Procedural fairness in algorithmic decision-making: the role of public engagement

Abstract Despite the widespread use of automated decision-making (ADM) systems, they are often developed without involving the public or those directly affected, leading to concerns about systematic biases that may perpetuate structural injustices. Existing formal fairness approaches primarily focus on statistical outcomes across demographic groups or individual fairness, yet these methods reveal ambiguities and limitations in addressing fairness comprehensively. This paper argues for a holistic approach to algorithmic fairness that integrates procedural fairness, considering both decision-making processes and their outcomes. Procedural fairness emphasizes the importance of fair decision-making procedures, which aligns with theories of relational justice that stress the quality of social relations and power dynamics. We highlight the need for substantive procedural fairness to ensure better outcomes and address forward-looking responsibilities. Additionally, we propose leveraging Public Engagement, a core dimension within the well-established Responsible Research and Innovation framework, to enhance procedural fairness in ADM systems. Our contribution underscores the value of Public Engagement in fostering fairer ADM processes, thereby expanding the current focus beyond technical outcome-based approaches to encompass broader procedural considerations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2024-11-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09811-4
Citations
31
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
16.31

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Procedural fairness in algorithmic decision-making: the role of public engagement

Marie Christin Decker, Carmen Leicht-Scholten, Laila Wegner
31 citations
Ethics and Information Technology
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
16.31
article

Procedural fairness in algorithmic decision-making: the role of public engagement

Marie Christin Decker, Carmen Leicht-Scholten, Laila Wegner
article en
31 citations

Abstract

Abstract Despite the widespread use of automated decision-making (ADM) systems, they are often developed without involving the public or those directly affected, leading to concerns about systematic biases that may perpetuate structural injustices. Existing formal fairness approaches primarily focus on statistical outcomes across demographic groups or individual fairness, yet these methods reveal ambiguities and limitations in addressing fairness comprehensively. This paper argues for a holistic approach to algorithmic fairness that integrates procedural fairness, considering both decision-making processes and their outcomes. Procedural fairness emphasizes the importance of fair decision-making procedures, which aligns with theories of relational justice that stress the quality of social relations and power dynamics. We highlight the need for substantive procedural fairness to ensure better outcomes and address forward-looking responsibilities. Additionally, we propose leveraging Public Engagement, a core dimension within the well-established Responsible Research and Innovation framework, to enhance procedural fairness in ADM systems. Our contribution underscores the value of Public Engagement in fostering fairer ADM processes, thereby expanding the current focus beyond technical outcome-based approaches to encompass broader procedural considerations.

Ethics and Information TechnologyVol. 27(1)
RWTH Aachen University (DE)
RWTH Aachen University
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
16.31
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.