Why Organization Matters in “Algorithmic Discrimination”

Author:

Schwarting Rena,Ulbricht Lena

Abstract

AbstractResearch into “algorithmic discrimination” has largely dismissed the fact that algorithms are often developed and used by organizations. In this article, we show that organizational sociology can contribute to a more nuanced perspective on “algorithmic decision-making.” Drawing on the concept of decision premises, we differentiate between various formal structures, particularly between different decision programs (conditional and purposive). This allows us to challenge two key assumptions, namely that human decision-makers rely heavily on algorithmically generated recommendations and that discrimination against protected groups needs to be solved mainly at the level of code.We identify the usefulness of distinguishing between conditional and purposive decision programs via a case study centered on the legal context: the risk assessment software “Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions” (COMPAS) that is employed in the US criminal justice system to inform judicial personnel about the recidivism risk of defendants. By analyzing the organizational structures, according to which the COMPAS score is formally and informally embedded in courts, we point out that the score represents an ambiguous and redundant information source for judges. The practice of minimizing the relevance of the score and decoupling it from the legal reasoning backstage particularly reflects the professional decision autonomy of judges, which is inherent in the legal system. The core finding of our approach is that strategies to reduce discrimination should not only scrutinize data quality or the statistical model but also consider the specific forms, functions, and consequences of the organizational structures that condition the ways in which discriminatory differences may or may not be (re)produced.

Funder

Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology

Reference106 articles.

1. Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The system of professions: an essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2. Ackroyd, Stephen. 2016. Sociological and organisational theories of professions and professionalism. In The Routledge companion to the professions and professionalism, ed. Mike Dent, Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Jean-Louis Denis and Ellen Kuhlmann, 15–30. London: Routledge.

3. Alaimo, Cristina, and Jannis Kallinikos. 2020. Managing by data: algorithmic categories and organizing. Organization Studies https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620934062.

4. Alexander, Michelle, and Cornel West. 2012. The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press.

5. Angwin, Julia, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias. ProPublica, May 23. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing (Accessed 1 June 2021).

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Introduction;Queer Reflections on AI;2023-07-10

2. Einleitung: Queering KI;KI-Kritik / AI Critique;2022-12-02

3. Algorithmic accountability in U.S. cities: Transparency, impact, and political economy;Big Data & Society;2022-07

4. Editorial: Die Organisation im Zoo der Digitalisierungsforschung;Soziale Systeme;2021-11-01

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3