Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-bthnr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-27T07:36:07.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice: Exploring Theoretical Frameworks for Algorithmic Literacy in the Legal Information Profession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2021

Dominique Garingan  and
Alison Jane Pickard
Get access

Abstract

In response to evolving legal technologies, this article by Dominique Garingan and Alison Jane Pickard explores the concept of algorithmic literacy, a technological literacy which facilitates metacognitive practices surrounding the use of artificially intelligent systems and the principles that shape ethical and responsible user experiences. This article examines the extent to which existing information, digital, and computer literacy frameworks and professional competency standards ground algorithmic literacy. It proceeds to identify various elements of algorithmic literacy within existing literature, provide examples of algorithmic literacy initiatives in academic and non-academic settings, and explore the need for an algorithmic literacy framework to ground algorithmic literacy initiatives within the legal information profession.

Keywords

legal information professionalslegal professionlegal technologyalgorithmic literaryarticial intelligence

Information

Type
AI, Algorithms and the Legal Information World
Information
Legal Information Management , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 97 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This article is based on the literature review conducted by Dominique Garingan for a dissertation to be submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc Information Science at Northumbria University. The research was supervised by Dr Alison Jane Pickard.

References

Footnotes

1 Swansburg, Carla. (2021) ‘Research and Writing' in Litigating artificial intelligence, Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2021Google Scholar.

2 Legg, Michael, and Bell, Felicity. (2020) Artificial intelligence and the legal profession. Oxford, Hart PublishingCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Liu, Hin-Yan, Maas, Matthijs, Danaher, John, Scarcella, Luisa, Lexer, Michaela, and Van Rompaey, Leonard. (2020) Artificial intelligence and legal disruption: a new model for analysis. Law, Innovation and Technology 12(2), 205–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Intahchomphoo, Channarong, Vellino, André, Gundersen, Odd Erik, Tschirhart, Christian, and Shaaban, Eslam. (2020) References to artificial intelligence in Canada's court case. Legal Information Management 20(1), 39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Soares, Leanne. (2020) Artificial intelligence in Canadian law libraries. Canadian Law Library Review 45(4), 16–21Google Scholar.

6 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Johnson, Ben. (2018) Libraries in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers in Libraries 38(1), pp 14–16Google Scholar.

8 Baker, Jamie J. (2018a) 2018: a legal research odyssey: artificial intelligence as disruptor. Law Library Journal 110(1), 5–30.

9 Alarie, B., Niblett, Anthony, and Yoon, Albert H.. (2018) How artificial intelligence will affect the practice of law. University of Toronto Law Journal 68(S1), 106–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Ashley, Kevin D. (2017) Artificial intelligence and legal analytics: new tools for law practice in the digital age. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Hilt, Kailee. (2017) What does the future hold for the law librarian in the advent of artificial intelligence? Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 41(3), 211–227Google Scholar.

12 Goodman, Joanna. (2016) Robots in law: how artificial intelligence is transforming legal services. London, Ark Group.

13 Swansburg, Carla. (2021) ‘Research and Writing’ in Litigating artificial intelligence, Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2021.

14 Callister, Paul D. (2020) Law, artificial intelligence, and natural language processing: a funny thing happened on the way to my search results. Law Library Journal 112(2), 161–212.

15 Nayyer, Kim P., Marcelo Rodriguez, and Sarah Sutherland. (2020) Artificial intelligence and implicit bias: with great power comes great responsibility: addressing the biases inherent in the datasets that drive ai applications and their algorithms. AALL Spectrum 24(5), 14–16.

16 Wojcik, Malwina Anna. (2020) Machine-learnt bias? algorithmic decision making and access to criminal justice. Legal Information Management 20(2), 99–100.

17 Yu, Ronald, and Gabriele Spina Alì. (2019) What's inside the black box? ai challenges for lawyers and researchers. Legal Information Management 19(1), 2–13.

18 Bhattacharya, Paheli, Shounak Paul, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Saptarshi Ghosh, and Adam Wyner. (2019) ‘Identification of Rhetorical Roles of Sentences in Indian Legal Judgments’ (paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Madrid, December 11–13, 2019).

19 Gardner, Carolyn Caffey. (2019) Teaching algorithmic bias in a credit-bearing course. International Information and Library Review 51(4), 321–327.

20 Henry, Geneva. (2019) Research librarians as guides and navigators for ai policies at universities. Research Library Issues 299(4), 47–65.

21 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

22 Turner, Jacob. (2018) Robot rules: regulating artificial intelligence. Cham, Springer International Publishing.

23 Baker, Jamie J. (2018a) 2018: a legal research odyssey: artificial intelligence as disruptor. Law Library Journal 110(1), 5–30.

24 Kennedy, Rónán. (2017) Algorithms and the rule of law. Legal Information Management 17(3), 170–172.

25 Kitchin, Rob. (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society 20(1), 14–29.

26 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

27 Clark, Jason, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, and Scott Young. (2017) Research – unpacking the algorithms that shape our ux. Research Grant Proposal, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2017. https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/grants/re-72-17-0103-17/proposals/re-72-17-0103-17-full-proposaldocuments.pdf accessed: April 10, 2021.

28 Shute, Valerie J., Chen Sun, and Jodi Asbell-Clarke. (2017) Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review 22, 142–158.

29 Bakke, Abigail. (2020) Everyday googling: results of an observational study and applications for teaching algorithmic literacy. Computers and Composition 57, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102577.

30 Rainie, Lee, and Janna Anderson. (2017) Code-dependent: pros and cons of the algorithm age. Pew Research Centre. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/02/08/code-dependent-pros-and-cons-of-the-algorithm-age/.

31 Leander, Kevin M., and Sarah K. Burriss. (2020) Critical literacy for a posthuman world: when people read, and become, with machines. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(4), 1262–1276.

32 Horton, Fabian. (2017) Tech competency: a new standard. Law Institute Journal 91(9). Accessed April 17, 2021. https://www.liv.asn.au/Staying-Informed/LIJ/LIJ/September-2017/Tech-Competency--A-New-Standard.

33 Johnson, Ben. (2018) Libraries in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers in Libraries 38(1), pp 14–16.

34 Gardner, Carolyn Caffey. (2019) Teaching algorithmic bias in a credit-bearing course. International Information and Library Review 51(4), 321–327.

35 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

36 Galloway, Kate. (2017) A rationale and framework for digital literacies in legal education. Legal Education Review 27(1), 117–142.

37 Binsfeld, Anne. (2019) New barristers’ information literacy challenges as they transition from education to the workplace. Legal Information Management 19 (1), 36–45.

38 Hoechsmann, Michael, and Helen DeWaard. (2015) Mapping digital literacy policy and practice in the Canadian education landscape. MediaSmarts. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/publication-report/full/mapping-digital-literacy.pdf.

39 Bawden, David. (2001) Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation 57(2), 218–259.

40 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2018) A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2. Information Paper No. 51, June 2018, Montreal, Quebec. Accessed March 21, 2021. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ip51-global-frameworkreference-digital-literacy-skills-2018-en.pdf.

41 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

42 Kalantzis, Mary, Bill Cope, and Anne Cloonan. (2010) “A multiliteracies perspective on the new literacies” in The new literacies: multiple perspectives on research and practice. New York, Guildford, 2010. 61–87

43 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

44 Cox, Andrew M. (2021) The impact of AI, machine learning, automation and robotics on the information professions. Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). Accessed May 19, 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19gWoLV_rSP1qKS9Z8KOoorRAQuHmFN4u/view.

45 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

46 Gardner, Carolyn Caffey. (2019) Teaching algorithmic bias in a credit-bearing course. International Information and Library Review 51(4), 321-–27.

47 American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016) Framework for information literacy in higher education. Chicago, Association of College and Research Libraries. Accessed March 21, 2021. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

48 Clark, Jason, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, and Scott Young. (2017) Re:search - unpacking the algorithms that shape our ux. Research Grant Proposal, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2017. Accessed April 10, 2021. https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/grants/re-72-17-0103-17/proposals/re-72-17-0103-17-full-proposaldocuments.pdf.

49 SCONUL Working Group of Information Literacy. (2011) The SCONUL seven pillars of information literacy: core model. Society of College, National and University Libraries. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf.

50 Legal Education and Training Group. (2013) Setting standards: the future of legal services education training and regulation in England and Wales. Legal Education and Training Review. Accessed March 30, 2021. http://www.letr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/LETR-Report.pdf.

51 British and Irish Association of Law Libraries. (2012) Legal information literacy statement – five-stage model. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://biall.org.uk/careers/biall-legal-information-literacy-statement/.

52 American Association of Law Libraries. (2010) Competencies of law librarianship. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://www.aallnet.org/about-us/what-we-do/policies/public-policies/competencies-of-law-librarianship/.

53 American Association of Law Libraries. (2020) Principles and standards for legal research competency. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.aallnet.org/advocacy/legal-research-competency/principles-and-standards-for-legal-research-competency/.

54 Baker, Jamie J. (2018b) Beyond the information age: the duty of technology competence in the algorithmic society. South Carolina Law Review 69(3). 557–578.

55 Goltz, Nachshon (Sean), and Giulia Dondoli. (2019) A note on science, legal research and artificial intelligence. Information and Communications Technology Law 28(3). 239–251.

56 Kaplan, Jerry. (2016) Artificial intelligence: what everyone needs to know. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

57 Kennedy, Mary Lee. (2019) What do artificial intelligence (ai) and ethics of AI mean in the context of research libraries?. Research Library Issues 299(4), 3–13.

58 Selber, Stuart A. (2004) Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

59 Selber, Stuart A. (2004) Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

60 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and I know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

61 Bloom, Benjamin S. (ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives. London, Longmans, Green and Co Ltd.

62 Krathwohl, David R. (2002) A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice 41(4), 212–218.

63 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

64 Selber, Stuart A. (2004) Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

65 Galloway, Kate. (2017) A rationale and framework for digital literacies in legal education. Legal Education Review 27(1), 117–142.

66 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

67 Binsfeld, Anne. (2019) New barristers’ information literacy challenges as they transition from education to the workplace. Legal Information Management 19 (1), 36–45.

68 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

69 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

70 de Mul, Jos, and van den Berg, Bibi. (2011) ‘Remote control: human autonomy in the age of computer-mediated agency’ in Law, human agency and autonomic computing, Abingdon, Routledge, 2011.

71 Henry, Geneva. (2019) Research librarians as guides and navigators for ai policies at universities. Research Library Issues 299(4), 47–65.

72 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

73 Turner, Jacob. (2018) Robot rules: regulating artificial intelligence. Cham, Springer International Publishing.

74 Whitenack, D. (2016) Hold your machine learning and ai models accountable. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://medium.com/pachyderm-data/hold-your-machine-learning-and-ai-models-accountable-de887177174c.

75 Verheij, Bart. (2020) Artificial intelligence as law: presidential address to the seventeenth international conference on artifcial intelligence and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 28(3), 181–206.

76 Turner, Jacob. (2018) Robot rules: regulating artificial intelligence. Cham, Springer International Publishing.

77 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

78 Stevenson, Colin and Jesse Beatson. (2021) ‘AI-enabled litigation tools: an introduction’ in Litigating artificial intelligence, Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2021.

79 Wiggins, Samuel. (2019) Reflections on current trends and predictions for commercial law libraries. Legal Information Management 19(2), 94–97.

80 Smith, Alex. (2016) Big data technology, evolving knowledge skills and emerging roles. Legal Information Management 16(4), 219–224.

81 Mishkin, Steve. (2017) How can law librarians most effectively provide legal research training?. Legal Information Management 17 (1), 34–68.

82 Kitchin, Rob. (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society 20(1), 14–29.

83 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

84 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

85 Selber, Stuart A. (2004) Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

86 Liu, Hin-Yan. (2018) The power structure of artificial intelligence. Law, Innovation and Technology 10(2), 197–229.

87 Jones, Yolanda P. (2016) Expansive legal research. International Journal of Legal Information 44(3), 241–268.

88 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

89 Kennedy, Mary Lee. (2019) What do artificial intelligence (ai) and ethics of ai mean in the context of research libraries?. Research Library Issues 299(4), 3–13.

90 Janoski-Haehlen, Emily. (2019) Robots, blockchain, ESI, oh my!: why law schools are (or should be) teaching legal technology. Legal Reference Services Quarterly 38(3), 77–101.

91 Mishkin, Steve. (2017) How can law librarians most effectively provide legal research training?. Legal Information Management 17 (1), 34–68.

92 Galloway, Kate. (2017) A rationale and framework for digital literacies in legal education. Legal Education Review 27(1), 117–142.

93 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

94 Henry, Geneva. (2019) Research librarians as guides and navigators for ai policies at universities. Research Library Issues 299(4), 47–65.

95 Binsfeld, Anne. (2019) New barristers’ information literacy challenges as they transition from education to the workplace. Legal Information Management 19 (1), 36–45.

96 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

97 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

98 Clark, Jason, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, and Scott Young. (2017) Re:search - unpacking the algorithms that shape our UX. Research Grant Proposal, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2017. Accessed April 10, 2021. https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/grants/re-72-17-0103-17/proposals/re-72-17-0103-17-full-proposaldocuments.pdf.

99 Burchfield, Jessie Wallace. (2020) Tomorrow's law libraries: academic law librarians forging the way to the future in the new world of legal education. Law Library Journal 113(1), 5–30.

100 Margolis, Ellie, and Kristen E. Murray. (2012) Say goodbye to the books: information literacy as the new legal research paradigm. University of Dayton Law Review 38(1), 117–56.

101 Mishkin, Steve. (2017) How can law librarians most effectively provide legal research training?. Legal Information Management 17 (1), 34–68.

102 Henry, Geneva. (2019) Research librarians as guides and navigators for ai policies at universities. Research Library Issues 299(4), 47–65.

103 Tucker, Anne, and Ben Chapman. (2019) The legal analytics & innovation initiative: GSU college of law's cutting-edge data analytics courses prepare law students for the legal jobs of tomorrow. AALL Spectrum 24(2), 16–19.

104 Mart, Susan Nevelow. (2017) The algorithm as a human artifact: implications for legal [re]search. Law Library Journal 109(3), 387–422.

105 Callister, Paul D. (2020) Law, artificial intelligence, and natural language processing: a funny thing happened on the way to my search results. Law Library Journal 112(2), 161–212.

106 Kitchin, Rob. (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society 20(1), 14–29.

107 Cox, Andrew M. (2021) The impact of AI, machine learning, automation and robotics on the information professions. Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). Accessed May 19, 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19gWoLV_rSP1qKS9Z8KOoorRAQuHmFN4u/view.

108 Bakke, Abigail. (2020) Everyday googling: results of an observational study and applications for teaching algorithmic literacy. Computers and Composition 57, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102577.

109 Kitchin, Rob. (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society 20(1), 14–29.

110 Woellhaf, Adam. (2017) Legal research training at Middle Temple Library. Legal Information Management 17 (3), 155–162.

111 Vickery, Barry. (2018) Reaching and teaching millennials: designing the future of student services. Legal Information Management 18(4), 219–226.

112 Burchfield, Jessie Wallace. (2021) Tomorrow's law libraries: academic law librarians forging the way to the future in the new world of legal education. Law Library Journal 113(1), 5–30.

113 Azyndar, Susan. (2015–16) Work with me here: collaborative learning in the legal research classroom. Legal Information Review 1, 1–30.

114 Talley, Nancy B. (2014) Are you doing it backward? improving information literacy instruction using the AALL principles and standards for legal research competency, taxonomies, and backward design. Law Library Journal 106(1), 47–68.

115 Gardner, Carolyn Caffey. (2019) Teaching algorithmic bias in a credit-bearing course. International Information and Library Review 51(4), 321–327.

116 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

117 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

118 Margolis, Ellie, and Kristen E. Murray. (2012) Say goodbye to the books: information literacy as the new legal research paradigm. University of Dayton Law Review 38(1), 117–56.

119 Zahid, Anowar. (2017) Metacognitive assessment as means of learning and teaching. The Law Teacher 23(2), 6–7.

120 Tangney, S. (2014) ‘Student-centred learning: A humanist perspective’, Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), pp. 266–275.

121 Gerdy, Kristin B. (2001) Making the connection: learning style theory and the legal research curriculum. Legal Reference Services Quarterly 19(3–4), 71–93.

122 Grossman, Maura R., and Gordon V. Cormack. (2021) “Vetting and validation of ai-embedded tools for electronic discovery” in Litigating artificial intelligence, Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2021.

123 Grossman, Maura R. and Rees W. Morrison. (2019) 7 questions lawyers should ask vendors about their AI products. New York State Bar Association Journal 91(2), 49–53.

124 Wiggins, Samuel. (2019) Reflections on current trends and predictions for commercial law libraries. Legal Information Management 19(2), 94–97.

125 Becker, Josh. (2019) Promoting data competency in law firms: how law librarians can lead the charge to help firms master data analytics and new legal technologies. AALL Spectrum 24(2), 20–22.

126 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

127 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

128 Kitchin, Rob. (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society 20(1), 14–29.

129 Swansburg, Carla. (2021) “Research and Writing” in in Litigating artificial intelligence, Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2021.

130 Wang, Zhiqiong June. (2019) Between constancy and change: legal practice and legal education in the age of technology. Law in Context: A Socio-Legal Journal 36(1), 64–79.

131 Swansburg, Carla. (2021) “Research and Writing” in in Litigating artificial intelligence, Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2021.

132 Turner, Jacob. (2018) Robot rules: regulating artificial intelligence. Cham, Springer International Publishing.

133 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and I know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

134 Selber, Stuart A. (2004) Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

135 Yu, Ronald, and Gabriele Spina Alì. (2019) What's inside the black box? AI challenges for lawyers and researchers. Legal Information Management 19(1), 2–13.

136 Kitchin, Rob. (2017) Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication and Society 20(1), 14–29.

137 Koenig, Abby. (2020) The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102611.

138 Yu, Ronald, and Gabriele Spina Alì. (2019) What's inside the black box? AI challenges for lawyers and researchers. Legal Information Management 19(1), 2–13.

139 Gramming, Ann-Christin Karlén, Elisabeth Ejemyr, and Elin Thunell. (2019) Implementing nano-learning in the law firm. Legal Information Management 19(4), 241–246.

140 Aman, Holger. (2019) The legal information landscape: change is the new normal. Legal Information Management 19(2), 98–101.

141 Coleman, C. N. (2017) Artificial intelligence and the library of the future, revisited. Digital Library Blog, Stanford Libraries. Accessed April 10, 2021. http://library.stanford.edu/blogs/digital-library-blog/2017/11/artificial-intelligence-and-library-future-revisited.

142 Araszkiewicz, Michał, and Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel. (eds.) (2019) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2019, The Thirty-second Annual Conference. Amsterdam, IOS Press.

143 Ridley, Michael. (2019) Explainable artificial intelligence. Research Library Issues 299(4), 28–46.

144 Stevenson, Colin and Beatson, Jesse. (2021) “AI-enabled litigation tools: an introduction” in Litigating Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, Emond Montgomery, 2021Google Scholar.