Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice

被引:41
|
作者
Keddell, Emily [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Otago, Sch Social Sci, Social & Community Work Programme, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
来源
SOCIAL SCIENCES-BASEL | 2019年 / 8卷 / 10期
关键词
child protection; predictive analytics; rights; social justice; algorithms; decision making;
D O I
10.3390/socsci8100281
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Algorithmic tools are increasingly used in child protection decision-making. Fairness considerations of algorithmic tools usually focus on statistical fairness, but there are broader justice implications relating to the data used to construct source databases, and how algorithms are incorporated into complex sociotechnical decision-making contexts. This article explores how data that inform child protection algorithms are produced and relates this production to both traditional notions of statistical fairness and broader justice concepts. Predictive tools have a number of challenging problems in the child protection context, as the data that predictive tools draw on do not represent child abuse incidence across the population and child abuse itself is difficult to define, making key decisions that become data variable and subjective. Algorithms using these data have distorted feedback loops and can contain inequalities and biases. The challenge to justice concepts is that individual and group rights to non-discrimination become threatened as the algorithm itself becomes skewed, leading to inaccurate risk predictions drawing on spurious correlations. The right to be treated as an individual is threatened when statistical risk is based on a group categorisation, and the rights of families to understand and participate in the decisions made about them is difficult when they have not consented to data linkage, and the function of the algorithm is obscured by its complexity. The use of uninterpretable algorithmic tools may create 'moral crumple zones', where practitioners are held responsible for decisions even when they are partially determined by an algorithm. Many of these criticisms can also be levelled at human decision makers in the child protection system, but the reification of these processes within algorithms render their articulation even more difficult, and can diminish other important relational and ethical aims of social work practice.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Raising the profile of fairness and justice in medical practice and policy
    Gillon, Raanan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2020, 46 (12) : 789 - 790
  • [42] Social Implications of Digital Justice
    Coppola, Irene
    Barbosa, Jose de Arimateia
    [J]. REVISTA JURIDICA PORTUCALENSE, 2022, : 95 - 106
  • [43] Reflections on fairness: continuing the progression of justice research and practice
    Taylor, MS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2001, 58 (02) : 243 - 253
  • [44] Remote Proctoring in Language Testing: Implications for Fairness and Justice
    Isbell, Daniel R.
    Kremmel, Benjamin
    Kim, Jieun
    [J]. LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT QUARTERLY, 2023, 20 (4-5) : 469 - 487
  • [45] Assessing Criminal Justice Practice Using Social Justice Theory
    Robinson, Matthew
    [J]. SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH, 2010, 23 (01) : 77 - 97
  • [46] Assessing Criminal Justice Practice Using Social Justice Theory
    Matthew Robinson
    [J]. Social Justice Research, 2010, 23 : 77 - 97
  • [47] Fairness, accountability and transparency: notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice
    Chiao, Vincent
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW IN CONTEXT, 2019, 15 (02) : 126 - 139
  • [48] Research agenda for algorithmic fairness studies: Access to justice lessons for interdisciplinary research
    Kontiainen, Laura
    Koulu, Riikka
    Sankari, Suvi
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2022, 5
  • [49] Intersections of Accountability and Special Education: The Social Justice Implications of Policy and Practice
    Castro-Villarreal, Felicia
    Nichols, Sharon L.
    [J]. TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD, 2016, 118 (14):
  • [50] Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice
    Hayward, T
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, 2002, 11 (04) : 511 - 513