Rethinking research on social harms in an algorithmic context

Abstract

In this paper we suggest that theoretically and methodologically creative interdisciplinary research can benefit the research on social harms in an algorithmic context. We draw on our research on automated decision making within public authorities and the current on-going legislative reform on the use of such in Finland. The paper suggests combining socio-legal studies with science and technology studies (STS) and highlights an organisational learning perspective. It also points to three challenges for researchers. The first challenge is that the visions and imaginaries of technological expectations oversimplify the benefits of algorithms. Secondly, designing automated systems for public authorities has overlooked the social and collective structures of decision making, and the citizen’s perspective is absent. Thirdly, as social harms are unforeseen from the perspective of citizens, we need comprehensive research on the contexts of those harms as well as transformative activities within public organisations.

Social harms in an algorithmic context

“…Hence, argue for framing the development and use of algorithmic systems as a politicallycontested process of continuous negotiation and renegotiation of values, and expectations placed on them, in terms of harm(s) alleviation. This is also where the short intervention of Esko and Koulu (2022) has relevance. Also referring to the ongoing legislative reform on the use of automated decision making within public authorities in Finland, the authors highlight the importance of citizens' perspectives in designing and regulating automated systems for public authorities, a group which is directly affected by such systems, yet often not heard in the lawdrafting process.…”

“…McQuillan argues -as Selkälä points outthat even beyond its area of application, the thought of objective calculability embedded in AI systems is antithetical to an egalitarian and just society. Furthermore, in this context, Esko and Koulu (2022) in their short intervention shed light on how the society and technology analyses are impacted by the market paradigms. The authors underline that the visions of algorithmic transformation are overly focused on the effectiveness of technology, emphasising benefits over risks.…”

“…However, as argued by Canning and Tombs (2021), this flexible approach gives space to recognise diverse experiences of those who are harmed. Thus, by documenting harms produced or enhanced by the use of different algorithmically-driven technologies, those studying social harm can contribute to its mitigation or, as Esko and Koulu (2022) put it, facilitate legislators' multifaceted understanding of algorithmisation.…”

“…On this backdrop, Viljanen (2022) reflects how willing and informed designers can understand the features of algorithmic and artificial intelligence technologies and use that understanding to aim towards practice that minimises the potential for harm. His reflection may also offer tools for regulators, who must understand the complexities created by new technologies, as argued by Esko and Koulu (2022). Coming from the perspective that combines socio-legal studies with science and technology studies, Esko and Koulu (2022) define social harms induced by algorithmic systems as 'systemic and deriving from the increasing development and use of technology and technological systems in diverse sectors of society, which affect what and how social harms are encountered at different layers of society'.…”

“…The ultimate challenge is to mediate between the technical and the social by establishing a common language that grasps the nuances of algorithmic transformations. All papers clarify that we need cooperation beyond disciplinary divisions to create the vocabularies and methodologies for tracking and engaging with technology-mediated harms -what Esko and Koulu (2022) call 'a theoretically and methodologically creative interdisciplinary research'. The theoretical and methodological work is crucial to and an extension of real-life struggles.…”