and its operation. Thesemodels are conceived from particular perspectives andforparticularpurposes,generallybyor forpeople inamanagement role, inpart becauseit ismanagerswhocontrolbudgetsandwhohaveaccesstodata.Thesemod- els then become an active element in themanagement of the institution and of the activities of lecturers and students, and can change relationships in the institution. Brans andGallooffer twowaysof viewing the ethics ofORpracticewhich canbe applied to this situation.One perspective is that of “thosewhose viewon ethics is mainly internal, i.e. thosewho focus on the relation betweenOR/MS profession- als and clients and on theway themodellingwork is carried on” (Brans&Gallo, 2007), emphasising technical correctnessandhonesty.WithinLA,suchcorrectness would includerespecting therelevantcodesofpracticeandregulationscovering the managementofdata.BransandGallo identifyothers forwhomethicalprofessional behaviour “means taking always into account the effects on society and nature of thedecisionsderived fromtheir analyses andmodels” (ibid).Fromthisperspective a person concernedwith the ethics of an LA implementation needs to look at the systemicimpactofLAontheinstitutionasawhole,andonallofthepeoplewhowill be directly or indirectly affected by it.Given the complex intertwiningofLAwith systemic change in education, it seems incumbent to pay attention to thesewider consequences ofmodelmaking inLA, both positive andnegative, in assessing the ethicsofLAimplementations.