• 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

Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML

October 13, 2022

🔬 Research Summary by Lindsay Weinberg, a Clinical Assistant Professor in the John Martinson Honors College at Purdue University, and the Founding Director of the Tech Justice Lab.

[Original paper by Lindsay Weinberg]


Overview: This survey article assesses and compares existing critiques of current fairness-enhancing technical interventions in machine learning (ML) from a range of non-computing disciplines, including philosophy, feminist studies, critical race and ethnic studies, legal studies, anthropology, and science and technology studies. It bridges epistemic divides in order to offer an interdisciplinary understanding of the possibilities and limits of hegemonic computational approaches to ML fairness for producing just outcomes for society’s most marginalized. 


Introduction

Recently, there has been a wave of AI scholarship working to define and measure fairness in computational terms. However, scholars from a variety of fields have argued that many computational approaches to fairness fail to disrupt entrenched power dynamics, resulting in disparate harms for marginalized people throughout the AI lifecycle. The central goal of this survey article was to summarize and assess critiques of fairness interventions in machine learning (ML) in order to help researchers foreground social justice considerations and undo the unequal distribution of social, economic, and political power shaping the AI field. 

To conduct this survey, Weinberg limited search criteria to papers, articles, books, and conference proceedings published after 2015 with the full text available, and that explicitly positioned themselves as critiques of computational fairness interventions into ML. After identifying relevant literature, these selected works were tagged and annotated according to key thematic concerns, epistemic frameworks, and core theoretical concepts. 

Ultimately, the author found that there were nine major themes running through the sampled scholarship concerning the following: 1) how fairness gets defined; 2) how problems for AI systems to address get formulated; 3) the impacts of abstraction on how AI tools function and its propensity to lead to technological solutionism; 4) how racial classification operates within AI fairness research; 5) the use of AI fairness measures to avoid regulation and engage in ethics washing; 6) an absence of participatory design and democratic deliberation in AI fairness considerations; 7) data collection practices that entrench “bias,” are non-consensual, and lack transparency; 8) the predatory inclusion of marginalized groups into AI systems; and 9) a lack of engagement with AI’s long-term social and ethical outcomes.

Rethinking Fairness

How Fairness Gets Defined

Fairness in ML research is generally presented as a mathematical, procedural or statistical guideline that can be operationalized in order to ensure fair outcomes. However, several surveyed scholars argue that fairness is always highly contested and in need of social and political context. Additionally, surveyed scholars identify a range of utilitarian assumptions generally built into predictive models that can prove harmful, such as the assumption that individuals “can be considered symmetrically, e.g., the harm of denying a loan to someone who could repay is equal across people.”

Problem Formulation

Another site of critique is the ways that problems for ML to address get forumated in the first place, which then shapes how fairness is conceptualized and tested. Oftentimes, problems for ML to “solve” are biased towards what is most easily quantifiable and take the context of the model’s deployment at face value. This can overlook forms of unfairness that are baked into the context itself, such as who came to be subject to a given model in the first place and how. For instance, several ML tools used for pretrial risk assessment only provide the options of releasing someone, setting bail, or detaining them, as opposed to directing someone to pretrial services or generating support for community-based policies. 

Abstraction and Technological Solutionism

The reviewed scholarship also describes how ML fairness considerations are often abstracted from the social and political conditions that shape AI/ML tools, resulting in mathematically “fair” algorithms that lead to unfair social impacts. Additionally, the belief that algorithms can be applied to all situations and problems, regardless of their complexity, often crowds out other forms of knowledge that might lead to non-technical solutions better positioned to address a given task. This includes the knowledge that comes from marginalized people who are typically removed from meaningful forms of control over algorithmic systems, and yet are often disproportionately subject to their most punitive consequences.

Racial Classification in AI Fairness

Within hegemonic approaches to ML fairness research, race is typically treated as a category of personal identity rather than a political category tied to historical and present day forms of segregation and social stratification. Group-based fairness criteria often treat oppressed social groups as interchangeable using simplistic and decontextualized understandings of race. The reviewed scholarship demonstrates how common approaches to racial classification in ML fairness research minimize the structural factors that contribute to algorithmic unfairness. 

Regulation Avoidance and Ethics Washing

Some scholars have also argued that computational fairness metrics help big tech avoid outside regulation using technical adjustments and an oversimplification of fairness issues. Other scholars document how universities help ethics wash a range of harmful AI applications by influencing policy and shaping ethics discourse in ways that prioritize the needs and interests of commercial and military partners. 

Absence of Participatory Design and Democratic Deliberation

ML fairness research often maintains power in the hands of technologists, rather than robustly including impacted users in the design and assessment of ML tools. While many ML tools have disparate impacts on marginalized people, people who are disadvantaged or multiply-burdened under capitalism, white supremacy, and colonialism are rarely given meaningful opportunities to participate in the development, or deliberate the fairness, of ML tools.  

Data Collection and Bias

Forms of data collection underpinning ML fairness research have also received scrutiny. In several cases, efforts to improve the “fairness” of a given AI tool have been predicated on surveillance, a lack of informed consent, and labor exploitation in order to fill data “gaps.” Furthermore, several scholars argue that the emphasis on measurable, mathematical ideas of fairness has led to a fixation on data “bias” as a computational problem rather than a social problem, while sidestepping the ways that the “very methods and approaches that the ML community uses to reduce, formalize, and gather feedback are themselves sources of bias.” 

Predatory Inclusion

While marginalized people do not often hold power over the design, implementation, and assessment of ML, there are also cases where marginalized people are included. However, the term “predatory inclusion” speaks to the ways that data or participation from marginalized people can be used to manufacture consent and legitimize injustice. For instance, images of students, immigrants, abused children, people who have had mugshots taken, and deceased people have all been used to improve the “fairness” of facial recognition technology across different groups. “Fairer” facial recognition technology is then used to justify the expansion of oppressive state powers of surveillance. 

Lack of Engagement with Long-Term Outcomes

The final thread of critique found in the surveyed scholarship concerned a prioritization of short term over long term impacts in ML fairness research. ML fairness literature often presupposes an environment that is fixed, leading to a lack of engagement with possible downstream effects and potential feedback loops. One such example is predictive policing, where data is derived from low income communities of color that are disproportionately patrolled, resulting in increasingly intensified conditions of police surveillance.  

Proposed Solutions

A variety of technical and non-technical solutions have been proposed for addressing the limits and harms of hegemonic ML fairness research, from the use of causal graphs, checklists, and participatory design, to greater interdisciplinarity, democratic deliberation, and regulation, to more critical, intersectional, and reflective approaches to data collection. However, not all solutions are equally well positioned to create just outcomes for marginalized people, nor interrogate the power that corporate and military interests exercise over the direction of ML fairness research.  Solutions that take power-centered approaches engage with the lived experiences of marginalized people and question “who is harmed, who benefits, and who gets to decide in a given ML application context, grounded in analysis that prioritizes justice considerations.” Power-centered solutions are best positioned to redress the entrenched structural injustices shaping the AI field, including mainstream ML fairness research.

Between the lines

These findings demonstrate the urgency with which the ML/AI fairness community needs to engage in anti-oppressive approaches to AI. According to Weinberg, anti-oppressive approaches require “not only bridging divides between different epistemic communities, but also aligning ML fairness work with existing, historically longstanding, and international struggles for just institutions and community relations.” Currently, existing ML fairness research tends to optimize an unjust social order, rather than providing marginalized people with greater agency, self-determination, and democratic control over algorithmic tools. Additionally, fairness metrics should not be prioritized over the question of whether to build a given AI tool at all. It is Weinberg’s hope that this survey article will help amplify the existing interventions of critical race and feminist scholarship into ML fairness discourse, while catalyzing further research on how to center questions of power, justice, and community needs within the AI field. 

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

  • Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support

    Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support

  • System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy

    System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy

  • The importance of audit in AI governance

    The importance of audit in AI governance

  • Promises and Challenges of Causality for Ethical Machine Learning

    Promises and Challenges of Causality for Ethical Machine Learning

  • Representation and Imagination for Preventing AI Harms

    Representation and Imagination for Preventing AI Harms

  • Listen to What They Say: Better Understand and Detect Online Misinformation with User Feedback

    Listen to What They Say: Better Understand and Detect Online Misinformation with User Feedback

  • AI Safety, Security, and Stability Among Great Powers (Research Summary)

    AI Safety, Security, and Stability Among Great Powers (Research Summary)

  • HAI Weekly Seminar Series: Decolonizing AI with Sabelo Mhlambi

    HAI Weekly Seminar Series: Decolonizing AI with Sabelo Mhlambi

  • Research summary: Artificial Intelligence: The Ambiguous Labor Market Impact of Automating Predictio...

    Research summary: Artificial Intelligence: The Ambiguous Labor Market Impact of Automating Predictio...

  • A Machine Learning Challenge or a Computer Security Problem?

    A Machine Learning Challenge or a Computer Security Problem?

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.