Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Population health AI researchers’ perceptions o...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Population health AI researchers’ perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Population health AI researchers’ perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study. / Samuel, G.; Diedericks, H.; Derrick, G.
In: Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 30, No. 2, 28.02.2021, p. 196-211.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Samuel, G, Diedericks, H & Derrick, G 2021, 'Population health AI researchers’ perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study', Public Understanding of Science, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 196-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520965490

APA

Samuel, G., Diedericks, H., & Derrick, G. (2021). Population health AI researchers’ perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study. Public Understanding of Science, 30(2), 196-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520965490

Vancouver

Samuel G, Diedericks H, Derrick G. Population health AI researchers’ perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study. Public Understanding of Science. 2021 Feb 28;30(2):196-211. Epub 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1177/0963662520965490

Author

Samuel, G. ; Diedericks, H. ; Derrick, G. / Population health AI researchers’ perceptions of the public portrayal of AI : A pilot study. In: Public Understanding of Science. 2021 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 196-211.

Bibtex

@article{e75b21923c0144e7a65cb2de8a78510e,
title = "Population health AI researchers{\textquoteright} perceptions of the public portrayal of AI: A pilot study",
abstract = "This article reports how 18 UK and Canadian population health artificial intelligence researchers in Higher Education Institutions perceive the use of artificial intelligence systems in their research, and how this compares with their perceptions about the media portrayal of artificial intelligence systems. This is triangulated with a small scoping analysis of how UK and Canadian news articles portray artificial intelligence systems associated with health research and care. Interviewees had concerns about what they perceived as sensationalist reporting of artificial intelligence systems – a finding reflected in the media analysis. In line with Pickersgill{\textquoteright}s concept of {\textquoteleft}epistemic modesty{\textquoteright}, they considered artificial intelligence systems better perceived as non-exceptionalist methodological tools that were uncertain and unexciting. Adopting {\textquoteleft}epistemic modesty{\textquoteright} was sometimes hindered by stakeholders to whom the research is disseminated, who may be less interested in hearing about the uncertainties of scientific practice, having implications on both research and policy. {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2020.",
keywords = "AI, artificial intelligence, digital data, expectations, health, health technology, hype, interviews, media, newspaper, qualitative research",
author = "G. Samuel and H. Diedericks and G. Derrick",
year = "2021",
month = feb,
day = "28",
doi = "10.1177/0963662520965490",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "196--211",
journal = "Public Understanding of Science",
issn = "0963-6625",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Population health AI researchers’ perceptions of the public portrayal of AI

T2 - A pilot study

AU - Samuel, G.

AU - Diedericks, H.

AU - Derrick, G.

PY - 2021/2/28

Y1 - 2021/2/28

N2 - This article reports how 18 UK and Canadian population health artificial intelligence researchers in Higher Education Institutions perceive the use of artificial intelligence systems in their research, and how this compares with their perceptions about the media portrayal of artificial intelligence systems. This is triangulated with a small scoping analysis of how UK and Canadian news articles portray artificial intelligence systems associated with health research and care. Interviewees had concerns about what they perceived as sensationalist reporting of artificial intelligence systems – a finding reflected in the media analysis. In line with Pickersgill’s concept of ‘epistemic modesty’, they considered artificial intelligence systems better perceived as non-exceptionalist methodological tools that were uncertain and unexciting. Adopting ‘epistemic modesty’ was sometimes hindered by stakeholders to whom the research is disseminated, who may be less interested in hearing about the uncertainties of scientific practice, having implications on both research and policy. © The Author(s) 2020.

AB - This article reports how 18 UK and Canadian population health artificial intelligence researchers in Higher Education Institutions perceive the use of artificial intelligence systems in their research, and how this compares with their perceptions about the media portrayal of artificial intelligence systems. This is triangulated with a small scoping analysis of how UK and Canadian news articles portray artificial intelligence systems associated with health research and care. Interviewees had concerns about what they perceived as sensationalist reporting of artificial intelligence systems – a finding reflected in the media analysis. In line with Pickersgill’s concept of ‘epistemic modesty’, they considered artificial intelligence systems better perceived as non-exceptionalist methodological tools that were uncertain and unexciting. Adopting ‘epistemic modesty’ was sometimes hindered by stakeholders to whom the research is disseminated, who may be less interested in hearing about the uncertainties of scientific practice, having implications on both research and policy. © The Author(s) 2020.

KW - AI

KW - artificial intelligence

KW - digital data

KW - expectations

KW - health

KW - health technology

KW - hype

KW - interviews

KW - media

KW - newspaper

KW - qualitative research

U2 - 10.1177/0963662520965490

DO - 10.1177/0963662520965490

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 196

EP - 211

JO - Public Understanding of Science

JF - Public Understanding of Science

SN - 0963-6625

IS - 2

ER -