• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • 🇫🇷
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of “Bias” in NLP (Research summary)

September 28, 2020

Summary contributed by Falaah Arif Khan, our Artist in Residence. She creates art exploring tech, including comics related to AI.

Link to original paper + authors at the bottom.


Mini-summary: With the recent boom in scholarship on Fairness and Bias in Machine Learning, several competing notions of bias and different approaches to mitigate their impact have emerged. This incisive meta-review from Blodgett et al dissects 146 papers on Bias in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and identifies critical discrepancies in motivation, normative reasoning and suggested approaches. Key findings from this study include mismatched motivations and interventions, a lack of engagement with relevant literature outside of NLP and overlooking the underlying power dynamics that inform language.

Full summary:

The authors ground their analysis in the recognition that social hierarchies and power dynamics deeply influence language. With this in mind, they make the following recommendations for future scholarship on Bias in NLP- They implore researchers to engage with relevant literature outside of the technical NLP community, in order to better motivate a deeper, richer formalization of “bias”- it’s sources, why it is harmful, in what ways and to whom. They also underline the importance of engaging with communities who are most affected by NLP systems and to take into account their lived experiences.

Their critical survey on recent scholarship demonstrates that perspectives that reconcile language and social dynamics are currently lacking. They find that most papers contain poorly motivated studies that leave unstated what algorithmic discrimination even entails or how it contributes to social injustice. This is further exacerbated by papers that omit normative reasoning and instead focus entirely on system performance. When motivations are enumerated in papers, they often remain brief and overlook an exposition on what type of model behaviors are deemed as harmful or ‘biased’, in what ways do these behaviors cause harm and to whom do they inflict harm. In the absence of a strong, well-articulated motivation for studying bias in NLP, papers on the same task end up operating with different notions of “bias” and hence take different approaches to mitigating this “bias”.

With opposing notions of “bias”, scholars tend to treat “bias” that is inherently representational (the model represents certain social groups less favorably than others) as allocational (discriminatory allocation of resources to different groups) and so authors tend to incorrectly treat representational norms as problematic only due to the fact that they can affect downstream applications that result in allocations.
In terms of shortcomings of techniques used to study “bias” in NLP, the paper identifies a lack of engagement with relevant literature outside of NLP, a mismatch between motivation and technique, and a narrow focus on the sources of bias.

With these limitations of existing scholarship in mind, the authors propose a fundamental reorientation of scholarship on analysing ‘bias’ in NLP towards the question: How are social hierarchies, language ideologies and NLP systems co-produced? Language is a tool for wielding power and language technologies play a critical role in maintaining power dynamics and enforcing social hierarchies. These dynamics influence every stage of the technological lifecycle and hence scholarship focused only on algorithmic interventions will prove to be inadequate.

The authors also validate their recommendations using a case study on African-American English (AAE). They explain how models such as toxicity detectors that perform extremely poorly on AAE perpetuate social stigmatization of AAE speakers. The case study drives home the authors’ point that analysis of ‘bias’ in such a context cannot be limited to merely algorithmic analyses, without taking into account the underlying systemic and structural inequalities.

The authors conclude with an open call to the scientific community, reiterating the need to unite scholarship on language with scholarship on social and power hierarchies.


Original paper by Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, Hanna Wallach: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.acl-main.485.pdf

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

Canada’s Minister of AI and Digital Innovation is a Historic First. Here’s What We Recommend.

Am I Literate? Redefining Literacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

AI Policy Corner: The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act

AI Policy Corner: Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0

AI Governance in a Competitive World: Balancing Innovation, Regulation and Ethics | Point Zero Forum 2025

related posts

  • A technical study on the feasibility of using proxy methods for algorithmic bias monitoring in a pri...

    A technical study on the feasibility of using proxy methods for algorithmic bias monitoring in a pri...

  • Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey

    Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey

  • Language Models: A Guide for the Perplexed

    Language Models: A Guide for the Perplexed

  • Acceptable Risks in Europe’s Proposed AI Act: Reasonableness and Other Principles for Deciding How M...

    Acceptable Risks in Europe’s Proposed AI Act: Reasonableness and Other Principles for Deciding How M...

  • How Prevalent is Gender Bias in ChatGPT? - Exploring German and English ChatGPT Responses

    How Prevalent is Gender Bias in ChatGPT? - Exploring German and English ChatGPT Responses

  • The role of the African value of Ubuntu in global AI inclusion discourse: A normative ethics perspec...

    The role of the African value of Ubuntu in global AI inclusion discourse: A normative ethics perspec...

  • Bias Amplification Enhances Minority Group Performance

    Bias Amplification Enhances Minority Group Performance

  • On Measuring Fairness in Generative Modelling (NeurIPS 2023)

    On Measuring Fairness in Generative Modelling (NeurIPS 2023)

  • Characterizing, Detecting, and Predicting Online Ban Evasion

    Characterizing, Detecting, and Predicting Online Ban Evasion

  • Ethics as a service: a pragmatic operationalisation of AI Ethics

    Ethics as a service: a pragmatic operationalisation of AI Ethics

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • © MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE. All rights reserved 2024.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.