Manifesting the sociotechnical: experimenting with methods for social context and social justice

E. Goss, Lily Hu, Manuel Sabin, Stephanie Teeple
{"title":"Manifesting the sociotechnical: experimenting with methods for social context and social justice","authors":"E. Goss, Lily Hu, Manuel Sabin, Stephanie Teeple","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3375682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Critiques of 'algorithmic fairness' have counseled against a purely technical approach. Recent work from the FAT* conference has warned specifically about abstracting away the social context that these automated systems are operating within and has suggested that \"[fairness work] require[s] technical researchers to learn new skills or partner with social scientists\" [Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems, Selbst et al. 2019, FAT* '19]. That \"social context\" includes groups outside the academy organizing for data and/or tech justice (e.g., Allied Media Projects, Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, data4blacklives, etc). These struggles have deep historical roots but have become prominent in the past several years alongside broader citizen-science efforts. In this CRAFT session we as STEM researchers hope to initiate conversation about methods used by community organizers to analyze power relations present in that social context. We will take this time to learn together and discuss if/how these and other methods, collaborations and efforts can be used to actualize oft-mentioned critiques of algorithmic fairness and move toward a data justice-oriented approach. Many scholars and activists have spoken on how to approach social context when discussing algorithmic fairness interventions. Community organizing and attendant methods for power analysis present one such approach: documenting all stakeholders and entities relevant to an issue and the nature of the power differentials between them. The facilitators for this session are not experts in community organizing theory or practice. Instead, we will share what we have learned from our readings of decades of rich work and writings from community organizers. This session is a collective, interdisciplinary learning experience, open to all who see their interests as relevant to the conversation. We will open with a discussion of community organizing practice: What is community organizing, what are its goals, methods, past and ongoing examples? What disciplines and intellectual lineages does it draw from? We will incorporate key sources we have found helpful for synthesizing this knowledge so that participants can continue exposing themselves to the field after the conference. We will also consider the concept of social power, including power that the algorithmic fairness community holds. Noting that there are many ways to theorize and understand power, we will share the framings that have been most useful to us. We plan to present different tools, models and procedures for doing power analysis in various organizing settings. We will propose to our group that we conduct a power analysis of our own. We have prepared a hypothetical but realistic scenario involving risk assessment in a hospital setting as an example. However, we encourage participants to bring their own experiences to the table, especially if they pertain in any way to data injustice. We also invite participants to bring examples of ongoing organizing efforts with which algorithmic fairness researchers could act in solidarity. Participants will walk away from this session with 1) an understanding of the key terms and sources necessary to gain further exposure to these topics and 2) preliminary experience analyzing power in realistic, grounded scenarios.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3375682","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Critiques of 'algorithmic fairness' have counseled against a purely technical approach. Recent work from the FAT* conference has warned specifically about abstracting away the social context that these automated systems are operating within and has suggested that "[fairness work] require[s] technical researchers to learn new skills or partner with social scientists" [Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems, Selbst et al. 2019, FAT* '19]. That "social context" includes groups outside the academy organizing for data and/or tech justice (e.g., Allied Media Projects, Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, data4blacklives, etc). These struggles have deep historical roots but have become prominent in the past several years alongside broader citizen-science efforts. In this CRAFT session we as STEM researchers hope to initiate conversation about methods used by community organizers to analyze power relations present in that social context. We will take this time to learn together and discuss if/how these and other methods, collaborations and efforts can be used to actualize oft-mentioned critiques of algorithmic fairness and move toward a data justice-oriented approach. Many scholars and activists have spoken on how to approach social context when discussing algorithmic fairness interventions. Community organizing and attendant methods for power analysis present one such approach: documenting all stakeholders and entities relevant to an issue and the nature of the power differentials between them. The facilitators for this session are not experts in community organizing theory or practice. Instead, we will share what we have learned from our readings of decades of rich work and writings from community organizers. This session is a collective, interdisciplinary learning experience, open to all who see their interests as relevant to the conversation. We will open with a discussion of community organizing practice: What is community organizing, what are its goals, methods, past and ongoing examples? What disciplines and intellectual lineages does it draw from? We will incorporate key sources we have found helpful for synthesizing this knowledge so that participants can continue exposing themselves to the field after the conference. We will also consider the concept of social power, including power that the algorithmic fairness community holds. Noting that there are many ways to theorize and understand power, we will share the framings that have been most useful to us. We plan to present different tools, models and procedures for doing power analysis in various organizing settings. We will propose to our group that we conduct a power analysis of our own. We have prepared a hypothetical but realistic scenario involving risk assessment in a hospital setting as an example. However, we encourage participants to bring their own experiences to the table, especially if they pertain in any way to data injustice. We also invite participants to bring examples of ongoing organizing efforts with which algorithmic fairness researchers could act in solidarity. Participants will walk away from this session with 1) an understanding of the key terms and sources necessary to gain further exposure to these topics and 2) preliminary experience analyzing power in realistic, grounded scenarios.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体现社会技术:试验社会背景和社会正义的方法
对“算法公平性”的批评反对采用纯粹的技术方法。FAT*会议最近的工作特别警告了抽象这些自动化系统运行的社会背景,并建议“[公平工作]需要技术研究人员学习新技能或与社会科学家合作”[社会技术系统中的公平和抽象,Selbst等人,2019,FAT* '19]。这种“社会背景”包括学院外组织数据和/或技术正义的团体(例如,Allied Media Projects, Stop LAPD间谍联盟,data4blacklives等)。这些斗争有着深刻的历史根源,但在过去几年里,随着更广泛的公民科学努力,这些斗争变得更加突出。在这次CRAFT会议上,我们作为STEM研究人员希望发起关于社区组织者用来分析社会背景下权力关系的方法的讨论。我们将利用这段时间一起学习和讨论是否/如何使用这些方法和其他方法、合作和努力来实现经常提到的对算法公平性的批评,并朝着以数据公正为导向的方法发展。许多学者和活动家在讨论算法公平干预时谈到了如何处理社会背景。社区组织和随之而来的权力分析方法提供了这样一种方法:记录与问题相关的所有利益相关者和实体,以及它们之间权力差异的本质。本次会议的主持人并非社区组织理论或实践方面的专家。相反,我们将分享我们从阅读社区组织者几十年来丰富的工作和著作中学到的东西。这个会议是一个集体的,跨学科的学习经验,开放给所有谁看到他们的兴趣相关的谈话。我们将以社区组织实践的讨论开始:什么是社区组织,它的目标、方法、过去和正在进行的例子是什么?它借鉴了哪些学科和知识谱系?我们将结合我们发现的有助于综合这些知识的关键来源,以便与会者在会议结束后继续接触该领域。我们还将考虑社会权力的概念,包括算法公平社区所拥有的权力。注意到有许多方法可以理论化和理解权力,我们将分享对我们最有用的框架。我们计划介绍不同的工具、模型和程序,在不同的组织环境中进行功率分析。我们将向我们的团队提议,我们自己也进行一次权力分析。我们准备了一个假设但现实的场景,以医院环境中的风险评估为例。然而,我们鼓励参与者将他们自己的经历带到桌面上,特别是如果他们以任何方式与数据不公正有关。我们还邀请参与者提供正在进行的组织努力的例子,让算法公平研究人员能够团结一致。参与者将带着以下内容离开本课程:1)了解进一步了解这些主题所需的关键术语和资源;2)在现实的、有基础的场景中分析电力的初步经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dirichlet uncertainty wrappers for actionable algorithm accuracy accountability and auditability Algorithmic targeting of social policies: fairness, accuracy, and distributed governance Regulating transparency?: Facebook, Twitter and the German Network Enforcement Act CtrlZ.AI zine fair: critical perspectives Fairness, accountability, transparency in AI at scale: lessons from national programs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1