Unpacking algorithms as technologies of power: Syrian refugees and data experts on algorithmic governance

Kasapoglu, Tayfun; Masso, Anu; Calzati, Stefano

doi:10.1016/j.diggeo.2021.100016

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Machen and Nost (2021), for example, have recently developed how algorithmic thinking produces certain reductive ‘abstractions’ that close down governmental decision-making in climate governance, such as by treating all environmental problems as inherently ‘solvable’ (p.561). While there has been much focus on the role on the effects of algorithmic thinking on various kinds of governance (Kwan, 2016; Kasapoglu et al, 2021), there has been less emphasis on tracing the specific logics of algorithmic thinking in its own terms. Thought about in terms of techno-genesis, it becomes important to understand the specific “intelligence” of digital technologies and how this becomes concretised within particular environments and political structures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Techno-genesis: Reconceptualising geography’s technology from ontology to ontogenesis

Keating

2023

Progress in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technologies have been theorised to understand their powers to produce spacetimes – notably through Bernard Stiegler’s reading of technics as constitutive of human ontology. However, less attention has been paid to how technologies shape spacetimes according to their own distinct logics of evolution, the result being a tendency to reduce technological agency to a question of its effects on human being. The first half of the paper elaborates this problem in conversation with geographies of the digital turn. The second half introduces an alternative approach through Gilbert Simondon’s ontogenetic notion of technology characterised by its own logics of evolution – what I term techno-genesis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Techno-genesis: Reconceptualising geography’s technology from ontology to ontogenesis

Keating

2023

Progress in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers and activists have long pursued ways of including those who are affected by technology into the design and evaluation of these systems. Recent work by researchers working with Syrian refugees on algorithms (Kasapoglu et al, 2021; Masso & Kasapoglu, 2020) argues for a reconsideration of algorithmic governance that would involve more collaborative and flexible feedback loops between various data “agents”—authorities, experts and users—to improve technocratic means of “caring for the self.” Arguably work by large technology firms is already at least performing feedback loops through funded initiatives like AI for Accessibility (Microsoft), PAIR (People + AI Research at Google), and Responsible AI (Meta). A challenge for such approaches in AI is simply the scale at which language models are developed and trained—nuanced user feedback, particularly in relation to groups that represent intersectional minorities, has to be integrated into systems that take months and millions of dollars to train.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Careful attention to diverse community aspirations and settings—from care and support to leisure—should, we argue, produce greater diversity and eclecticism in what is considered legitimate “AI” research and products. One area for exploration here would be the application of user feedback (Wellner & Rothman, 2020) or feedback loops (Kasapoglu et al, 2021) to practices of fine-tuning machine learning systems with the aim of, if not eliminating forms of bias entirely, at least articulating other less stereotyped images of intersectional subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersectional Inquiry, on the Ground and in the Algorithm

Robertson

Magee

Soldatić

2022

Qualitative Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article makes two key contributions to methodological debates in automation research. First, we argue for and demonstrate how methods in this field must account for intersections of social difference, such as race, class, ethnicity, culture, and disability, in more nuanced ways. Second, we consider the complexities of bringing together computational and qualitative methods in an intersectional methodological approach while also arguing that in their respective subjects (machines and human subjects) and conceptual scope they enable a specific dialogue on intersectionality and automation to be articulated. We draw on field reflections from a project that combines an analysis of intersectional bias in language models with findings from a community workshop on the frustrations and aspirations produced through engagement with everyday artificial intelligence (AI)–driven technologies in the context of care.

show abstract

“…At the individual level, factors such as age, gender, and disability can increase risk. 22 Studies suggest that girls and children with disabilities face an elevated risk compared to their peers (Collin-Vézina et al, 2013;Finkelhor & Baron, 1986a;Finkelhor, 1994), though the potential role of stereotypical assumptions influencing victimization suspicion and detection ought to be considered in this conversation as well (Finkelhor, 1994). Finkelhor (1994) explained that parents may supervise boys less closely, and teachers, medical professionals, or other potential reporters (of the crime) may be less likely to suspect abuse of boys, indicating the potentially far-reaching consequences people's risk perception can have.…”

Section: Risk Perception and Risk Perception 20mentioning

confidence: 99%

The social categorization of sexual abuse

Eelmaa

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In our minds, what exactly counts as child sexual abuse? Who do we consider as people who commit such acts? What do we associate with the risk of sexual abuse? Who do we consider dangerous? Who do we blame? Are all sexual abuse victims seen as deserving of help, or are some victims seen as less deserving? Is there a hierarchy of victims? Does it matter whether we believe them? How does our behavior toward victims impact them? These are all questions explored in this thesis. Aiming to conceptualize and explain public perceptions of child sexual abuse and the observable implications of these perceptions, this thesis drew on three qualitative studies focusing on victims, parents, and the general public. This thesis introduces novel perspectives on how society views and reacts to sexual abuse, blending insights from sociology, law, victimology, criminology, and psychology. It reveals that abuse is more likely recognized when it visibly resembles a crime, like when there is evident violence or injury. Most importantly, the social “understanding” of what constitutes sexual abuse is far more limiting than what the law describes as such. Offenders are typically portrayed as somehow different from the rest of the population and victims are judged against the “ideal victim” stereotype – i.e., young, innocent, visibly traumatized children. Teenagers or those seen as risk-takers are often viewed as less harmed, a notion rooted in conditional harmfulness, inaccurately judging abuse impact based on victim attributes. Overall, in people’s perceptions, the “child” in child sexual abuse rarely includes teenagers. These perceptions deeply affect responses to abuse, influencing the support and belief extended to victims. Those fitting the “ideal victim” mold receive empathy and are urged to report abuse, while those who do not, are usually shamed and discouraged from seeking help. Ultimately, the thesis reveals how societal “stories” about sexual abuse create a framework that influences everything from social categorization of sexual abuse to victims’ self-perceptions and post-abuse behavior. It highlights the challenges victims face, not just in dealing with the abuse but also in navigating the societal expectations and judgments that come with it. The thesis concludes with practical recommendations and suggestions for future research.

show abstract

Unpacking algorithms as technologies of power: Syrian refugees and data experts on algorithmic governance

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Techno-genesis: Reconceptualising geography’s technology from ontology to ontogenesis

Techno-genesis: Reconceptualising geography’s technology from ontology to ontogenesis

Intersectional Inquiry, on the Ground and in the Algorithm

The social categorization of sexual abuse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About