迷失在翻译:一个互动的研讨会映射跨学科翻译的认识正义

Evelyn Wan, A. D. Groot, Shazade Jameson, M. Paun, Phillip Lücking, Goda Klumbytė, Danny Lämmerhirt
{"title":"迷失在翻译:一个互动的研讨会映射跨学科翻译的认识正义","authors":"Evelyn Wan, A. D. Groot, Shazade Jameson, M. Paun, Phillip Lücking, Goda Klumbytė, Danny Lämmerhirt","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3375685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are gaps in understanding in and between those who design systems of AI/ ML, those who critique them, and those positioned between these discourses. This gap can be defined in multiple ways - e.g. methodological, epistemological, linguistic, or cultural. To bridge this gap requires a set of translations: the generation of a collaborative space and a new set of shared sensibilities that traverse disciplinary boundaries. This workshop aims to explore translations across multiple fields, and translations between theory and practice, as well as how interdisciplinary work could generate new operationalizable approaches. We define 'knowledge' as a social product (L. Code) which requires fair and broad epistemic cooperation in its generation, development, and dissemination. As a \"marker for truth\" (B. Williams) and therefore a basis for action, knowledge circulation sustains the systems of power which produce it in the first place (M. Foucault). Enabled by epistemic credence, authority or knowledge, epistemic power can be an important driver of, but also result from, other (e.g. economic, political) powers. To produce reliable output, our standards and methods should serve us all and exclude no-one. Critical theorists have long revealed failings of epistemic practices, resulting in the marginalization and exclusion of some types of knowledge. How can we cultivate more reflexive epistemic practices in the interdisciplinary research setting of FAT*? We frame this ideal as 'epistemic justice' (M. Geuskens), the positive of 'epistemic injustice', defined by M. Fricker as injustice that exists when people are wronged as a knower or as an epistemic subject. Epistemic justice is the proper use and allocation of epistemic power; the inclusion and balancing of all epistemic sources. As S. Jasanoff reminds us, any authoritative way of seeing must be legitimized in discourse and practice, showing that practices can be developed to value and engage with other viewpoints and possibly reshape our ways of knowing. Our workshop aims to address the following questions: how could critical theory or higher level critiques be translated into and anchored in ML/AI design practices - and vice versa? What kind of cartographies and methodologies are needed in order to identify issues that can act as the basis of collaborative research and design? How can we (un)learn our established ways of thinking for such collaborative work to take place? During the workshop, participants will create, share and explode prototypical workflows of designing, researching and critiquing algorithmic systems. We will identify moments in which translations and interdisciplinary interventions could or should happen in order to build actionable steps and methodological frameworks that advance epistemic justice and are conducive to future interdisciplinary collaboration.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lost in translation: an interactive workshop mapping interdisciplinary translations for epistemic justice\",\"authors\":\"Evelyn Wan, A. D. Groot, Shazade Jameson, M. Paun, Phillip Lücking, Goda Klumbytė, Danny Lämmerhirt\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3351095.3375685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are gaps in understanding in and between those who design systems of AI/ ML, those who critique them, and those positioned between these discourses. This gap can be defined in multiple ways - e.g. methodological, epistemological, linguistic, or cultural. To bridge this gap requires a set of translations: the generation of a collaborative space and a new set of shared sensibilities that traverse disciplinary boundaries. This workshop aims to explore translations across multiple fields, and translations between theory and practice, as well as how interdisciplinary work could generate new operationalizable approaches. We define 'knowledge' as a social product (L. Code) which requires fair and broad epistemic cooperation in its generation, development, and dissemination. As a \\\"marker for truth\\\" (B. Williams) and therefore a basis for action, knowledge circulation sustains the systems of power which produce it in the first place (M. Foucault). Enabled by epistemic credence, authority or knowledge, epistemic power can be an important driver of, but also result from, other (e.g. economic, political) powers. To produce reliable output, our standards and methods should serve us all and exclude no-one. Critical theorists have long revealed failings of epistemic practices, resulting in the marginalization and exclusion of some types of knowledge. How can we cultivate more reflexive epistemic practices in the interdisciplinary research setting of FAT*? We frame this ideal as 'epistemic justice' (M. Geuskens), the positive of 'epistemic injustice', defined by M. Fricker as injustice that exists when people are wronged as a knower or as an epistemic subject. Epistemic justice is the proper use and allocation of epistemic power; the inclusion and balancing of all epistemic sources. As S. Jasanoff reminds us, any authoritative way of seeing must be legitimized in discourse and practice, showing that practices can be developed to value and engage with other viewpoints and possibly reshape our ways of knowing. Our workshop aims to address the following questions: how could critical theory or higher level critiques be translated into and anchored in ML/AI design practices - and vice versa? What kind of cartographies and methodologies are needed in order to identify issues that can act as the basis of collaborative research and design? How can we (un)learn our established ways of thinking for such collaborative work to take place? During the workshop, participants will create, share and explode prototypical workflows of designing, researching and critiquing algorithmic systems. We will identify moments in which translations and interdisciplinary interventions could or should happen in order to build actionable steps and methodological frameworks that advance epistemic justice and are conducive to future interdisciplinary collaboration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":377829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3375685\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3375685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

那些设计AI/ ML系统的人,那些批评他们的人,以及那些处于这些话语之间的人之间的理解存在差距。这种差距可以用多种方式来定义,例如方法论、认识论、语言或文化。为了弥合这一差距,需要一系列的翻译:一个协作空间的产生和一套新的跨越学科界限的共享情感。本次研讨会旨在探讨跨领域的翻译,理论与实践之间的翻译,以及跨学科工作如何产生新的可操作方法。我们将“知识”定义为一种社会产品(L. Code),在其产生、发展和传播过程中需要公平和广泛的知识合作。作为“真理的标记”(B. Williams),因此也是行动的基础,知识流通首先维持着产生它的权力系统(M. Foucault)。在认识论的信任、权威或知识的支持下,认识论权力可以是其他权力(如经济、政治)的重要驱动力,也可以是其他权力的结果。为了产生可靠的产出,我们的标准和方法应该服务于所有人,不排斥任何人。批判理论家早就揭示了认识论实践的失败,导致某些类型的知识被边缘化和排斥。在FAT*的跨学科研究背景下,我们如何培养更多的反思性认知实践?我们将这种理想定义为“认识论正义”(M. Geuskens),这是“认识论不公正”(M. Fricker将其定义为当人们作为一个知者或认识论主体被冤枉时存在的不公正)的积极面。认识正义是认识权力的合理运用和分配;包括和平衡所有的知识来源。正如S. Jasanoff提醒我们的那样,任何权威的观察方式都必须在话语和实践中得到合法化,这表明实践可以发展到重视和参与其他观点,并可能重塑我们的认识方式。我们的研讨会旨在解决以下问题:如何将批评理论或更高层次的批评转化为ML/AI设计实践,反之亦然?为了确定可以作为合作研究和设计基础的问题,需要什么样的制图和方法?我们如何(不)学习我们的既定思维方式,以实现这种协作工作?在研讨会期间,参与者将创建,分享和爆炸设计,研究和批评算法系统的原型工作流程。我们将确定翻译和跨学科干预可能或应该发生的时刻,以建立可操作的步骤和方法框架,促进认识正义,并有利于未来的跨学科合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lost in translation: an interactive workshop mapping interdisciplinary translations for epistemic justice
There are gaps in understanding in and between those who design systems of AI/ ML, those who critique them, and those positioned between these discourses. This gap can be defined in multiple ways - e.g. methodological, epistemological, linguistic, or cultural. To bridge this gap requires a set of translations: the generation of a collaborative space and a new set of shared sensibilities that traverse disciplinary boundaries. This workshop aims to explore translations across multiple fields, and translations between theory and practice, as well as how interdisciplinary work could generate new operationalizable approaches. We define 'knowledge' as a social product (L. Code) which requires fair and broad epistemic cooperation in its generation, development, and dissemination. As a "marker for truth" (B. Williams) and therefore a basis for action, knowledge circulation sustains the systems of power which produce it in the first place (M. Foucault). Enabled by epistemic credence, authority or knowledge, epistemic power can be an important driver of, but also result from, other (e.g. economic, political) powers. To produce reliable output, our standards and methods should serve us all and exclude no-one. Critical theorists have long revealed failings of epistemic practices, resulting in the marginalization and exclusion of some types of knowledge. How can we cultivate more reflexive epistemic practices in the interdisciplinary research setting of FAT*? We frame this ideal as 'epistemic justice' (M. Geuskens), the positive of 'epistemic injustice', defined by M. Fricker as injustice that exists when people are wronged as a knower or as an epistemic subject. Epistemic justice is the proper use and allocation of epistemic power; the inclusion and balancing of all epistemic sources. As S. Jasanoff reminds us, any authoritative way of seeing must be legitimized in discourse and practice, showing that practices can be developed to value and engage with other viewpoints and possibly reshape our ways of knowing. Our workshop aims to address the following questions: how could critical theory or higher level critiques be translated into and anchored in ML/AI design practices - and vice versa? What kind of cartographies and methodologies are needed in order to identify issues that can act as the basis of collaborative research and design? How can we (un)learn our established ways of thinking for such collaborative work to take place? During the workshop, participants will create, share and explode prototypical workflows of designing, researching and critiquing algorithmic systems. We will identify moments in which translations and interdisciplinary interventions could or should happen in order to build actionable steps and methodological frameworks that advance epistemic justice and are conducive to future interdisciplinary collaboration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信