-
Secondary Stakeholders in AI: Fighting for, Brokering, and Navigating Agency
Authors:
Leah Hope Ajmani,
Nuredin Ali Abdelkadir,
Stevie Chancellor
Abstract:
As AI technologies become more human-facing, there have been numerous calls to adapt participatory approaches to AI development -- spurring the idea of participatory AI. However, these calls often focus only on primary stakeholders, such as end-users, and not secondary stakeholders. This paper seeks to translate the ideals of participatory AI to a broader population of secondary AI stakeholders th…
▽ More
As AI technologies become more human-facing, there have been numerous calls to adapt participatory approaches to AI development -- spurring the idea of participatory AI. However, these calls often focus only on primary stakeholders, such as end-users, and not secondary stakeholders. This paper seeks to translate the ideals of participatory AI to a broader population of secondary AI stakeholders through semi-structured interviews. We theorize that meaningful participation involves three participatory ideals: (1) informedness, (2) consent, and (3) agency. We also explore how secondary stakeholders realize these ideals by traversing a complicated problem space. Like walking up the rungs of a ladder, these ideals build on one another. We introduce three stakeholder archetypes: the reluctant data contributor, the unsupported activist, and the well-intentioned practitioner, who must navigate systemic barriers to achieving agentic AI relationships. We envision an AI future where secondary stakeholders are able to meaningfully participate with the AI systems they influence and are influenced by.
△ Less
Submitted 8 June, 2025;
originally announced June 2025.
-
Moving Towards Epistemic Autonomy: A Paradigm Shift for Centering Participant Knowledge
Authors:
Leah Hope Ajmani,
Talia Bhatt,
Michael Ann Devito
Abstract:
Justice, epistemology, and marginalization are rich areas of study in HCI. And yet, we repeatedly find platforms and algorithms that push communities further into the margins. In this paper, we propose epistemic autonomy -- one's ability to govern knowledge about themselves -- as a necessary HCI paradigm for working with marginalized communities. We establish epistemic autonomy by applying the tra…
▽ More
Justice, epistemology, and marginalization are rich areas of study in HCI. And yet, we repeatedly find platforms and algorithms that push communities further into the margins. In this paper, we propose epistemic autonomy -- one's ability to govern knowledge about themselves -- as a necessary HCI paradigm for working with marginalized communities. We establish epistemic autonomy by applying the transfeminine principle of autonomy to the problem of epistemic injustice. To articulate the harm of violating one's epistemic autonomy, we present six stories from two trans women: (1) a transfem online administrator and (2) a transfem researcher. We then synthesize our definition of epistemic autonomy in research into a research paradigm. Finally, we present two variants of common HCI methods, autoethnography and asynchronous remote communities, that stem from these beliefs. We discuss how CHI is uniquely situated to champion this paradigm and, thereby, the epistemic autonomy of our research participants.
△ Less
Submitted 29 January, 2025; v1 submitted 24 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
-
A Systematic Review of NeurIPS Dataset Management Practices
Authors:
Yiwei Wu,
Leah Ajmani,
Shayne Longpre,
Hanlin Li
Abstract:
As new machine learning methods demand larger training datasets, researchers and developers face significant challenges in dataset management. Although ethics reviews, documentation, and checklists have been established, it remains uncertain whether consistent dataset management practices exist across the community. This lack of a comprehensive overview hinders our ability to diagnose and address…
▽ More
As new machine learning methods demand larger training datasets, researchers and developers face significant challenges in dataset management. Although ethics reviews, documentation, and checklists have been established, it remains uncertain whether consistent dataset management practices exist across the community. This lack of a comprehensive overview hinders our ability to diagnose and address fundamental tensions and ethical issues related to managing large datasets. We present a systematic review of datasets published at the NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks track, focusing on four key aspects: provenance, distribution, ethical disclosure, and licensing. Our findings reveal that dataset provenance is often unclear due to ambiguous filtering and curation processes. Additionally, a variety of sites are used for dataset hosting, but only a few offer structured metadata and version control. These inconsistencies underscore the urgent need for standardized data infrastructures for the publication and management of datasets.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 2024;
originally announced November 2024.
-
Whose Knowledge is Valued?: Epistemic Injustice in CSCW Applications
Authors:
Leah Hope Ajmani,
Jasmine C Foriest,
Jordan Taylor,
Kyle Pittman,
Sarah Gilbert,
Michael Ann Devito
Abstract:
Social computing scholars have long known that people do not interact with knowledge in straightforward ways, especially in digital environments. While policies around knowledge are essential for targeting misinformation, they are value-laden; in choosing how to present information, we undermine non-traditional -- often non-Western -- ways of knowing. Epistemic injustice is the systemic exclusion…
▽ More
Social computing scholars have long known that people do not interact with knowledge in straightforward ways, especially in digital environments. While policies around knowledge are essential for targeting misinformation, they are value-laden; in choosing how to present information, we undermine non-traditional -- often non-Western -- ways of knowing. Epistemic injustice is the systemic exclusion of certain people and methods from the knowledge canon. Epistemic injustice chips away at one's testimony and vocabulary until they are stripped of their due right to know and understand. In this paper, we articulate how epistemic injustice in sociotechnical applications leads to material harm. Inspired by a hybrid collaborative autoethnography of 14 CSCW practitioners, we present three cases of epistemic injustice in sociotechnical applications: online transgender healthcare, identity sensemaking on r/bisexual, and Indigenous ways of knowing on r/AskHistorians. We further explore signature tensions across our autoethnographic materials and relate them to previous CSCW research areas and personal non-technological experiences. We argue that epistemic injustice can serve as a unifying and intersectional lens for CSCW research by surfacing dimensions of epistemic community and power. Finally, we present a call to action of three changes the CSCW community should make to move toward its own goals of research justice. We call for CSCW researchers to center individual experiences, bolster communities, and remediate issues of epistemic power as a means towards epistemic justice. In sum, we recount, synthesize, and propose solutions for the various forms of epistemic injustice that CSCW sites of study -- including CSCW itself -- propagate.
△ Less
Submitted 3 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
