skip to main content
research-article

Where Responsible AI meets Reality: Practitioner Perspectives on Enablers for Shifting Organizational Practices

Published:22 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Large and ever-evolving technology companies continue to invest more time and resources to incorporate responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) into production-ready systems to increase algorithmic accountability. This paper examines and seeks to offer a framework for analyzing how organizational culture and structure impact the effectiveness of responsible AI initiatives in practice. We present the results of semi-structured qualitative interviews with practitioners working in industry, investigating common challenges, ethical tensions, and effective enablers for responsible AI initiatives. Focusing on major companies developing or utilizing AI, we have mapped what organizational structures currently support or hinder responsible AI initiatives, what aspirational future processes and structures would best enable effective initiatives, and what key elements comprise the transition from current work practices to the aspirational future.

References

  1. Kenneth A. Bamberger and Deirdre K. Mulligan. 2015. Driving Corporate Behavior in the United States and Europe. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Michalle E Mor Barak. 2016. Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Haydn Belfield. 2020. Activism by the AI Community: Analysing Recent Achievements and Future Prospects. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15--21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375814Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Heloise Berkowitz. 2018. Meta-organizing firms' capabilities for sustainable innovation: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 175 (2018), 420--430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.028Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Elettra Bietti. 2020. From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 210--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. 77--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Henriette Cramer, Jean Garcia-Gathright, Aaron Springer, and Sravana Reddy. 2018. Assessing and addressing algorithmic bias in practice. Interactions, Vol. 25, 6 (2018), 58--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Henriette Cramer, Jenn Wortman-Vaughan, Kenneth Holstein, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé III, Miroslav Dudík, Sravana Reddy, and Jean Garcia-Gathright. [n.d.]. Industry Translation Tutorial: Algorithmic fairness in practice. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Patrick Dawson. 2019. Reshaping change: A processual perspective. 2nd edition. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Miles Brundage et al. 2020. Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims. arxiv: cs.CY/2004.07213Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sina Fazelpour and Zachary C. Lipton. 2020. Algorithmic Fairness from a Non-Ideal Perspective. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 57--63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375828Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Vol. 14, 3 (1996), 330--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miro Dudik, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. 1997. Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, Vol. 1, 9 (2019), 389--399.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Alexandra Kalev, Frank Dobbin, and Erin Kelly. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American sociological review, Vol. 71, 4 (2006), 589--617.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Margot E Kaminski and Gianclaudio Malgieri. 2020. Multi-layered explanations from algorithmic impact assessments in the GDPR. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 68--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. P. M. Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Karen Huang, and Ghislain Bugingo. 2020. Defining AI in Policy versus Practice. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 72--78. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375835Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kimberly D Krawiec. 2003. Cosmetic compliance and the failure of negotiated governance. Wash. ULQ, Vol. 81 (2003), 487.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Michael A Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fairness in AI (CHI '20).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Gianclaudio Malgieri. 2020. The concept of fairness in the GDPR: a linguistic and contextual interpretation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 154--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, and danah boyd. 2019. Owning Ethics: Corporate Logics, Silicon Valley, and the Institutionalization of Ethics. Social Research: An International Quarterly, Vol. 86 (2019), 449--476. Issue 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Debra Meyerson. 2004. The tempered radicals: How employees push their companies--little by little--to be more socially responsible. Stanford Social Innovation Review (2004), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Margaret Mitchell, Dylan Baker, Nyalleng Moorosi, Emily Denton, Ben Hutchinson, Alex Hanna, Timnit Gebru, and Jamie Morgenstern. 2020. Diversity and Inclusion Metrics in Subset Selection. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 117--123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375832Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, January 29-31, 2019. ACM, 220--229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Brent Mittelstadt. 2019. AI Ethics--Too Principled to Fail? arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.06668 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Wanda J Orlikowski. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, Vol. 3, 3 (1992), 398--427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Wanda J. Orlikowski. 2000. Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, Vol. 11, 4 (July 2000), 404--428. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. 2020. Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 33--44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. W Richard Scott and Gerald F Davis. 2015. Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Andrew D Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 59--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Linda Klebe Trevino, Gary R Weaver, David G Gibson, and Barbara Ley Toffler. 1999. Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California management review, Vol. 41, 2 (1999), 131--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Gary R Weaver, Linda Klebe Trevi no, and Philip L Cochran. 1999. Corporate ethics practices in the mid-1990's: An empirical study of the Fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 18, 3 (1999), 283--294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Yi Zeng, Enmeng Lu, and Cunqing Huangfu. 2018. Linking Artificial Intelligence Principles. arxiv: cs.AI/1812.04814Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Where Responsible AI meets Reality: Practitioner Perspectives on Enablers for Shifting Organizational Practices

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!