‘This is a matter of life and death for efficiency’: the implications of datafication within public services for epistemic (in)justice

IF 6.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Jaana Parviainen, Sini Teräsahde, Paula Alanen, Anne Koski, Juho Rantala
{"title":"‘This is a matter of life and death for efficiency’: the implications of datafication within public services for epistemic (in)justice","authors":"Jaana Parviainen,&nbsp;Sini Teräsahde,&nbsp;Paula Alanen,&nbsp;Anne Koski,&nbsp;Juho Rantala","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03157-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper discusses institutional epistemic injustice by addressing the structural conditions in digital environments that can create unfair situations for some people. We examine implementing data-driven algorithmic systems for public services by analysing its impacts on users from the perspective of epistemic (in)justice. Epistemic injustice occurs when an individual or group is treated unfairly in their ‘capacity as a knower’. Based on thematic semi-structured interviews with experts and policymakers in Finland, we examine the collision between job seekers’ interests and the political and economic pressures influencing public service development, resulting in solutions that are not beneficial to all citizens and residents. Focusing on three digital civil rights—accessibility, transparency and inclusion—we argue that datafication in the design of online services has several negative consequences that may increase users’ epistemic vulnerability. We conclude that datafied employment self-services are not the result of a technological breakthrough or an ideal solution for job seeker needs but a compromise resulting from the political, administrative, economic, legislative and technical factors underlying the design process. This digital reform offers new administrative tools for enhancing efficiency, cutting costs, replacing human discretion with automation and increasing surveillance of citizens and public authorities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 9","pages":"8525 - 8542"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-026-03157-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-026-03157-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses institutional epistemic injustice by addressing the structural conditions in digital environments that can create unfair situations for some people. We examine implementing data-driven algorithmic systems for public services by analysing its impacts on users from the perspective of epistemic (in)justice. Epistemic injustice occurs when an individual or group is treated unfairly in their ‘capacity as a knower’. Based on thematic semi-structured interviews with experts and policymakers in Finland, we examine the collision between job seekers’ interests and the political and economic pressures influencing public service development, resulting in solutions that are not beneficial to all citizens and residents. Focusing on three digital civil rights—accessibility, transparency and inclusion—we argue that datafication in the design of online services has several negative consequences that may increase users’ epistemic vulnerability. We conclude that datafied employment self-services are not the result of a technological breakthrough or an ideal solution for job seeker needs but a compromise resulting from the political, administrative, economic, legislative and technical factors underlying the design process. This digital reform offers new administrative tools for enhancing efficiency, cutting costs, replacing human discretion with automation and increasing surveillance of citizens and public authorities.

“这是效率的生死攸关的问题”:公共服务中数据化对认知正义的影响
本文通过解决数字环境中可能对某些人造成不公平情况的结构性条件,讨论了制度认识上的不公正。我们通过从认知正义的角度分析其对用户的影响,研究实施数据驱动的公共服务算法系统。当个人或群体因“作为知识分子”而受到不公平对待时,就会发生认知不公。基于对芬兰专家和政策制定者的专题半结构化访谈,我们研究了求职者的利益与影响公共服务发展的政治和经济压力之间的冲突,导致解决方案并非对所有公民和居民都有利。关注三个数字公民权利——可访问性、透明度和包容性——我们认为,在线服务设计中的数据化有几个负面后果,可能会增加用户的认知脆弱性。我们的结论是,数据化就业自助服务不是技术突破的结果,也不是求职者需求的理想解决方案,而是设计过程中政治、行政、经济、立法和技术因素的妥协结果。这种数字化改革为提高效率、削减成本、用自动化取代人工裁量权以及加强对公民和公共当局的监督提供了新的行政工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AI & Society
AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
257
期刊介绍: AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书