An official website of the United States government
Abstract Computational systems, including machine learning, artificial intelligence, and big data analytics, are not only inescapable parts of social life but are also reshaping the contours of law and legal practice. We propose turning more law and social science (LSS) attention to new technological developments through the study of “law in computation,” that is, computational systems' integration with regulatory and administrative procedures, the sociotechnical infrastructures that support them, and their impact on how individuals and populations are interpellated through the law. We present a range of cases in three areas of inquiry ‐ algorithmic governance, jurisdiction and agency ‐ on issues such as immigration enforcement, data sovereignty, algorithmic warfare, biometric identity regimes, and gig economies, for which examining law in computation illuminates how new technological systems' integration with legal processes pushes the distinction between “law on the books” and “law in action” into new domains.We then propose future directions and methods for research. As computational systems become ever more sophisticated, understanding the law in computation is critical not only for LSS scholarship, but also for everyday civics.
more »
« less
Automation, Big Data and Politics: A Research Review
We review the great variety of critical scholarship on algorithms, automation, and big data in areas of contemporary life both to document where there has been robust scholarship and to contribute to existing scholarship by identifying gaps in our research agenda. We identify five domains with opportunities for further scholarship: (a) China, (b) international interference in democratic politics, (c) civic engagement in Latin American, (d) public services, and (e) national security and foreign affairs. We argue that the time is right to match dedication to critical theory of algorithmic communication with a dedication to empirical research through audit studies, network ethnography, and investigation of the political economy of algorithmic production.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1450193
- PAR ID:
- 10021327
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International journal of communication
- Volume:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 0975-640X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Algorithmic recourse, or providing recommendations to individuals who receive an unfavorable outcome from an algorithmic system on how they can take action and change that outcome, is an important tool for giving individuals agency against algorithmic decision systems. Unfortunately, research on algorithmic recourse faces a fundamental challenge: there are no publicly available datasets on algorithmic recourse. In this work, we begin to explore a solution to this challenge by creating an agent-based simulation called The Game of Recourse (an homage to Conway's Game of Life) to synthesize realistic algorithmic recourse data. We designed The Game of Recourse with a focus on reliability and fairness, two areas of critical importance in socio-technical systems.more » « less
-
The widespread implementation of algorithmic technologies in organizations prompts questions about how algorithms may reshape organizational control. We use Edwards’ (1979) perspective of “contested terrain,” wherein managers implement production technologies to maximize the value of labor and workers resist, to synthesize the interdisciplinary research on algorithms at work. We find that algorithmic control in the workplace operates through six main mechanisms, which we call the “6 Rs”—employers can use algorithms to direct workers by restricting and recommending, evaluate workers by recording and rating, and discipline workers by replacing and rewarding. We also discuss several key insights regarding algorithmic control. First, labor process theory helps to highlight potential problems with the largely positive view of algorithms at work. Second, the technical capabilities of algorithmic systems facilitate a form of rational control that is distinct from the technical and bureaucratic control used by employers for the past century. Third, employers’ use of algorithms is sparking the development of new algorithmic occupations. Finally, workers are individually and collectively resisting algorithmic control through a set of emerging tactics we call algoactivism. These insights sketch the contested terrain of algorithmic control and map critical areas for future research.more » « less
-
Despite the emergence of intersectional computing and increased scholarship that utilizes the concept of intersectionality, there is a lack of consensus about the appropriation of intersectionality as a critical framework within the computing education community. Intersectionality provides a critical lens for understanding and analyzing the complexity in human experiences that are shaped by multiple social constructs (race, gender, class, etc.) in mutually influencing ways. What lies at the heart of the matter is acknowledging the humanity of intersectional populations to create safe spaces and a sense of belonging in the computing community. However, using Eurocentric research methods when working with intersectional populations tends to further marginalize them. Calling into question the validity of Eurocentric methods, we argue for alternative ways of knowing in CS education research that affirm intersectional populations. Applying critical autoethnography to our own body of computing education research, we leverage Black feminist epistemologies or Black women’s ways of knowing to differentiate intersectional studies from studies of intersectional populations.more » « less
-
Algorithmic decision-making using rankings— prevalent in areas from hiring and bail to university admissions— raises concerns of potential bias. In this paper, we explore the alignment between people’s perceptions of fairness and two popular fairness metrics designed for rankings. In a crowdsourced experiment with 480 participants, people rated the perceived fairness of a hypothetical scholarship distribution scenario. Results suggest a strong inclination towards relying on explicit score values. There is also evidence of people’s preference for one fairness metric, NDKL, over the other metric, ARP. Qualitative results paint a more complex picture: some participants endorse meritocratic award schemes and express concerns about fairness metrics being used to modify rankings; while other participants acknowledge socio-economic factors in score-based rankings as justification for adjusting rankings. In summary, we find that operationalizing algorithmic fairness in practice is a balancing act between mitigating harms towards marginalized groups and societal conventions of leveraging traditional performance scores such as grades in decision-making contexts.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
