Search for: All records

There has been growing recognition of the crucial role users, especially those from marginalized groups, play in uncovering harmful algorithmic biases. However, it remains unclear how users’ identities and experiences might impact their rating of harmful biases. We present an online experiment (N=2,197) examining these factors: demographics, discrimination experiences, and social and technical knowledge. Participants were shown examples of image search results, including ones that previous literature has identified as biased against marginalized racial, gender, or sexual orientation groups. We found participants from marginalized gender or sexual orientation groups were more likely to rate the examples as more severely harmful. Belonging to marginalized races did not have a similar pattern. Additional factors affecting users’ ratings included discrimination experiences, and having friends or family belonging to marginalized demographics. A qualitative analysis offers insights into users' bias recognition, and why they see biases the way they do. We provide guidance for designing future methods to support effective user-driven auditing. 

Recent years have seen growing interest among both researchers and practitioners in user-engaged approaches to algorithm auditing, which directly engage users in detecting problematic behaviors in algorithmic systems. However, we know little about industry practitioners’ current practices and challenges around user-engaged auditing, nor what opportunities exist for them to better leverage such approaches in practice. To investigate, we conducted a series of interviews and iterative co-design activities with practitioners who employ user-engaged auditing approaches in their work. Our findings reveal several challenges practitioners face in appropriately recruiting and incentivizing user auditors, scaffolding user audits, and deriving actionable insights from user-engaged audit reports. Furthermore, practitioners shared organizational obstacles to user-engaged auditing, surfacing a complex relationship between practitioners and user auditors. Based on these findings, we discuss opportunities for future HCI research to help realize the potential (and mitigate risks) of user-engaged auditing in industry practice. 

Recent work in HCI suggests that users can be powerful in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors that formal auditing approaches fail to detect. However, it is not well understood how users are often able to be so effective, nor how we might support more effective user-driven auditing. To investigate, we conducted a series of think-aloud interviews, diary studies, and workshops, exploring how users find and make sense of harmful behaviors in algorithmic systems, both individually and collectively. Based on our findings, we present a process model capturing the dynamics of and influences on users’ search and sensemaking behaviors. We find that 1) users’ search strategies and interpretations are heavily guided by their personal experiences with and exposures to societal bias; and 2) collective sensemaking amongst multiple users is invaluable in user-driven algorithm audits. We offer directions for the design of future methods and tools that can better support user-driven auditing. 

Recently, there have been increasing calls for computer science curricula to complement existing technical training with topics related to Fairness, Accountability, Transparency and Ethics (FATE). In this paper, we present Value Cards, an educational toolkit to inform students and practitioners the social impacts of different machine learning models via deliberation. This paper presents an early use of our approach in a college-level computer science course. Through an in-class activity, we report empirical data for the initial effectiveness of our approach. Our results suggest that the use of the Value Cards toolkit can improve students' understanding of both the technical definitions and trade-offs of performance metrics and apply them in real-world contexts, help them recognize the significance of considering diverse social values in the development and deployment of algorithmic systems, and enable them to communicate, negotiate and synthesize the perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Our study also demonstrates a number of caveats we need to consider when using the different variants of the Value Cards toolkit. Finally, we discuss the challenges as well as future applications of our approach.