scholarly journals Explanations as governance? Investigating practices of explanation in algorithmic system design

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-375
Author(s):  
Alison B Powell

The algorithms underpinning many everyday communication processes are now complex enough that rendering them explainable has become a key governance objective. This article examines the question of 'who should be required to explain what, to whom, in platform environments'. By working with algorithm designers and using design methods to extrapolate existing capacities to explain aglorithmic functioning, the article discusses the power relationships underpinning explanation of algorithmic function. Reviewing how key concepts of transparency and accountability connect with explainability, the paper argues that reliance on explainability as a governance mechanism can generate a dangerous paradox which legitimates increased reliance on programmable infrastructure as expert stakeholders are reassured by their ability to perform or receive explanations, while displacing responsibility for understandings of social context and definitions of public interest

The principal focus of Chapter 19 is on the statutory protection from victimization of employees and other ‘workers’ who disclose information in the public interest under the provisions introduced into employment legislation by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. It describes the purpose and scheme of the provisions (in their original form and as amended in 2013), and explains key concepts such as ‘protected disclosure’, ‘qualifying disclosure’ and ‘worker’. It then outlines the procedures and remedies applicable in the event of unfair dismissal or subjection to detriment for making a protected disclosure. How the legislation works in practice is illustrated by reference to cases decided in employment tribunals, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and the higher courts. The chapter also takes a brief look at whistle-blowing duties imposed on auditors and actuaries of financial institutions and persons involved in administering pension schemes following the BCCI and Maxwell affairs in the 1990s.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 205520761987860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiemute Oyibo ◽  
Julita Vassileva

Fitness applications aimed at behavior change are becoming increasingly popular due to the global prevalence of sedentary lifestyles and physical inactivity, causing countless non-communicable diseases. Competition is one of the most common persuasive strategies employed in such applications to motivate users to engage in physical activity in a social context. However, there is limited research on the persuasive system design predictors of users’ susceptibility to competition as a persuasive strategy for motivating behavior change in a social context. To bridge this gap, we designed storyboards illustrating four of the commonly employed persuasive strategies (reward, social learning, social comparison, and competition) in fitness applications and asked potential users to evaluate their perceived persuasiveness. The result of our path analysis showed that, overall, users’ susceptibilities to social comparison (βT = 0.48, p < 0.001), reward (βT = 0.42, p < 0.001), and social learning (βT = 0.29, p < 0.01) predicted their susceptibility to competition, with our model accounting for 41% of its variance. Social comparison partially mediated the relationship between reward and competition, while social learning partially mediated the relationship between social comparison and competition. Comparatively, the relationship between reward and social learning was stronger for females than for males, whereas the relationship between reward and competition was stronger for males than for females. Overall, our findings underscore the compatibility of all four persuasive strategies in a one-size-fits-all fitness application. We discuss our findings, drawing insight from the comments provided by participants.


Author(s):  
Michael Szczepkowski ◽  
Kelly Neville ◽  
Ed Popp

A number of challenges hinder the development of systems that support users in the conduct of their work. Challenges include the widespread use and acceptance of design methods that are system-centered rather than work-centered; the time required to develop a work-centered system design; the imprecise nature of translating work domain analysis results into a work-centered design; and unsatisfactory means for coordinating design and design-implementation processes. The Work-centered Infomediary Layer (WIL) design model and method have been developed to address challenges such as these and to facilitate work-centered design in general. In this paper, we describe the application of WIL to the design of a work-centered support system for defensive counterspace (DCS) operators. The design model and method are presented, followed by a description of the resulting system design and ways in which it was shaped and defined through use of the WIL method.


2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 2144-2155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Bars ◽  
Patrizio Colaneri ◽  
Luc Dugard ◽  
Frank Allgöwer ◽  
Anatolii Kleimenov ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. H. Sadati ◽  
M. Sabzeh Parvar ◽  
M. B. Menhaj

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document