Q Complex World is a leading publication for interdisciplinary approaches to real-world problems. It is a publication that you will encounter in future courses at Excelsior. For our purposes, we will consider it a peer-reviewed source (as your instructor will be reviewing your submissions) that addresses public issues and problems from an interdisciplinary lens. For your first submission to Complex World at Excelsior University, you will submit a short editorial. We are increasingly seeing peer-reviewed journals invite experts to share insights in the form of these editorials. It is a mechanism to disseminate information to the professional community while the often-lengthy research is in progress around pressing issues, such as the recent pandemic, responses to violent natural and human-made events, and more. For the purposes of this assignment, the editorial team has reviewed your AI proposal for your organization and is very impressed with your work. You have been invited to write an op ed about your work on Ethical AI. The cover of the issue to which you will be submitting your editorial of the theme of the magazine. Remember that editorials are typically opinion pieces; supporting your opinions with data adds to your credibility. So, be sure your opinions are supported by evidence. Assume that Complex World is a leading source of interdisciplinary information for leaders in all fields and careers. Write a short editorial as a forward-thinking leader in your discipline to address the following: Integrating artificial intelligence into organizational infrastructure can be a major undertaking! It is costly and carries many ethical and legal implications. This can test the resolve of any leader! How would you advise other leaders in your discipline to integrate AI into their organizations in an ethical manner that would promote organizational innovation and improvement? What is one ethical concern they might encounter, and what is your advice to them? Think about what you have learned about ethical theory to application and use the ethical framework of your discipline to anchor your advice. Be sure to explicitly state if certain groups have been historically left out of important decision-making and how you recommend ensuring they are part of the process. Evaluation This assignment is worth 30% of your final grade and is assessed using the Complex World Editorial Rubric below. This activity is due Sunday by 11:59 pm ET. References Outcomes Complex World Editorial Template Rubric Click the GSCC icon above to learn more Return to Learning Pathway Rubric IND 501 Complex World Rubric IND 501 Complex World Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis of Evidence 20 to >18.0 pts Exemplary You synthesize the research evidence by analyzing how leaders in your discipline can prepare for integration of AI in a highly ethical manner. 18 to >16.0 pts Proficient You synthesize the research evidence by analyzing how leaders in your discipline can prepare for integration of AI in a highly ethical manner. Minor points require further development. 16 to >14.0 pts Progressing You describe how leaders in your discipline can prepare for integration of AI in a highly ethical manner. Significantly more details are needed to explain how meaningful use impacts health disparities. 14 to >1.0 pts Incomplete You cite evidence; however, there is no explicit connection between the research you have done and how leaders in your discipline can prepare for integration of AI in a highly ethical manner. 1 to >0 pts Not addressed or Not submitted Does not use evidence to support this part of the article. No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThoughtful Stakeholder Discussion 30 to >27.0 pts Exemplary You clearly and concisely describe what other stakeholder groups and/or disciplines should be at the table and explicitly state which groups, if any, have historically been left out of important decision-making. 27 to >24.0 pts Proficient You clearly and concisely describe what other stakeholder groups and/or disciplines should be at the table and state which groups, if any, have historically been left out of important decision-making. Minor points require further development. 24 to >21.0 pts Progressing You identify what other stakeholder groups and/or disciplines should be at the table and state which groups, if any, have historically been left out of important decision-making. However, your attempt is oversimplified. Significantly more details are needed for the reader to understand who needs to be at the table for decision-making. 21 to >1.0 pts Incomplete You attempt to identify what other stakeholder groups and/or disciplines should be at the table and which groups, if any, have historically been left out of important decision-making. However, your attempt is oversimplified and may carry inaccurate information, biases, or assumptions about one or more groups. The reader cannot discern who needs to be at the table for decision-making. 1 to >0 pts Not addressed or Not submitted No discussion of stakeholder groups and/or disciplines. No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeYour Recommendations 30 to >27.0 pts Exemplary You clearly and concisely describe two evidence-based recommendations for leaders in your discipline to prepare for integration of AI in a highly ethical manner and in a way that promotes organizational innovation and/or improvement. You integrate ethical theory and your discipline’s ethical framework to anchor your recommendations, and you integrate highly credible and relevant sources to support your recommendations. 27 to >24.0 pts Proficient You clearly and concisely describe one evidence-based recommendation for leaders in your discipline to prepare for integration of AI in a highly ethical manner and in a way that promotes organizational innovation and/or improvement. You integrate ethical theory and your discipline’s ethical framework to anchor your recommendations, and you integrate credible sources to support your recommendations. Minor points require further development. 24 to >21.0 pts Progressing You identify one evidence-based recommendation for leaders in your discipline to prepare for integration of AI, though your attempt is oversimplified. You cite sources to support your recommendation. You identify theory and/or your discipline’s ethical framework as you discuss your recommendations. Significantly more details are needed for the reader to fully understand the scope of your recommendation. 21 to >1.0 pts Incomplete You attempt to identify one evidence-based recommendation for leaders in your discipline to prepare for integration of AI; your attempt is vastly over simplified and may carry inaccurate information, biases, or assumptions about one or more groups. Sources provided do not support your recommendation attempts. Ethical theory and/or your discipline’s ethical framework are not identified or applied. The reader cannot discern how recommendation connects to integration of AI. 1 to >0 pts Not addressed or Not submitted No recommendations are provided. No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Quality/APA Style 10 to >9.0 pts Exemplary The writing is highly appropriate for a professional journal, skillfully communicates the message(s), and the language flows seamlessly throughout; there are minimal problems with spelling, punctuation, and grammar; APA guidelines for citations and references are followed accurately. 9 to >7.0 pts Proficient There are few problems with organization, clarity or writing conventions. The writing is appropriate for a professional journal, with some inconsistencies (e.g., informal writing, overly opinion-based, use of slang). APA guidelines for citations and references are followed, with only minor errors. Problems and errors are not serious enough to distract the reader. 7 to >5.0 pts Progressing Numerous mechanical errors are distracting; organization of ideas are lacking, but not enough to interfere with meaning. Major areas of the writing are inappropriate for a professional journal (e.g., informal writing, use of slang, overly opinion-based). APA guidelines for citations and references are attempted, with major errors throughout. 5 to >1.0 pts Incomplete Frequent problems with organization, clarity and/or conventions make the writing extremely difficult to read. APA style guidelines for citations and references are not adhered to, which increases the risk of plagiarism. 1 to >0 pts No Marks No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormat and Organization 10 to >9.0 pts Exemplary Communication style and word choice are professional and appropriate for an editorial. Template is used properly. Visuals are engaging and the material is presented in a logical format. 9 to >7.0 pts Proficient Communication style and word choice are professional and appropriate for an editorial. Template is used properly. Visuals are used and material is presented in a logical format. 7 to >5.0 pts Progressing Communication style and word choice are generally professional and appropriate for an editorial, with occasional use of informal language or terminology inappropriate to audience. Template may have a few errors, or visuals or presentation of material are confusing to the reader. 5 to >1.0 pts Incomplete Attempts professional and appropriate communication style and word choice for the intended audience; however, there is frequent use of informal language or terminology inappropriate to the audience. Template may have a few errors or is not used. Visuals or presentation of the material are confusing to the reader. 1 to >0 pts No Marks No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGraduate Student Career Competency 3.2 Recommend strategies for leveraging technologies for organizational innovation and improvement. (This does not factor into your grade) threshold: 3.0 pts 5 pts Exceeds Expectations: Critiques strategies for plausibility and relevance while leveraging technologies for organizational innovation and improvement. 3 pts Meets Expectations: Recommends relevant and plausible strategies for leveraging technologies for organizational innovation and improvement. 1 pts Approaching Expectations: Examines strategies that are plausible or relevant for leveraging technologies for organizational innovation and improvement. 0 pts Developing: Identifies strategies that are not relevant or plausible for leveraging technologies for organizational innovation and improvement. -- Total Points: 100 PreviousNext