Enacting the Pandemic

IF 1.9 4区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Science and Technology Studies Pub Date : 2020-11-25 DOI:10.23987/STS.75323
Francis Lee
{"title":"Enacting the Pandemic","authors":"Francis Lee","doi":"10.23987/STS.75323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article has two objectives: First, the article seeks to make a methodological intervention in the social study of algorithms. Today, there is a worrying trend to analytically reduce algorithms to coherent and stable objects whose computational logic can be audited for biases to create fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAccT). To counter this reductionist and determinist tendency, this article proposes three methodological rules that allows an analysis of algorithmic power in practice. Second, the article traces ethnographically how an algorithm was used to enact a pandemic, and how the power to construct this disease outbreak was moved around through by an algorithmic assemblage. To do this, the article traces the assembling of a recent epidemic at the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention—the Zika outbreak starting in 2015—and shows how an epidemic was put together using an array of computational resources, with very different spaces for intervening. A key argument is that we, analysts of algorithms, need to attend to how multiple spaces for agency, opacity, and power open and close in different parts of algorithmic assemblages. The crux of the matter is that actors experience different degrees of agency and opacity in different parts of any algorithmic assemblage. Consequently, rather than auditing algorithms for biased logic, the article shows the usefulness of examining algorithmic power as enacted and situated in practice.","PeriodicalId":45119,"journal":{"name":"Science and Technology Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Technology Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23987/STS.75323","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article has two objectives: First, the article seeks to make a methodological intervention in the social study of algorithms. Today, there is a worrying trend to analytically reduce algorithms to coherent and stable objects whose computational logic can be audited for biases to create fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAccT). To counter this reductionist and determinist tendency, this article proposes three methodological rules that allows an analysis of algorithmic power in practice. Second, the article traces ethnographically how an algorithm was used to enact a pandemic, and how the power to construct this disease outbreak was moved around through by an algorithmic assemblage. To do this, the article traces the assembling of a recent epidemic at the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention—the Zika outbreak starting in 2015—and shows how an epidemic was put together using an array of computational resources, with very different spaces for intervening. A key argument is that we, analysts of algorithms, need to attend to how multiple spaces for agency, opacity, and power open and close in different parts of algorithmic assemblages. The crux of the matter is that actors experience different degrees of agency and opacity in different parts of any algorithmic assemblage. Consequently, rather than auditing algorithms for biased logic, the article shows the usefulness of examining algorithmic power as enacted and situated in practice.
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
制定大流行
本文有两个目的:首先,本文试图对算法的社会研究进行方法论干预。今天,有一种令人担忧的趋势,即分析性地将算法简化为连贯和稳定的对象,其计算逻辑可以被审计以消除偏见,从而创造公平性、问责制和透明度(FAccT)。为了对抗这种还原论和决定论的倾向,本文提出了三个方法规则,允许在实践中分析算法的能力。其次,本文从人种学的角度追溯了算法是如何被用来制定大流行的,以及构建这种疾病爆发的力量是如何通过算法组合来转移的。为了做到这一点,这篇文章追溯了欧洲疾病控制和预防中心最近的一次流行病——2015年开始的寨卡病毒爆发——并展示了如何使用一系列计算资源将一场流行病整合在一起,并在不同的空间进行干预。一个关键的论点是,作为算法的分析师,我们需要注意在算法集合的不同部分,代理、不透明和权力的多重空间是如何打开和关闭的。问题的关键在于,在任何算法集合的不同部分,参与者都会经历不同程度的代理和不透明度。因此,本文不是审计有偏见逻辑的算法,而是展示了在实践中检查算法能力的有用性。
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
Science and Technology Studies
Science and Technology Studies HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
23
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Facilitating the Movement of Knowledge in Occupational Health Services Elliott Anthony (2023) Algorithmic Intimacy. The Digital Revolution in Personal Relationships West Darrel M and Allen John R (2020) Turning Point: Policymaking in the Era of Artificial Intelligence “Should We Stay or Should We Go now?” Knox Hannah (2020) Thinking Like a Climate: Governing a City in Times of Environmental Change
×
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