Search results

Most scholarly and governmental discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) today focus on a country’s technological competitiveness and try to identify how this supposedly new technological capability will improve productivity. Some discussions look at AI ethics. But AI is more than a technological advancement. It is a social question and requires philosophical inquiry. The producers of AI who are software engineers and designers, and software users who are human resource professionals and managers, unconsciously as well as consciously project direct forms of intelligence onto machines themselves, without considering in any depth the practical implications of this when weighed against human actual or perceived intelligences. Neither do they think about the relations of production that are required for the development and production of AI and its capabilities, where data-producing human workers are expected not only to accept the intelligences of machines, now called ‘smart machines’, but also to endure particularly difficult working conditions for bodies and minds in the process of creating and expanding the datasets that are required for the development of AI itself. This chapter asks, who is the smart worker today and how does she contribute to AI through her quantified, but embodied labour?

It is salient to be acquainted with the key elements that determine educational tourists’ decision in selecting an overseas destination while considering the rise of international competition amidst nations concerning international students. There has been a growth in the number of nations committed to attracting educational tourists. This issue is evident in countries involved in higher education (HE), such as Northern Cyprus, identified as an edu-tourism destination. Northern Cyprus can attract a whopping number of tourists, and the higher population is most likely to be made up of international students regardless of its interdiction on direct flights and political pressure. This chapter centres on analysing educational tourists’ motivators in selecting a tourism education destination abroad and on revealing effective recruitment and promotion plans towards attracting them. The chapter includes the descriptions and discussions of educational tourism, the HE industry over the years, globalisation and internationalisation of educational tourism, factors influencing educational tourists’ decision-making process and key elements influencing educational tourists’ decisions in HE institutions. At the end of the chapter, a case study is presented that reports the findings of interviews with educational tourists, overseas recruitment agents and Eastern Mediterranean University staff responsible for promoting the institution. The results identified eight factors affecting educational tourists’ decisions on study destination. Those factors comprise cost, ease of access, location, social factors, quality of education, instruction language, cultural environment and communication quality. The sub-factors of the main eight factors are scholarships, destination’s scenery, safety, friends’ and relatives’ influence and cultural differences. This chapter brings a significant knowledge about the motives that affect educational tourists in selecting at a particular HE destination. Based on the study’s findings, educational institutions may consider various recommendations to redesign their strategies towards attracting educational tourists more effectively. Generally, this study promotes an apprehension about the diverse elements that affect educational tourists’ selection of a destination study. An in-depth understanding of these factors will help education institutions’ decision-makers better develop plans of action to provide desired services to educational tourists, attract and keep them in return.

Although media and research accounts of cyber bullying suggest this misbehavior is localized primarily among middle school students, and that its frequency decreases with age, this chapter presents empirical data showing that cyber bullying occurs with considerable frequency among college students across multiple domains of life, specifically school and work. In Study 1, 28 male and 82 female undergraduate students completed a survey examining their online activities as well as their experiences with cyber bullying. Over 30% of the participants indicated that their first experience with cyber bullying was in college. No gender differences were observed with regard to victimization or perpetration, except with online gaming where males reported a higher rate of victimization than females. With regard to personality differences among victims and perpetrators, victims were lower in agreeableness than non-victims. Study 2 examined the prevalence of cyber bullying among 107 college students at work, as well as the negative outcomes linked to the experience of workplace cyber bullying. Nearly a third of the college student sample reported having been the target of cyber bullying within the past six months. Individuals in jobs in which the Internet is essential and racial minorities reported higher rates of cyber bullying at work. Additionally, cyber bullying was positively linked to several negative emotions, as well as burnout and job search effort. These findings have important implications not only for potential negative outcomes that college students may be facing at school and at work but also for organizational justice issues, as differential treatment at work can lead to lawsuits and other negative work outcomes.