The Intersections Podcast, created at McMaster University explores issues at the intersection of race, religion, gender, media, and communications policy. In this episode, guest host Zahraa Malik speaks with Natasha Malik, a PhD Candidate in Communication, New Media and Cultural Studies at McMaster University.
Natasha describes how the language and practice of participatory design applies to contemporary applied AI ethics actions framed as “Responsible AI”. Their conversation explores the role of experiential expertise in crafting policy that is responsive to arising cultural shifts, of consequence, to public trust in science and democratic capability.
Natasha highlights the ethical dimensions of participatory AI, and the investments necessary to bridge silos and make distributed relations of knowledge, authority and leadership in AI design and policymaking practice possible.
Bibliography:
Clement, A. (2023). Preliminary analysis of ISED’s C-27 list of 300 stakeholder consultation meetings. SSRN. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4658004
Clement, A. (2024, March 1). AIDA Amended – Far from enough: A response to Minister Champagne’s proposed amendments. Retrieved from House of Commons https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/INDU/Brief/BR12949365/br-external/ClementAndrew-AIDAAmended2024-03-01-e.pdf
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.
Delgado, F., Yang, S., Madaio, M., & Yang, Q. (2023). The participatory turn in AI design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice. EAAMO ‘23: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 37, 1-23. https://doi-org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/10.1145/3617694.3623261
Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273337040_Work-Oriented_Design_of_Computer_Artifacts
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Duke University Press.
Feenberg, A. (2005). Critical theory of technology: An overview. Tailoring Biotechnologies, 1(1), 47-64. https://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/books/critbio.pdf
Ganesh, M. I., & Moss, E. (2022). Resistance and refusal to algorithmic harms: Varieties of ‘knowledge projects’. Media International Australia, 183(1), 90-106. https://doi-org.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/10.1177/1329878X221076288
Magassa, L., Young, M., & Friedman, B. (2017). Diverse Voices: A how-to guide for facilitating inclusiveness in tech policy. The Tech Policy Lab at the University of Washington. https://techpolicylab.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TPL_Diverse_Voices_How-To_Guide_2017.pdf
Raso, J. (2024). Responsible AI: Binaries that bind. McGill Law Journal, 69(4). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4838013
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136. Retrieved November 26, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
Young, M., Ehsan, U., Singh, R., Tafesse, E., Gilman, M., Harrington, C., & Metcalf, J. (2024). Participation versus scale: Tensions in the practical demands on participatory AI. First Monday, 29(4-1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v29i4.13642
Young, M., Magassa, L., & Friedman, B. (2019). Toward inclusive tech policy design: A method for underrepresented voices to strengthen tech policy documents. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(2), 89-103. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10676-019-09497-z
Zuboff, S. (2018). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future At the New Frontier of Power. Profile Books.