STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics)

@article{vanBalen2025,

title = {Can communication Brain-Computer Interfaces read minds?},

author = {Bouke van Balen},

doi = {10.1007/s11097-024-10044-5},

issn = {1572-8676},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-01-20},

urldate = {2025-01-20},

journal = {Phenom Cogn Sci},

publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},

abstract = {Recent developments in the domain of communication Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technology have raised questions about the ability for communication BCIs to read minds. How those questions are answered depends on how we theorize the mind and mindreading in the first place. Thus, in this paper, I ask (1) what does it mean to read minds? (2) can a communication BCI do this? (3) what does this mean for potential users of this technology? and (4) what is at stake morally in light of this? I show that current answers to these questions are conceptually unclear and committed to a Cartesian picture of the mind and its relation to the brain, questionably informing how debates about BCIs as mindreading devices are framed. I offer an alternative perspective on these questions by turning to an enactive perspective on mindedness. I argue that this perspective can offer conceptual as well as ethical clarification about what is at stake in the domain of communication BCIs. From this perspective, the concerns raised about BCIs as mindreading machines are demystified. Instead, concerns are raised about BCIs as enabling users to flourish as authentic communicators.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bollen2024b,

title = {A conceptual and ethical framework for empathy and communication technologies},

author = {Caroline Bollen},

doi = {10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102707},

issn = {0160-791X},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-12-00},

urldate = {2024-12-00},

journal = {Technology in Society},

volume = {79},

publisher = {Elsevier BV},

abstract = {While there is an interest in questions related to empathy and communication technologies (CTs) in various disciplines, conceptual and ethical ambiguities on what empathy exactly is and whether and how it can be shaped by technologies make it unclear how to approach such questions. This paper sets out to provide such a framework: a way to understand empathy and its relationship to CTs in a conceptually and ethically robust manner. A critical reconsideration of the concept is needed, especially if we want to use the concept to evaluate technologies and their impact in terms of desirability and guidance to shape our future. I argue we need to understand empathy explicitly as a moral concept that is contextually situated, relational, and diverse, and to do so, I argue to understand empathy as a virtue. Section 2 lays down the theoretical foundation to explore empathy as a virtue, technological mediation, and CTs. In section 3, I apply these concepts to identify different ways in which CTs can mediate empathy and change what it means to be empathetic on both individual and societal levels. This multi-layered understanding of “CT-mediated empathy” provides a lens through which questions on CTs and empathy can be approached, such that we can reflect on, evaluate and improve specific technologies, their implementation, and their use. In section 4, I summarize this in a list of seven questions that require reflection in the design and implementation of a (new) CT. The paper ends with some forward-looking implications and recommendations for design, research, education, and policy towards an empathetic sociotechnical future.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Aizenberg2023,

title = {Examining the assumptions of AI hiring assessments and their impact on job seekers' autonomy over self-representation},

author = {Evgeni Aizenberg and Matthew Dennis and Jeroen van den Hoven},

url = {https://www.esdit.nl/examining-the-assumptions-of-ai/},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01783-1},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-10-21},

urldate = {2023-10-21},

journal = {AI & Society},

abstract = {In this paper, we examine the epistemological and ontological assumptions algorithmic hiring assessments make about job seekers’ attributes (e.g., competencies, skills, abilities) and the ethical implications of these assumptions. Given that both traditional psychometric hiring assessments and algorithmic assessments share a common set of underlying assumptions from the psychometric paradigm, we turn to literature that has examined the merits and limitations of these assumptions, gathering insights across multiple disciplines and several decades. Our exploration leads us to conclude that algorithmic hiring assessments are incompatible with attributes whose meanings are context-dependent and socially constructed. Such attributes call instead for assessment paradigms that offer space for negotiation of meanings between the job seeker and the employer. We argue that in addition to questioning the validity of algorithmic hiring assessments, this raises an often overlooked ethical impact on job seekers’ autonomy over self-representation: their ability to directly represent their identity, lived experiences, and aspirations. Infringement on this autonomy constitutes an infringement on job seekers’ dignity. We suggest beginning to address these issues through epistemological and ethical reflection regarding the choice of assessment paradigm, the means to implement it, and the ethical impacts of these choices. This entails a transdisciplinary effort that would involve job seekers, hiring managers, recruiters, and other professionals and researchers. Combined with a socio-technical design perspective, this may help generate new ideas regarding appropriate roles for human-to-human and human–technology interactions in the hiring process.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}