skip to main content
10.1145/3351095.3372874acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Toward situated interventions for algorithmic equity: lessons from the field

Published: 27 January 2020 Publication History

Editorial Notes

The authors have requested minor, non-substantive changes to the VoR and, in accordance with ACM policies, a Corrected VoR was published on April 21, 2020. For reference purposes the VoR may still be accessed via the Supplemental Material section on this page.

Abstract

Research to date aimed at the fairness, accountability, and transparency of algorithmic systems has largely focused on topics such as identifying failures of current systems and on technical interventions intended to reduce bias in computational processes. Researchers have given less attention to methods that account for the social and political contexts of specific, situated technical systems at their points of use. Co-developing algorithmic accountability interventions in communities supports outcomes that are more likely to address problems in their situated context and re-center power with those most disparately affected by the harms of algorithmic systems. In this paper we report on our experiences using participatory and co-design methods for algorithmic accountability in a project called the Algorithmic Equity Toolkit. The main insights we gleaned from our experiences were: (i) many meaningful interventions toward equitable algorithmic systems are non-technical; (ii) community organizations derive the most value from localized materials as opposed to what is "scalable" beyond a particular policy context; (iii) framing harms around algorithmic bias suggests that more accurate data is the solution, at the risk of missing deeper questions about whether some technologies should be used at all. More broadly, we found that community-based methods are important inroads to addressing algorithmic harms in their situated contexts.

Supplementary Material

3372874-VoR (3372874-vor.pdf)
Version of Record for "Toward situated interventions for algorithmic equity: lessons from the field" by Katell et al., Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '20).

References

[1]
Philip E Agre. 1997. Lessons learned in trying to reform AI. Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide (1997), 131.
[2]
Mariam Asad, Christopher A Le Dantec, Becky Nielsen, and Kate Diedrick. 2017. Creating a sociotechnical API: Designing city-scale community engagement. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2295--2306.
[3]
Stephanie Ballard, Karen M Chappell, and Kristen Kennedy. 2019. Judgment call the game: Using value sensitive design and design fiction to surface ethical concerns related to technology. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, 421--433.
[4]
Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factor in Computing Systems. ACM, 1301--1310.
[5]
Solon Barocas and Danah Boyd. 2017. Engaging the ethics of data science in practice. Commun. ACM 60, 11 (2017), 23--25.
[6]
Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Captivating Technology: Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life. Duke University Press.
[7]
Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. John Wiley & Sons.
[8]
Davide Beraldo and Stefania Milan. 2019. From data politics to the contentious politics of data. Big Data & Society 6, 2 (2019), 2053951719885967.
[9]
O Fals Borda. 2006. Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. Handbook of Action Research (2006), 27--37.
[10]
Dimitrios Bountouridis, Jaron Harambam, Mykola Makhortykh, Mónica Marrero, Nava Tintarev, and Claudia Hauff. 2019. SIREN: A Simulation framework for understanding the effects of recommender systems in online news environments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 150--159.
[11]
Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 77--91.
[12]
Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2018. Design Justice: Towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice. Proceedings of the Design Research Society (2018).
[13]
Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design Justice: Community-led Practices to Build the World We Need. MIT Press.
[14]
Lina Dencik, Arne Hintz, Joanna Redden, and Emiliano Treré. 2019. Exploring Data Justice: Conceptions, Applications and Directions.
[15]
Carl DiSalvo, Jonathan Lukens, Thomas Lodato, Tom Jenkins, and Tanyoung Kim. 2014. Making public things: How HCI design can express matters of concern. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2397--2406.
[16]
Paul Dourish. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8, 1 (2004), 19--30.
[17]
Jenny Durkan. 2012. EXHIBIT A (Settlement Agreement and Stipulated [Proposed] Order of Resolution, Office of the Mayor of Seattle) - 1 12-CV-1282., 76 pages.
[18]
Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren Klein. 2020. Data Feminism.
[19]
Severin Engelmann, Mo Chen, Felix Fischer, Ching-yu Kao, and Jens Grossklags. 2019. Clear sanctions, vague rewards: How China's social credit system currently defines good and bad behavior. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 69--78.
[20]
Christine Floyd, Wolf-Michael Mehl, Fanny-Michaela Resin, Gerhard Schmidt, and Gregor Wolf. 1989. Out of Scandinavia: Alternative approaches to software design and system development. Human-Computer Interaction 4, 4 (1989), 253--350.
[21]
Sarah Fox, Mariam Asad, Katherine Lo, Jill P Dimond, Lynn S Dombrowski, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2016. Exploring social justice, design, and HCI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3293--3300.
[22]
Paulo Freire. 2018. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
[23]
Batya Friedman and David Hendry. 2012. The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1145--1148.
[24]
Bill Gaver, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. 1999. Design: Cultural probes. interactions 6, 1 (1999), 21--29.
[25]
Ben Green and Yiling Chen. 2019. Disparate interactions: An algorithm-in-the-loop analysis of fairness in risk assessments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 90--99.
[26]
Egon G Guba and Yvonna S Lincoln. 2005. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. (2005).
[27]
Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14, 3 (1988), 575--599.
[28]
Sandra G Harding. 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Psychology Press.
[29]
Nancy CM Hartsock. 2017. The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Karl Marx. Routledge, 565--592.
[30]
Woodrow Hartzog and Evan Selinger. 2018. Facial recognition is the perfect tool for oppression. Medium (2018).
[31]
Gillian R. Hayes. 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 18, 3 (2011), 1--20.
[32]
Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2019. Where fairness fails: Data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (2019), 900--915.
[33]
Elizabeth E Joh. 2014. Policing by numbers: Big data and the Fourth Amendment. Wash. L. Rev. 89 (2014), 35.
[34]
Holtzblatt Karen and Jones Sandra. 2017. Contextual inquiry: A participatory technique for system design. In Participatory Design. CRC Press, 177--210.
[35]
Michael Katell. 2018. Adverse detection: The promise and peril of body-worn cameras. In SURVEILLANCE, PRIVACY AND PUBLIC SPACE., Bryce Clayton Newell, Tjerk Timan, and Bert-Jaap Koops (Eds.). Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, 99--118. OCLC: 1009072661.
[36]
Michael Katell, Meg Young, Bernease Herman, Dharma Dailey, Aaron Tam, Vivian Guetler, Corinne Binz, Daniella Raz, and PM Krafft. 2019. An Algorithmic Equity Toolkit for Technology Audits by Community Advocates and Activists. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02943 (2019).
[37]
Finn Kensing and Jeanette Blomberg. 1998. Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 7, 3-4 (1998), 167--185.
[38]
Finn Kensing and Kim Halskov Madsen. 1992. Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphorical design. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
[39]
Os Keyes, Josephine Hoy, and Margaret Drouhard. 2019. Human-computer insurrection: Notes on an anarchist HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 339.
[40]
Sean A Kidd and Michael J Kral. 2005. Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52, 2 (2005), 187.
[41]
PM Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Karen Huang, and Ghislain Bugingo. 2020. Defining Artificial Intelligence in Policy versus Practice. Proceedings of the 2020 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES). (2020).
[42]
Nick Logler, Daisy Yoo, and Batya Friedman. 2018. Metaphor cards: A how-to-guide for making and using a generative metaphorical design toolkit. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, 1373--1386.
[43]
Lassana Magassa, Meg Young, and Batya Friedman. 2017. Diverse Voices: A how-to guide for creating more inclusive tech policy documents. Tech Policy Lab (2017).
[44]
Momin M Malik, Katja Mayer, Hemank Lamba, and Claudia Müller-Birn. [n. d.]. Workshop on Critical Data Science. ([n. d.]).
[45]
Robin McTaggart. 1991. Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly 41, 3 (1991), 168--187.
[46]
Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 220--229.
[47]
Laura Moy. 2019. How police technology aggravates racial inequity: A taxonomy of problems and a path forward. Available at SSRN 3340898 (2019).
[48]
Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Heuristic evaluation. In Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 25--62.
[49]
Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.
[50]
Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 6464 (2019), 447--453.
[51]
Frank Pasquale. 2015. The Black Box Society. Harvard University Press.
[52]
Samir Passi and Solon Barocas. 2019. Problem formulation and fairness. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency - FAT* '19. ACM Press, Atlanta, GA, USA, 39--48.
[53]
Seeta Peña Gangadharan and Jędrzej Niklas. 2019. Decentering technology in discourse on discrimination. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (2019), 882--899.
[54]
Md Anisur Rahman. 2008. Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (2008), 49--62.
[55]
Marc Rettig. 1994. Prototyping for tiny fingers. Commun. ACM 37, 4 (1994), 21--27.
[56]
Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design 4, 1 (2008), 5--18.
[57]
Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory design: Principles and practices. CRC Press.
[58]
Andrew D Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 59--68.
[59]
Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication 52, 2 (2005), 163--174.
[60]
Luke Stark. 2019. Facial recognition is the plutonium of AI. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 25, 3 (2019), 50--55.
[61]
Lucy A Suchman. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press.
[62]
Meredith Whittaker, Kate Crawford, Roel Dobbe, Genevieve Fried, Elizabeth Kaziunas, Varoon Mathur, Sarah Mysers West, Rashida Richardson, Jason Schultz, and Oscar Schwartz. 2018. AI Now Report 2018. AI Now Institute at New York University.
[63]
Ke Yang, Julia Stoyanovich, Abolfazl Asudeh, Bill Howe, HV Jagadish, and Gerome Miklau. 2018. A nutritional label for rankings. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 1773--1776.
[64]
Daisy Yoo, Alina Huldtgren, Jill Palzkill Woelfer, David G Hendry, and Batya Friedman. 2013. A value sensitive action-reflection model: Evolving a co-design space with stakeholder and designer prompts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 419--428.
[65]
Meg Young, Michael Katell, and P. M. Krafft. 2019. Municipal surveillance regulation and algorithmic accountability. Big Data & Society 6, 2 (2019).
[66]
Meg Young, Lassana Magassa, and Batya Friedman. 2019. Toward inclusive tech policy design: A method for underrepresented voices to strengthen tech policy documents. Ethics and Information Technology 21, 2 (2019), 89--103.
[67]
Meg Young, Luke Rodriguez, Emily Keller, Feiyang Sun, Boyang Sa, Jan Whittington, and Bill Howe. 2019. Beyond open vs. closed: Balancing individual privacy and public accountability in data sharing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 191--200.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
FAT* '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
January 2020
895 pages
ISBN:9781450369367
DOI:10.1145/3351095
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 January 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • UW Tech Policy Lab
  • ACLU of Washington
  • Washington Research Foundation
  • UW eScience Institute
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Conference

FAT* '20
Sponsor:

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)772
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)81
Reflects downloads up to 13 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media