Search

The proliferating adoption of platform-based gig work increasingly raises concerns for worker conditions. Past studies documented how platforms leveraged design to exploit labor, withheld information to generate power asymmetries, and left workers alone to manage logistical overheads as well as social isolation. However, researchers also called attention to the potential of helping workers overcome such costs via worker-led datasharing, which can enable collective actions and mutual aid among workers, while offering advocates, lawmakers and regulatory bodies insights for improving work conditions. To understand stakeholders' desiderata for a data-sharing system (i.e. functionality and policy initiatives that it can serve), we interviewed 11 policy domain experts in the U.S. and conducted co-design workshops with 14 active gig workers across four domains. Our results outline policymakers' prioritized initiatives, information needs, and (mis)alignments with workers' concerns and desires around data collectives. We offer design recommendations for data-sharing systems that support worker needs while bringing us closer to legislation that promote more thriving and equitable gig work futures.

Stress is an inevitable part of day-to-day life yet many find themselves unable to manage it themselves, particularly when professional or peer support are not always readily available. As self-care becomes increasingly vital for mental well-being, this paper explores the potential of social simulation as a safe, virtual environment for practicing stress relief for everyday situations. Leveraging the immersive capabilities of VR, AR, and LLMs, we developed eight interactive prototypes for various everyday stressful scenarios (e.g. public speaking) then conducted prototype-driven semi-structured interviews with 19 participants. We reveal that people currently lack effective means to support themselves through everyday stress and found that social simulation fills a gap for simulating real environments for training mental health practices. We outline key considerations for future development of simulation for self-care, including risks of trauma from hyper-realism, distrust of LLM-recommended timing for mental health recommendations, and the value of accessibility for self-care interventions.

Community and organizational policies are typically designed in a top-down, centralized fashion, with limited input from impacted stakeholders. This can result in policies that are misaligned with community needs or perceived as illegitimate. How can we support more collaborative, participatory approaches to policy design? In this paper, we present PolicyCraft, a system that structures collaborative policy design through case-grounded deliberation. Building on past research that highlights the value of concrete cases in establishing common ground, PolicyCraft supports users in collaboratively proposing, critiquing, and revising policies through discussion and voting on cases. A field study across two university courses showed that students using PolicyCraft reached greater consensus and developed better-supported course policies, compared with those using a baseline system that did not scaffold their use of concrete cases. Reflecting on our findings, we discuss opportunities for future HCI systems to help groups more effectively bridge between abstract policies and concrete cases.

Platform-based laborers face unprecedented challenges and working conditions that result from algorithmic opacity, insufficient data transparency, and unclear policies and regulations. The CSCW and HCI communities increasingly turn to worker data collectives as a means to advance related policy and regulation, hold platforms accountable for data transparency and disclosure, and empower the collective worker voice. However, fundamental questions remain for designing, governing and sustaining such data infrastructures. In this workshop, we leverage frameworks such as data feminism to design sustainable and power-aware data collectives that tackle challenges present in various types of online labor platforms (e.g., ridesharing, freelancing, crowdwork, carework). While data collectives aim to support worker collectives and complement relevant policy initiatives, the goal of this workshop is to encourage their designers to consider topics of governance, privacy, trust, and transparency. In this one-day session, we convene research and advocacy community members to reflect on critical platform work issues (e.g., worker surveillance, discrimination, wage theft, insufficient platform accountability) as well as to collaborate on codesigning data collectives that ethically and equitably address these concerns by supporting working collectivism and informing policy development.

Technologies adopted by the public sector have transformed the work practices of employees in public agencies by creating different means of communication and decision-making. Although much of the recent research in the future of work domain has concentrated on the effects of technological advancements on public sector employees, the influence on work practices of external stakeholders engaging with this sector remains under-explored. In this paper, we focus on a digital platform called OneStop which is deployed by several building departments across the U.S. and aims to integrate various steps and services into a single point of online contact between public sector employees and the public. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 22 stakeholders, including local business owners, experts involved in the construction process, community representatives, and building department employees, we investigate how this technology transition has impacted the work of these different stakeholders. We observe a multifaceted perspective and experience caused by the adoption of OneStop. OneStop exacerbated inequitable practices for local business owners due to a lack of face-to-face interactions with the department employees. For the public sector employees, OneStop standardized the work practices, representing the building department's priorities and values. Based on our findings, we discuss tensions around standardization, equality, and equity in technology transition, as well as design implications for equitable practices in the public sector.

As public sector agencies rapidly introduce new AI tools in high-stakes domains like social services, it becomes critical to understand how decisions to adopt these tools are made in practice. We borrow from the anthropological practice to ``study up'' those in positions of power, and reorient our study of public sector AI around those who have the power and responsibility to make decisions about the role that AI tools will play in their agency. Through semi-structured interviews and design activities with 16 agency decision-makers, we examine how decisions about AI design and adoption are influenced by their interactions with and assumptions about other actors within these agencies (e.g., frontline workers and agency leaders), as well as those above (legal systems and contracted companies), and below (impacted communities). By centering these networks of power relations, our findings shed light on how infrastructural, legal, and social factors create barriers and disincentives to the involvement of a broader range of stakeholders in decisions about AI design and adoption. Agency decision-makers desired more practical support for stakeholder involvement around public sector AI to help overcome the knowledge and power differentials they perceived between them and other stakeholders (e.g., frontline workers and impacted community members). Building on these findings, we discuss implications for future research and policy around actualizing participatory AI approaches in public sector contexts.

Public sector agencies are rapidly deploying AI systems to augment or automate critical decisions in real-world contexts like child welfare, criminal justice, and public health. A growing body of work documents how these AI systems often fail to improve services in practice. These failures can often be traced to decisions made during the early stages of AI ideation and design, such as problem formulation. However, today, we lack systematic processes to support effective, early-stage decision-making about whether and under what conditions to move forward with a proposed AI project. To understand how to scaffold such processes in real-world settings, we worked with public sector agency leaders, AI developers, frontline workers, and community advocates across four public sector agencies and three community advocacy groups in the United States. Through an iterative co-design process, we created the Situate AI Guidebook: a structured process centered around a set of deliberation questions to scaffold conversations around (1) goals and intended use or a proposed AI system, (2) societal and legal considerations, (3) data and modeling constraints, and (4) organizational governance factors. We discuss how the guidebook's design is informed by participants' challenges, needs, and desires for improved deliberation processes. We further elaborate on implications for designing responsible AI toolkits in collaboration with public sector agency stakeholders and opportunities for future work to expand upon the guidebook. This design approach can be more broadly adopted to support the co-creation of responsible AI toolkits that scaffold key decision-making processes surrounding the use of AI in the public sector and beyond.

AI tools are increasingly deployed in community contexts. However, datasets used to evaluate AI are typically created by developers and annotators outside a given community, which can yield misleading conclusions about AI performance. How might we empower communities to drive the intentional design and curation of evaluation datasets for AI that impacts them? We investigate this question on Wikipedia, an online community with multiple AI-based content moderation tools deployed. We introduce Wikibench, a system that enables communities to collaboratively curate AI evaluation datasets, while navigating ambiguities and differences in perspective through discussion. A field study on Wikipedia shows that datasets curated using Wikibench can effectively capture community consensus, disagreement, and uncertainty. Furthermore, study participants used Wikibench to shape the overall data curation process, including refining label definitions, determining data inclusion criteria, and authoring data statements. Based on our findings, we propose future directions for systems that support community-driven data curation.

LGBTQ+ people have received increased attention in HCI research, paralleling a greater emphasis on social justice in recent years. However, there has not been a systematic review of how LGBTQ+ people are researched or discussed in HCI. In this work, we review all research mentioning LGBTQ+ people across the HCI venues of CHI, CSCW, DIS, and TOCHI. Since 2014, we find a linear growth in the number of papers substantially about LGBTQ+ people and an exponential increase in the number of mentions. Research about LGBTQ+ people tends to center experiences of being politicized, outside the norm, stigmatized, or highly vulnerable. LGBTQ+ people are typically mentioned as a marginalized group or an area of future research. We identify gaps and opportunities for (1) research about and (2) the discussion of LGBTQ+ in HCI and provide a dataset to facilitate future Queer HCI research.

E-mail ``Messages From the President'' to university students, staff, and faculty have long been used to keep campus communities aware of the latest policies, events, and news. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, as universities quickly closed facilities, sent students home, and canceled travel, these messages took on even greater importance. We report on a content analysis of bulk emails from different universities' presidents to their students and employees before and in three stages of the pandemic. We find that these messages change as universities move towards and through closure. During the pandemic, 1) presidential bulk emails tend to be more informative, positive, clearer than before; 2) they tend to use more personal and collective language; 3) university presidents tend to mention more local political leaders and fewer other university leaders. Our results can inform research on digital crisis communication and may be useful for researchers interested in automatically identifying crisis situations from communication streams.

Online mental health support communities have grown in recent years for providing accessible mental and emotional health support through volunteer counselors. Despite millions of people participating in chat support on these platforms, the clinical effectiveness of these communities on mental health symptoms remains unknown. Furthermore, although volunteers receive some training based on established therapeutic skills studied in face-to-face environments such as active listening and motivational interviewing, it remains understudied how the usage of these skills in this online context affects people's mental health status. In our work, we collaborate with one of the largest online peer support platforms and use both natural language processing and machine learning techniques to measure how one-on-one support chats affect depression and anxiety symptoms. We measure how the techniques and characteristics of support providers, such as using affirmation, empathy, and past experience on the platform, affect support-seekers' mental health changes. We find that online peer support chats improve both depression and anxiety symptoms with a statistically significant but relatively small effect size. Additionally, support providers' techniques such as emphasizing the autonomy of the client lead to better mental health outcomes. However, we also found that some behaviors (e.g. persuading) are actually harmful to depression and anxiety outcomes. Our work provides key understanding for mental health care in the online setting and designing training systems for online support providers.

A growing body of research has explored how to support humans in making better use of AI-based decision support, including via training and onboarding. Existing research has focused on decision-making tasks where it is possible to evaluate "appropriate reliance" by comparing each decision against a ground truth label that cleanly maps to both the AI's predictive target and the human decision-maker's goals. However, this assumption does not hold in many real-world settings where AI tools are deployed today (e.g., social work, criminal justice, and healthcare). In this paper, we introduce a process-oriented notion of appropriate reliance called critical use that centers the human's ability to situate AI predictions against knowledge that is uniquely available to them but unavailable to the AI model. To explore how training can support critical use, we conduct a randomized online experiment in a complex social decision-making setting: child maltreatment screening. We find that, by providing participants with accelerated, low-stakes opportunities to practice AI-assisted decision-making in this setting, novices came to exhibit patterns of disagreement with AI that resemble those of experienced workers. A qualitative examination of participants' explanations for their AI-assisted decisions revealed that they drew upon qualitative case narratives, to which the AI model did not have access, to learn when (not) to rely on AI predictions. Our findings open new questions for the study and design of training for real-world AI-assisted decision-making.

Much of our modern digital infrastructure relies critically upon open sourced software. The communities responsible for building this cyberinfrastructure require maintenance and moderation, which is often supported by volunteer efforts. Moderation, as a non-technical form of labor, is a necessary but often overlooked task that maintainers undertake to sustain the community around an OSS project. This study examines the various structures and norms that support community moderation, describes the strategies moderators use to mitigate conflicts, and assesses how bots can play a role in assisting these processes. We interviewed 14 practitioners to uncover existing moderation practices and ways that automation can provide assistance. Our main contributions include a characterization of moderated content in OSS projects, moderation techniques, as well as perceptions of and recommendations for improving the automation of moderation tasks. We hope that these findings will inform the implementation of more effective moderation practices in open source communities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many employees to work from home. Organizational bulk emails now play a critical role to reach employees with central information in this work-from-home environment. However, we know from our own recent work that organizational bulk email has problems: recipients fail to retain the bulk messages they received from the organization; recipients and senders have different opinions on which bulk messages were important; and communicators lack technology support to better target and design messages. In this position paper, first we review the prior work on evaluating, designing, and prototyping organizational communication systems. Second we review our recent findings and some research techniques we found useful in studying organizational communication. Last we propose a research agenda to study organizational communications in remote work environment and suggest some key questions and potential study directions., Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2006.16508

Community rules play a key part in enabling or constraining the behaviors of members in online communities. However, little is unknown regarding whether and to what degree changing rules actually affects community dynamics. In this paper, we seek to understand how these behavior-governing rules shape the interactions between users, as well as the structure of their discussion. Using the top communities on Reddit (i.e. subreddits), we first contribute a taxonomy of behavior-based rule categories across Reddit. Then, we use a network analysis perspective to discover how changing implementation of different rule categories affects subreddits' user interaction and discussion networks over a 1.5 year period. Our study find several significant effects, including greater clustering among users when subreddits increase rules focused on structural regulation and how restricting allowable content surprisingly leads to more interactions between users. Our findings contribute to research in proactive moderation through rule setting, as well as lend valuable insights for online community designers and moderators to achieve desired community dynamics.

LLMs have shown promise in replicating human-like behavior in crowdsourcing tasks that were previously thought to be exclusive to human abilities. However, current efforts focus mainly on simple atomic tasks. We explore whether LLMs can replicate more complex crowdsourcing pipelines. We find that modern LLMs can simulate some of crowdworkers' abilities in these "human computation algorithms," but the level of success is variable and influenced by requesters' understanding of LLM capabilities, the specific skills required for sub-tasks, and the optimal interaction modality for performing these sub-tasks. We reflect on human and LLMs' different sensitivities to instructions, stress the importance of enabling human-facing safeguards for LLMs, and discuss the potential of training humans and LLMs with complementary skill sets. Crucially, we show that replicating crowdsourcing pipelines offers a valuable platform to investigate (1) the relative strengths of LLMs on different tasks (by cross-comparing their performances on sub-tasks) and (2) LLMs' potential in complex tasks, where they can complete part of the tasks while leaving others to humans.

The gig economy is characterized by short-term contract work completed by independent workers who are paid to perform "gigs", and who have control over when, whether and how they conduct work. Gig economy platforms (e.g., Uber, Lyft, Instacart) offer workers increased job opportunities, lower barriers to entry, and improved flexibility. However, growing evidence suggests that worker well-being and gig work conditions have become significant societal issues. In designing public-facing policies and technologies for improving gig work conditions, inherent tradeoffs exist between offering individual flexibility and when attempting to meet all community needs. In platform-based gig work, contractors pursue the flexibility of short-term tasks, but policymakers resist segmenting the population when designing policies to support their work. As platforms offer an ever-increasing variety of services, we argue that policymakers and platform designers must provide more targeted and personalized policies, benefits, and protections for platform-based workers, so that they can lead more successful and sustainable gig work careers. We present in this paper relevant legal and scholarly evidence from the United States to support this position, and make recommendations for future innovations in policy and technology.

Large generative AI models (GMs) like GPT and DALL-E are trained to generate content for general, wide-ranging purposes. GM content filters are generalized to filter out content which has a risk of harm in many cases, e.g., hate speech. However, prohibited content is not always harmful -- there are instances where generating prohibited content can be beneficial. So, when GMs filter out content, they preclude beneficial use cases along with harmful ones. Which use cases are precluded reflects the values embedded in GM content filtering. Recent work on red teaming proposes methods to bypass GM content filters to generate harmful content. We coin the term green teaming to describe methods of bypassing GM content filters to design for beneficial use cases. We showcase green teaming by: 1) Using ChatGPT as a virtual patient to simulate a person experiencing suicidal ideation, for suicide support training; 2) Using Codex to intentionally generate buggy solutions to train students on debugging; and 3) Examining an Instagram page using Midjourney to generate images of anti-LGBTQ+ politicians in drag. Finally, we discuss how our use cases demonstrate green teaming as both a practical design method and a mode of critique, which problematizes and subverts current understandings of harms and values in generative AI.

AI-based decision-making tools are rapidly spreading across a range of real-world, complex domains like healthcare, criminal justice, and child welfare. A growing body of research has called for increased scrutiny around the validity of AI system designs. However, in real-world settings, it is often not possible to fully address questions around the validity of an AI tool without also considering the design of associated organizational and public policies. Yet, considerations around how an AI tool may interface with policy are often only discussed retrospectively, after the tool is designed or deployed. In this short position paper, we discuss opportunities to promote multi-stakeholder deliberations around the design of AI-based technologies and associated policies, at the earliest stages of a new project.

Online mental health communities (OMHCs) are an effective and accessible channel to give and receive social support for individuals with mental and emotional issues. However, a key challenge on these platforms is finding suitable partners to interact with given that mechanisms to match users are currently underdeveloped. In this paper, we collaborate with one of the world's largest OMHC to develop an agent-based simulation framework and explore the trade-offs in different matching algorithms. The simulation framework allows us to compare current mechanisms and new algorithmic matching policies on the platform, and observe their differing effects on a variety of outcome metrics. Our findings include that usage of the deferred-acceptance algorithm can significantly better the experiences of support-seekers in one-on-one chats while maintaining low waiting time. We note key design considerations that agent-based modeling reveals in the OMHC context, including the potential benefits of algorithmic matching on marginalized communities.

Recent years have seen growing adoption of AI-based decision-support systems (ADS) in homeless services, yet we know little about stakeholder desires and concerns surrounding their use. In this work, we aim to understand impacted stakeholders' perspectives on a deployed ADS that prioritizes scarce housing resources. We employed AI lifecycle comicboarding, an adapted version of the comicboarding method, to elicit stakeholder feedback and design ideas across various components of an AI system's design. We elicited feedback from county workers who operate the ADS daily, service providers whose work is directly impacted by the ADS, and unhoused individuals in the region. Our participants shared concerns and design suggestions around the AI system's overall objective, specific model design choices, dataset selection, and use in deployment. Our findings demonstrate that stakeholders, even without AI knowledge, can provide specific and critical feedback on an AI system's design and deployment, if empowered to do so.

Gig workers, and the products and services they provide, play an increasingly ubiquitous role in our daily lives. But despite growing evidence suggesting that worker well-being in gig economy platforms have become significant societal problems, few studies have investigated possible solutions. We take a stride in this direction by engaging workers, platform employees, and local regulators in a series of speed dating workshops using storyboards based on real-life situations to rapidly elicit stakeholder preferences for addressing financial, physical, and social issues related to worker well-being. Our results reveal that existing public and platformic infrastructures fall short in providing workers with resources needed to perform gigs, surfacing a need for multi-platform collaborations, technological innovations, as well as changes in regulations, labor laws, and the public's perception of gig workers, among others. Drawing from multi-stakeholder findings, we discuss these implications for technology, policy, and service as well as avenues for collaboration.

In this short paper, we argue for a refocusing of XAI around human learning goals. Drawing upon approaches and theories from the learning sciences, we propose a framework for the learner-centered design and evaluation of XAI systems. We illustrate our framework through an ongoing case study in the context of AI-augmented social work., Comment: 7 pages, 2 figures

Recent research increasingly brings to question the appropriateness of using predictive tools in complex, real-world tasks. While a growing body of work has explored ways to improve value alignment in these tools, comparatively less work has centered concerns around the fundamental justifiability of using these tools. This work seeks to center validity considerations in deliberations around whether and how to build data-driven algorithms in high-stakes domains. Toward this end, we translate key concepts from validity theory to predictive algorithms. We apply the lens of validity to re-examine common challenges in problem formulation and data issues that jeopardize the justifiability of using predictive algorithms and connect these challenges to the social science discourse around validity. Our interdisciplinary exposition clarifies how these concepts apply to algorithmic decision making contexts. We demonstrate how these validity considerations could distill into a series of high-level questions intended to promote and document reflections on the legitimacy of the predictive task and the suitability of the data., Comment: in IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) 2023

Child welfare agencies across the United States are turning to data-driven predictive technologies (commonly called predictive analytics) which use government administrative data to assist workers' decision-making. While some prior work has explored impacted stakeholders' concerns with current uses of data-driven predictive risk models (PRMs), less work has asked stakeholders whether such tools ought to be used in the first place. In this work, we conducted a set of seven design workshops with 35 stakeholders who have been impacted by the child welfare system or who work in it to understand their beliefs and concerns around PRMs, and to engage them in imagining new uses of data and technologies in the child welfare system. We found that participants worried current PRMs perpetuate or exacerbate existing problems in child welfare. Participants suggested new ways to use data and data-driven tools to better support impacted communities and suggested paths to mitigate possible harms of these tools. Participants also suggested low-tech or no-tech alternatives to PRMs to address problems in child welfare. Our study sheds light on how researchers and designers can work in solidarity with impacted communities, possibly to circumvent or oppose child welfare agencies., Comment: 10 pages in main body; 4 pages in appendix; Published in the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT'22)

Recent years have seen the development of many open-source ML fairness toolkits aimed at helping ML practitioners assess and address unfairness in their systems. However, there has been little research investigating how ML practitioners actually use these toolkits in practice. In this paper, we conducted the first in-depth empirical exploration of how industry practitioners (try to) work with existing fairness toolkits. In particular, we conducted think-aloud interviews to understand how participants learn about and use fairness toolkits, and explored the generality of our findings through an anonymous online survey. We identified several opportunities for fairness toolkits to better address practitioner needs and scaffold them in using toolkits effectively and responsibly. Based on these findings, we highlight implications for the design of future open-source fairness toolkits that can support practitioners in better contextualizing, communicating, and collaborating around ML fairness efforts., Comment: ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAccT 2022)

This is an extended analysis of our paper "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions," which looks at racial disparities in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to help child welfare workers decide which families the Allegheny County child welfare agency (CYF) should investigate. On April 27, 2022, Allegheny County CYF sent us an updated dataset and pre-processing steps. In this extended analysis of our paper, we show the results from re-running all quantitative analyses in our paper with this new data and pre-processing. We find that our main findings in our paper were robust to changes in data and pre-processing. Particularly, the Allegheny Family Screening Tool on its own would have made more racially disparate decisions than workers, and workers used the tool to decrease those algorithmic disparities. Some minor results changed, including a slight increase in the screen-in rate from before to after the implementation of the AFST reported our paper.

Motivated by the growing importance of reducing unfairness in ML predictions, Fair-ML researchers have presented an extensive suite of algorithmic 'fairness-enhancing' remedies. Most existing algorithms, however, are agnostic to the sources of the observed unfairness. As a result, the literature currently lacks guiding frameworks to specify conditions under which each algorithmic intervention can potentially alleviate the underpinning cause of unfairness. To close this gap, we scrutinize the underlying biases (e.g., in the training data or design choices) that cause observational unfairness. We present the conceptual idea and a first implementation of a bias-injection sandbox tool to investigate fairness consequences of various biases and assess the effectiveness of algorithmic remedies in the presence of specific types of bias. We call this process the bias(stress)-testing of algorithmic interventions. Unlike existing toolkits, ours provides a controlled environment to counterfactually inject biases in the ML pipeline. This stylized setup offers the distinct capability of testing fairness interventions beyond observational data and against an unbiased benchmark. In particular, we can test whether a given remedy can alleviate the injected bias by comparing the predictions resulting after the intervention in the biased setting with true labels in the unbiased regime-that is, before any bias injection. We illustrate the utility of our toolkit via a proof-of-concept case study on synthetic data. Our empirical analysis showcases the type of insights that can be obtained through our simulations., Comment: Appeared as a poster at the second ACM conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO'22)

As more individuals consider permanently working from home, the online labor market continues to grow as an alternative working environment. While the flexibility and autonomy of these online gigs attracts many workers, success depends critically upon self-management and workers' efficient allocation of scarce resources. To achieve this, freelancers may develop alternative work strategies, employing highly standardized schedules and communication patterns while taking on large work volumes, or engaging in smaller numbers of jobs whilst tailoring their activities to build relationships with individual employers. In this study, we consider this contrast in relation to worker communication patterns. We demonstrate the heterogeneous effects of standardization versus personalization across different stages of a project and examine the relative impact on job acquisition, project completion, and earnings. Our findings can inform the design of platforms and various worker support tools for the gig economy., Comment: CHI'22, April 29-May 5, 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA

AI-based decision support tools (ADS) are increasingly used to augment human decision-making in high-stakes, social contexts. As public sector agencies begin to adopt ADS, it is critical that we understand workers' experiences with these systems in practice. In this paper, we present findings from a series of interviews and contextual inquiries at a child welfare agency, to understand how they currently make AI-assisted child maltreatment screening decisions. Overall, we observe how workers' reliance upon the ADS is guided by (1) their knowledge of rich, contextual information beyond what the AI model captures, (2) their beliefs about the ADS's capabilities and limitations relative to their own, (3) organizational pressures and incentives around the use of the ADS, and (4) awareness of misalignments between algorithmic predictions and their own decision-making objectives. Drawing upon these findings, we discuss design implications towards supporting more effective human-AI decision-making., Comment: 2022 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Recent work in fair machine learning has proposed dozens of technical definitions of algorithmic fairness and methods for enforcing these definitions. However, we still lack an understanding of how to develop machine learning systems with fairness criteria that reflect relevant stakeholders' nuanced viewpoints in real-world contexts. To address this gap, we propose a framework for eliciting stakeholders' subjective fairness notions. Combining a user interface that allows stakeholders to examine the data and the algorithm's predictions with an interview protocol to probe stakeholders' thoughts while they are interacting with the interface, we can identify stakeholders' fairness beliefs and principles. We conduct a user study to evaluate our framework in the setting of a child maltreatment predictive system. Our evaluations show that the framework allows stakeholders to comprehensively convey their fairness viewpoints. We also discuss how our results can inform the design of predictive systems.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has been increasingly used in the implementation of advanced Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS). Research demonstrated the potential usefulness of AI-powered CDSS (AI-CDSS) in clinical decision making scenarios. However, post-adoption user perception and experience remain understudied, especially in developing countries. Through observations and interviews with 22 clinicians from 6 rural clinics in China, this paper reports the various tensions between the design of an AI-CDSS system ("Brilliant Doctor") and the rural clinical context, such as the misalignment with local context and workflow, the technical limitations and usability barriers, as well as issues related to transparency and trustworthiness of AI-CDSS. Despite these tensions, all participants expressed positive attitudes toward the future of AI-CDSS, especially acting as "a doctor's AI assistant" to realize a Human-AI Collaboration future in clinical settings. Finally we draw on our findings to discuss implications for designing AI-CDSS interventions for rural clinical contexts in developing countries.

Recently, there have been increasing calls for computer science curricula to complement existing technical training with topics related to Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics. In this paper, we present Value Card, an educational toolkit to inform students and practitioners of the social impacts of different machine learning models via deliberation. This paper presents an early use of our approach in a college-level computer science course. Through an in-class activity, we report empirical data for the initial effectiveness of our approach. Our results suggest that the use of the Value Cards toolkit can improve students' understanding of both the technical definitions and trade-offs of performance metrics and apply them in real-world contexts, help them recognize the significance of considering diverse social values in the development of deployment of algorithmic systems, and enable them to communicate, negotiate and synthesize the perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Our study also demonstrates a number of caveats we need to consider when using the different variants of the Value Cards toolkit. Finally, we discuss the challenges as well as future applications of our approach.

Bulk email is a primary communication channel within organizations, with all-company emails and regular newsletters serving as a mechanism for making employees aware of policies and events. Ineffective communication could result in wasted employee time and a lack of compliance or awareness. Previous studies on organizational emails focused mostly on recipients. However, organizational bulk email system is a multi-stakeholder problem including recipients, communicators, and the organization itself. We studied the effectiveness, practice, and assessments of the organizational bulk email system of a large university from multi-stakeholders' perspectives. We conducted a qualitative study with the university's communicators, recipients, and managers. We delved into the organizational bulk email's distributing mechanisms of the communicators, the reading behaviors of recipients, and the perspectives on emails' values of communicators, managers, and recipients. We found that the organizational bulk email system as a whole was strained, and communicators are caught in the middle of this multi-stakeholder problem. First, though the communicators had an interest in preserving the effectiveness of channels in reaching employees, they had high-level clients whose interests might outweigh judgment about whether a message deserves widespread circulation. Second, though communicators thought they were sending important information, recipients viewed most of the organizational bulk emails as not relevant to them. Third, this disagreement was amplified by the success metric used by communicators. They viewed their bulk emails as successful if they had a high open rate. But recipients often opened and then rapidly discarded emails without reading the details. Last, while the communicators in general understood the challenge, they had a limited set of targeting and feedback tools to support their task., Comment: This is a pre-print version of a paper accepted to CSCW 2021, the 24th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 23 pages

Algorithmic decision-making systems are increasingly used throughout the public and private sectors to make important decisions or assist humans in making these decisions with real social consequences. While there has been substantial research in recent years to build fair decision-making algorithms, there has been less research seeking to understand the factors that affect people's perceptions of fairness in these systems, which we argue is also important for their broader acceptance. In this research, we conduct an online experiment to better understand perceptions of fairness, focusing on three sets of factors: algorithm outcomes, algorithm development and deployment procedures, and individual differences. We find that people rate the algorithm as more fair when the algorithm predicts in their favor, even surpassing the negative effects of describing algorithms that are very biased against particular demographic groups. We find that this effect is moderated by several variables, including participants' education level, gender, and several aspects of the development procedure. Our findings suggest that systems that evaluate algorithmic fairness through users' feedback must consider the possibility of outcome favorability bias., Comment: To appear at CHI 2020

We conduct a study of hiring bias on a simulation platform where we ask Amazon MTurk participants to make hiring decisions for a mathematically intensive task. Our findings suggest hiring biases against Black workers and less attractive workers and preferences towards Asian workers female workers and more attractive workers. We also show that certain UI designs including provision of candidates information at the individual level and reducing the number of choices can significantly reduce discrimination. However provision of candidates information at the subgroup level can increase discrimination. The results have practical implications for designing better online freelance marketplaces., Comment: 11 page, 2 figures, 38rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2020

Mass media afford researchers critical opportunities to disseminate research findings and trends to the general public. Yet researchers also perceive that their work can be miscommunicated in mass media, thus generating unintended understandings of HCI research by the general public. We conduct a Grounded Theory analysis of interviews with 12 HCI researchers and find that miscommunication can occur at four origins along the socio-technical infrastructure known as the Media Production Pipeline (MPP) for science news. Results yield researchers' perceived hazards of disseminating their work through mass media, as well as strategies for fostering effective communication of research. We conclude with implications for augmenting or innovating new MPP technologies., Comment: 10 pages, 2 figures, accepted paper to CHI 2020 conference

On Wikipedia, sophisticated algorithmic tools are used to assess the quality of edits and take corrective actions. However, algorithms can fail to solve the problems they were designed for if they conflict with the values of communities who use them. In this study, we take a Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design approach to understanding a community-created and -maintained machine learning-based algorithm called the Objective Revision Evaluation System (ORES)---a quality prediction system used in numerous Wikipedia applications and contexts. Five major values converged across stakeholder groups that ORES (and its dependent applications) should: (1) reduce the effort of community maintenance, (2) maintain human judgement as the final authority, (3) support differing peoples' differing workflows, (4) encourage positive engagement with diverse editor groups, and (5) establish trustworthiness of people and algorithms within the community. We reveal tensions between these values and discuss implications for future research to improve algorithms like ORES., Comment: 10 pages, 1 table, accepted paper to CHI 2020 conference

Artificial intelligence algorithms have been used to enhance a wide variety of products and services, including assisting human decision making in high-stakes contexts. However, these algorithms are complex and have trade-offs, notably between prediction accuracy and fairness to population subgroups. This makes it hard for designers to understand algorithms and design products or services in a way that respects users' goals, values, and needs. We proposed a method to help designers and users explore algorithms, visualize their trade-offs, and select algorithms with trade-offs consistent with their goals and needs. We evaluated our method on the problem of predicting criminal defendants' likelihood to re-offend through (i) a large-scale Amazon Mechanical Turk experiment, and (ii) in-depth interviews with domain experts. Our evaluations show that our method can help designers and users of these systems better understand and navigate algorithmic trade-offs. This paper contributes a new way of providing designers the ability to understand and control the outcomes of algorithmic systems they are creating., Comment: Paper appeared at Proceedings of The 2020 ACM conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS'20)

To support ethical considerations and system integrity in learning analytics, this paper introduces two cases of applying the Value Sensitive Design methodology to learning analytics design. The first study applied two methods of Value Sensitive Design, namely stakeholder analysis and value analysis, to a conceptual investigation of an existing learning analytics tool. This investigation uncovered a number of values and value tensions, leading to design trade-offs to be considered in future tool refinements. The second study holistically applied Value Sensitive Design to the design of a recommendation system for the Wikipedia WikiProjects. To proactively consider values among stakeholders, we derived a multi-stage design process that included literature analysis, empirical investigations, prototype development, community engagement, iterative testing and refinement, and continuous evaluation. By reporting on these two cases, this paper responds to a need of practical means to support ethical considerations and human values in learning analytics systems. These two cases demonstrate that Value Sensitive Design could be a viable approach for balancing a wide range of human values, which tend to encompass and surpass ethical issues, in learning analytics design., Comment: The 9th International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK19)