PlumX Metrics
SSRN
Embed PlumX Metrics

Algorithmic Impact Assessments and Accountability: The Co-construction of Impacts

Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Ranjit Singh, and MadeleineClare Elish. 2021. Algorithmic Impact Assessments and Accountability: TheCo-construction of Impacts. InACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability,and Transparency (FAccT ’21), March 3–10, 2021, Virtual Event, Canada.ACM,
2020
  • 9
    Citations
  • 5,382
    Usage
  • 1
    Captures
  • 1
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

  • Citations
    9
    • Citation Indexes
      9
  • Usage
    5,382
    • Abstract Views
      4,561
    • Downloads
      821
  • Captures
    1
    • Readers
      1
      • SSRN
        1
  • Mentions
    1
    • News Mentions
      1
      • News
        1
  • Ratings
    • Download Rank
      60,698

Most Recent News

Realising the potential of algorithmic accountability mechanisms

This is a delicate moment for the mainstreaming of AI accountability practices, as AI technologies continue to develop at pace. How will appropriate, robust and

Paper Description

Algorithmic impact assessments (AIAs) are an emergent form of accountability for entities that build and deploy automated decision-support systems. These are modeled after impact assessments in other domains. Our study of the history of impact assessments shows that "impacts" are an evaluative construct that enable institutions to identify and ameliorate harms experienced because of a policy decision or system. Every domain has different expectations and norms about what constitutes impacts and harms, how potential harms are rendered as the impacts of a particular undertaking, who is responsible for conducting that assessment, and who has the authority to act on the impact assessment to demand changes to that undertaking. By examining proposals for AIAs in relation to other domains, we find that there is a distinct risk of constructing algorithmic impacts as organizationally understandable metrics that are nonetheless inappropriately distant from the harms experienced by people, and which fall short of building the relationships required for effective accountability. To address this challenge of algorithmic accountability, and as impact assessments become a commonplace process for evaluating harms, the FAccT community should A) understand impacts as objects constructed for evaluative purposes, B) attempt to construct impacts as close as possible to actual harms, and C) recognize that accountability governance requires the input of various types of expertise and affected communities. We conclude with lessons for assembling cross-expertise consensus for the co-construction of impacts and to build robust accountability relationships.

Bibliographic Details

Jacob Metcalf; Emanuel Moss; Elizabeth Anne Watkins; Ranjit Singh; Madeleine Clare Elish

algorithmic impact assessment; impact; harm; accountability; governance

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know