Coming to Terms with “One per Person”

ARTICULATION of DISCOURSE | May.16,2025

WAKABAYASHI Kaito
Specially Appointed Fellow, The University of Osaka Research Center on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues

As a part of the “Practice on ELSI/RRI of Educational Technology Using Student Educational Data (EdTech)” project, we conducted field surveys including stakeholders from various countries1, in order to study global trends in ELSI and explore response strategies related to the social implementation of EdTech (technology-based educational support services and tools). While visiting Stockholm in February, during this trip I experienced something memorable. In the lobby of my hotel, I noticed a table laid out with pastries that looked like cream puffs. A note on the table described them as ‘semla’ - cardamom-flavored buns filled with whipped cream - and explained that it is a Swedish tradition to enjoy semla every Tuesday from the end of Christmas until Easter. The note inviting guests to take as many as they liked also said at the end: "You can eat as much as you want, but King Adolf Frederick died of indigestion on February 12, 1771, after eating 14 semlor."
This allegorical sentence, which avoided imposing limits such as “one per person” or appealing to ethical judgment such as “within the bounds of common sense”, served to remind me of certain “local nuances” in approaches to decision making.

Emerging technologies such as AI-based ability assessments and biometric emotion analysis are increasingly being introduced into EdTech. Given that much of this educational data involves children, it is essential to carefully consider both privacy protection and the decision-making of pupils and students. In countries such as the U.S. and across Europe, where social implementation of EdTech is advancing, efforts are also underway to adopt ELSI responses as described above. As similar ELSIs are likely to manifest in Japan in the future, it is expected that ELSI response strategies appropriate to Japan's socio-cultural context will be explored at an early stage, drawing on the above case studies and initiatives in other countries.
In this project, we collected and analyzed cases where ELSIs emerged in the social implementation of EdTech. We found that many of these issues arose from improperly obtained consent or insufficient notification regarding data collection and usage.2 A notable concern, particularly with respect to obtaining consent from children and students, relates to situations where they feel that consent is inevitable, often due to fear of potential impact on grades or future opportunities, even when given the right to opt out from data provision (exercise the right to refuse the use of personal information and/or dissemination of information). As a result, discussions in some international case studies have focused on the substantive validity of such consent.

Then, would providing sufficient rights and information, and minimizing the disadvantages associated with that choice result in truly meaningful consent and decision-making?
In interviews with departments involved in the use of educational data at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), conducted as part of the field survey mentioned at the beginning, it was noted that in order for children, students, and guardians to appropriately exercise their rights to provide and select data, it is essential to cultivate the capacity and the motivation to actively shape their own lives and the society. It is equally important to provide them with data literacy education that will enable them to make effective use of this capacity and motivation. For this reason, the OECD is currently working to promote data literacy education, which encompasses the ability to make decisions about data generation and sharing.
We was able to get a glimpse of this emphasis on building decision-making capacity that goes beyond consenting to the provision of data in real educational settings. In Sweden, we had the opportunity to observe classes during a visit to a local elementary school. The school had an educational policy based on the idea that "children choose their own learning methods and take responsibility for their choices”. In a math class, for example, pupils were offered a variety of materials including digital and paper drills and clock-shaped puzzles to learn ways to tell time, and children took the initiative to select and work with their own materials.
In this way, a policy that emphasizes autonomous decision-making, not just by telling individuals to "decide for themselves,” but by cultivating the capacity to make choices while ensuring the safety of those choices, seems to me to be a meaningful approach to navigating an unpredictable era.

However, similar initiatives may not be as effective in Japan. Beyond the practicalities, the fundamental question is: how much do people really want to make their own decisions? In Japan, people may be less inclined to actively make decisions about their privacy, as indicated by the relatively low frequency with which the right to opt out of providing personal information is exercised.3 Either way, in today’s complex and information-saturated era, the sheer number of decisions that people are faced with can lead to a kind of decision fatigue. Some high school students have told me that they can keep watching videos recommended by algorithms (systems that analyze user behavior and traits to deliver personalized content) precisely “because” it spares them from having to make an active choice.
Of course, just “because” someone has not actively chosen does not mean that not making an independent choice is the better option. The right to choose a better future, the education necessary to exercise that right appropriately, and the comfort that comes from not having to make decisions, are all there. Rather than criticizing this comfort and shifting all decision making and their responsibility to children, one of the roles of adults in the context of educational data use may be to help build a society in which children can make their own decisions when they really need to choose.

Going back to the semla story, had the note said "one per person", I would have taken just one without a second thought. But because it said "take as many as you like", the idea of taking two briefly crossed my mind, even though I knew it would probably spoil my appetite for dinner. In the end, it did not matter what I thought - I could not take more than one anyway, since one of my hands was occupied with my suitcase.

Essay All Discours