Advertisement

Understanding the Impact of Transparency on Algorithmic Decision Making Legitimacy

  • David Goad
  • Uri Gal
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 543)

Abstract

In recent years the volume, velocity and variety of the Big Data being produced has presented several opportunities to improve all our lives. It has also generated several challenges not the least of which is humanities ability to analyze, process and take decisions on that data. Algorithmic Decision Making (ADM) represents a solution to these challenge. Whilst ADM has been around for many years, it has come under increased scrutiny in recent years because of concerns related to the increasing breadth of application and the inherent lack of Transparency in these algorithms, how they operate and how they are created. This has impacted the perceived Legitimacy of this technology which has led to government legislation to limit and regulate its use. This paper begins the process of understanding the impact of Transparency on ADM Legitimacy by breaking down Transparency in Algorithmic Decision Making into the components of Validation, Visibility and Variability and by using legitimacy theory to theorize the impact of transparency on ADM Legitimacy. A useful first step in the development of a framework is achieved by developing a series of testable propositions to be used in further proposed research regarding the impact of Transparency on ADM Legitimacy.

Keywords

ADM Algorithmic Decision Making Transparency Legitimacy 

References

  1. 1.
    McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T.H.: Big data: the management revolution. Harvard Bus. Rev. 90(10), 60–68 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reinsel, D., Gantz, J., Rydning, J.: Data Age 2025: The Evolution of Data to Life-Critical. IDC (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luchetti, D.: The Square Kilometer Arrary. Square Kilometer Array. http://www.ska.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 21 Dec 2017
  4. 4.
    Heudecker, N., Hare, J.: Survey Analysis: Big Data Investments Begin Tapering in 2016. Gartner Research (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Todd, P., Benbasat, I.: The use of information in decision making: an experimental investigation of the impact of computer-based decision aids. Mis Q. 16, 373–393 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hill, K.: How target figured out a teen girl was pregnant before her father did. Forbes Mag. (2012). https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#1999ad516668. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  8. 8.
    O’Neil, C.: Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Broadway Books, New York (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pasquale, F.: The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodman, B., Flaxman, S.: European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08813 (2016)
  11. 11.
    Newell, S., Marabelli, M.: Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: a call for action on the long-term societal effects of ‘datification’. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 3–14 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suchman, M.C.: Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 571–610 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 21(2), 135–146 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cox, J. Ask the captain: how often is autopilot engaged? USA Today (2014). https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/08/11/autopilot-control-takeoff-cruising-landing/13921511/. Accessed 28 Jan 2018
  15. 15.
    Kitchin, R.: Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Inf. Commun. Soc. 20(1), 14–29 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barocas, S., Hood, S., Ziewitz, M.: Governing algorithms: a provocation piece (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albu, O.B., Flyverbom, M.: Organizational transparency: conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Bus. Soc. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316659851
  18. 18.
    Christensen, L.T., Cornelissen, J.: Organizational transparency as myth and metaphor. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 18(2), 132–149 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baudrillard, J.: Simulacra and simulations. In: Poster, M. (ed.) Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings, pp. 166–184. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsoukas, H.: The tyranny of light: the temptations and the paradoxes of the information society. Futures 29(9), 827–843 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ananny, M., Crawford, K.: Seeing without knowing: limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media Soc. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diakopoulos, N.: Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Commun. ACM 59(2), 56–62 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burrell, J.: How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc. 3(1) (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Fine Licht, J.: Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy. Scand. Polit. Stud. 34(3), 183–201 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson, C., Dowd, T.J., Ridgeway, C.L.: Legitimacy as a social process. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 32, 53–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Binz, C., et al.: The thorny road to technology legitimation—institutional work for potable water reuse in California. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 103, 249 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deegan, C.: Methodological Issues in Accounting Research: Theories, Methods and Issues (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dowling, J., Pfeffer, J.: Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 18(1), 122–136 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aldrich, H.E., Fiol, C.M.: Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19(4), 645–670 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schroeder, E., et al.: Direct potable reuse: benefits for public water supplies, agriculture, the environment and energy conservation. National Water Research Institute White Paper (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Christensen, L.T., Cheney, G.: Peering into transparency: challenging ideals, proxies, and organizational practices. Commun. Theory 25(1), 70–90 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenblat, A.: The truth about how Uber’s application manages drivers. Harvard Business Review (2016). https://hbr.org/2016/04/the-truth-about-how-ubers-app-manages-drivers. Accessed 21 Dec 2018
  33. 33.
    Coomes, K.: The Best Ridesharing Apps. Digital Trends (2018). https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/best-ride-sharing-apps/. Accessed 22 Aug 2018
  34. 34.
    Hensley, R., Padhi, A., Salazar, J.: Cracks in the ridesharing market and how to fill them. McKinsey Q. (2018). https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/cracks-in-the-ridesharing-market-and-how-to-fill-them. Accessed 22 Aug 2018

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Information SystemsUniversity of Sydney Business SchoolSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations