Recalibration in counting and accounting practices: Dealing with algorithmic output in public and private

Abstract

Algorithms are increasingly affecting us in our daily lives. They seem to be everywhere, yet they are seldom seen by the humans dealing with the consequences that result from them. Yet, in recent theorisations, there is a risk that the algorithm is being given too much prominence. This article addresses the interaction between algorithmic outputs and the humans engaging with them by drawing on studies of two distinct empirical fields -self-quantification and audit controls of taxpayers. We explore recalibration as a way to understand the practices and processes involved when, on the one hand, decisions are made based on results from algorithmic calculations in counting and accounting software, and on the other hand, when decisions are made based on human experience/knowledge. In particular, we are concerned with moments when an algorithmic output differs from expectations of 'normalcy' and 'normativity' in any given situation. This could be a 'normal' relation between sales and VAT deductions for a business, or a 'normal' number of steps one takes in a day, or 'normative' as it is according to the book, following guidelines and recommendations from other sources. In these moments, we argue that a process of recalibration occurs -an effortful moment where, rather than treat the algorithmic output as given, individuals' tacit knowledge, experiences and intuition are brought into play to address the deviation from the normal and normative.

Algorithmic regulation: A maturing concept for investigating regulationofandthroughalgorithms

“…These studies have widened more recently to embrace digital platforms of all kinds which the EU's proposed Digital Markets Act and accompanying Digital Services Act seek to bring within its remit (Seering et al 2019;Thorson et al 2019;Walker et al 2019). A growing research stream examines the use of algorithms in public sector services and citizen management, including investigations of smart cities and about "AI/data for humanitarian aid" (Dudhwala & Larsen 2019;Hong et al 2019;Park & Humphry 2019;Veale & Brass 2019;Young et al 2019), algorithms for labor management and "the future of work" (Jarrahi & Sutherland 2019;Shafiei Gol et al 2019;Gal et al 2020;Newlands 2021), scholarly investigations of the platform economy (or "gig" economy) and its companies, business models, and how they transform markets (Cheng & Foley 2019;Fenwick et al 2019;Glaser et al 2019;Leoni & Parker 2019;Wu & Taneja 2020). One conceptual challenge that arises from this rich and diverse profusion of research lies in the wide variety of rubrics whose relation to the concept of algorithmic regulation is uncertain and yet to be interrogated.…”

Resolving the problem of Algorithmic Dissonance: An unconventional solution for a sociotechnical problem

“…It is these normativities that enable algorithms to exercise a certain influence in its relationship with what is non-algorithmic. Negotiability, as Dudhwala and Larsen (2019) point out, appears at junction where interactions occur between algorithmic outputs and the people that engage with them. Take into consideration the plagiarism-checking software, TurnItIn, where the conditions under which an algorithmic decision has been made (with respect to the authenticity of an academic article) might need to be questioned (Introna 2016).…”

Materiality and the mediating roles of eHealth: A qualitative study and comparison of three cases

“… 86 This requires tacit knowledge and judgement. 87 , 88 Torenholt and Tjörnhöj 86 highlight that the recontextualisation of data requires, in addition to skills and training, available time and resources. Our findings do not elucidate whether the participants had the right skills, training, available time and resources required, but many of them acknowledged that the non-verbal clues (i.e.…”