Gertler, Nicholas (2023) Hacking AI Governance: Exploring the Democratic Potential of Canada's Algorithmic Impact Assessment. Masters thesis, Concordia University.
Preview |
Text (application/pdf)
1MBGertler_MA_F2023.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access. |
![[thumbnail of Archived copy of the aia.guide website developed as part of this research-creation thesis.]](https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/style/images/fileicons/archive.png) |
Archive (Archived copy of the aia.guide website developed as part of this research-creation thesis.) (application/zip)
930kBGertler_MA_F2023_aiaguide.wacz - Accepted Version Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access. |
Preview |
Image (application/pdf)
5MBGertler_MA_F2023_WorkshopTemplate.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access. |
Abstract
Amid growing concern over the adoption of artificial intelligence systems, algorithmic impact assessments (AIAs) have increasingly been proposed as a means of measuring and mitigating the impacts of AI. Proposed AIA methods vary significantly in their approaches, but even within this heterogeneous group, the AIA tool released by the Government of Canada in 2019 stands out. This AIA tool—an open-source, online questionnaire platform—represents one of the first-ever attempts at putting principles of “responsible AI” into practice. In this research-creation thesis, I explore Canada’s AIA tool as a media object, looking at the online questionnaire as a strategic opportunity to intervene in the growing debates about AI governance. Building on methods in critical making and civic hacking, this project includes the creation of both a critical guide to the AIA tool (aia.guide) and a series of “AIA hackathon” workshops designed to explore the tool’s use by the Government of Canada and its potential in the broader AI governance context. Informed by a deep ambivalence over the technology (Bucher 2019), I argue that the AIA tool is largely performative but also represents an important site for tactical intervention. In particular, I argue that collaborative processes of questionnaire design may prove to be effective methods for participatory and community-based AI governance.
| Divisions: | Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Communication Studies |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Thesis (Masters) |
| Authors: | Gertler, Nicholas |
| Institution: | Concordia University |
| Degree Name: | M.A. |
| Program: | Media Studies |
| Date: | 3 August 2023 |
| Thesis Supervisor(s): | McKelvey, Fenwick |
| Keywords: | artificial intelligence, automated decision-making, governance, responsible AI, participatory methods, research-creation |
| ID Code: | 992742 |
| Deposited By: | Nicholas Gertler |
| Deposited On: | 14 Nov 2023 20:41 |
| Last Modified: | 14 Nov 2023 20:41 |
| Related URLs: |
References:
AI Now Institute. 2018. “Algorithmic Impact Assessments: Toward Accountable Automation in Public Agencies.” https://ainowinstitute.org/publication/algorithmic-impact-assessments-toward-accountable-automation-in-public-agencies.Bell, Genevieve, Mark Blythe, and Phoebe Sengers. 2005. “Making by Making Strange: Defamil-iarization and the Design of Domestic Technologies.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12 (2): 149–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067862.
Bucher, Taina. 2019. “Bad Guys and Bag Ladies: On the Politics of Polemics and the Promise of Ambivalence.” Social Media + Society 5 (3): 2056305119856705. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119856705.
Cardoso, Tom, and Bill Curry. 2021. “National Defence Skirted Federal Rules in Using Artificial Intelligence, Privacy Commissioner Says.” The Globe and Mail, February 7, 2021. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-national-defence-skirted-federal-rules-in-using-artificial/.
Chapman, Owen B., and Kim Sawchuk. 2012. “Research-Creation: Intervention, Analysis and ‘Family Resemblances.’” Canadian Journal of Communication 37 (1). https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2012v37n1a2489.
Clarke, John, Dave Bainton, Noémi Lendvai, and Paul Stubbs, eds. 2015. Making Policy Move: Towards a Politics of Translation and Assemblage. Bristol: Policy Press.
Copeland, Eddie. 2018. “10 Principles for Public Sector Use of Algorithmic Decision Making.” Nesta (blog). February 20, 2018. https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/10-principles-for-public-sector-use-of-algorithmic-decision-making/.
Costanza-Chock, Sasha. 2020. “Design Sites: Hackerspaces, Fablabs, Hackathons, and Dis-coTechs.” In Design Justice. PubPub. https://design-justice.pubpub.org/pub/yvwnnz7b/release/1.
Fairclough, Norman. 2013. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Poli-cy Studies 7 (2): 177–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. 2022. “Algorithmic Impact Assessment – Ad-vanced Analytics Triage of Visitor Record Applications - Open Government Portal.” https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/01396e33-2c69-47e5-9381-32e717943b96.
Jobin, Anna, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. 2019. Artificial Intelligence: The Global Landscape of Ethics Guidelines.
Karlin, Michael. 2017. “Responsible AI in the Government of Canada: A Sneak Peek.” Code for Canada (blog). July 5, 2017. https://medium.com/code-for-canada/responsible-ai-in-the-government-of-canada-a-sneak-peek-973727477bdf.
———. 2018. “A Canadian Algorithmic Impact Assessment.” Supergovernance (blog). March 18, 2018. https://medium.com/@supergovernance/a-canadian-algorithmic-impact-assessment-128a2b2e7f85.
———. 2022 Interview by Nicholas Gertler.
Katzenbach, Christian, and Lena Ulbricht. 2019. “Algorithmic Governance.” Internet Policy Re-view 8 (4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424.
Keung, Nicholas. 2023. “How AI Is Helping Canada Keep Some People out of the Country. And Why There Are Those Who Say It’s a Problem.” Toronto Star. June 2, 2023. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/how-ai-is-helping-canada-keep-some-people-out-of-the-country-and-why-there/article_ea4dc715-debf-50e1-94c2-fda48a91dd09.html.
Lea, Tess. 2020. Wild Policy: Indigeneity and the Unruly Logics of Intervention. Stanford Univer-sity Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503612679.
Lessig, Lawrence. 2002. Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace. Nachdr. New York: The Perseus Books Group.
Light, Ben, Jean Burgess, and Stefanie Duguay. 2018. “The Walkthrough Method: An Approach to the Study of Apps.” New Media & Society 20 (3): 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438.
Maalsen, Sophia. 2021. “The Hack: What It Is And Why It Matters To Urban Studies.” Urban Studies, February, 004209802098630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020986300.
Mackenzie, Adrian. 2006. Cutting Code: Software and Sociality. Digital Formations, v. 30. New York: Peter Lang.
Marres, Noortje. 2005. “Issues Spark a Public Into Being.” In Making Things Public: Atmos-pheres of Democracy, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 208–17. Cambridge, Mass. : [Karlsruhe, Germany]: MIT Press ; ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe.
———. 2010. “Front-Staging Nonhumans: Publicity as a Constraint on the Political Activity of Things.” In Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life, edited by Bruce Braun and Sarah Whatmore, 177–209. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McKelvey, Fenwick Robert. 2014. “Algorithmic Media Need Democratic Methods: Why Publics Matter.” Canadian Journal of Communication 39 (4). https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2014v39n4a2746.
Moss, Emanuel, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Ranjit Singh, Madeleine Clare Elish, and Jacob Metcalf. 2021. “Assembling Accountability: Algorithmic Impact Assessment for the Public Interest.” Data & Society Research Institute.
Pangborn, Matthew H. 2010. “Defamiliarization,” December. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444337839.wbelctv1d001.
Paul, Regine. 2022. “Can Critical Policy Studies Outsmart AI? Research Agenda on Artificial Intel-ligence Technologies and Public Policy.” Critical Policy Studies 16 (4): 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2123018.
Peters, John Durham. 2013. “Calendar, Clock, Tower.” In Deus in Machina: Religion, Technology, and the Things in Between, edited by Jeremy Stolow, 1st ed, 25–42. New York: Fordham University Press.
Powell, Alison. 2016. “Hacking In The Public Interest: Authority, Legitimacy, Means, And Ends.” New Media & Society 18 (4): 600–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816629470.
Ratto, Matt. 2011. “Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life.” The Information Society 27 (4): 252–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819.
Reisman, Dillon, Jason Schultz, Kate Crawford, and Merideth Whitaker. 2018. “Algorithmic Im-pact Assessments: A Practical Framework for Public Agency Accountability.” AI Now In-stitute. https://ainowinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/aiareport2018.pdf.
Saurwein, Florian, Natascha Just, and Michael Latzer. 2015. “Governance of Algorithms: Options and Limitations.” Info 17 (6): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2015-0025.
Scassa, Teresa. 2021. “Administrative Law and the Governance of Automated Decision Making: A Critical Look at Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision Making.” U.B.C. Law Review 54 (1): [i]-298.
Thorpe, Charles, and Jane Gregory. 2010. “Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Econ-omy of Public Engagement with Science.” Science as Culture 19 (3): 273–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430903194504.
Université de Montréal. 2018. “The Declaration - Déclaration de Montréal IA Responsable.” https://montrealdeclaration-responsibleai.com/the-declaration/.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.
Repository Staff Only: item control page
Download Statistics
Download Statistics