ProPublica employed an algorithmic audit to unveil inherent racial biases within Northpointe’s risk assessment software. Independently testing the system with diverse respondents statistically exposed its bias against black individuals. Utilizing a straightforward visual bar graph, they vividly illustrated how the system favored white defendants with lower-risk ratings compared to black defendants. The article’s intended audience comprises Northpointe’s software developers, policymakers, programmers, black activists, social justice advocates, law enforcement, researchers, the judiciary, academia, the media, and a broader public. However, the limitation of this approach lies in raising awareness alone; rectifying these biases demands purposeful stakeholder engagement and consistent efforts.

In the ACM conference paper titled “Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning,” the authors offer a comprehensive framework to understand the intricacies of enforcing accountability in the digital age. They draw from Nissenbaum’s moral philosophy, political theory, and social sciences, examining four accountability barriers as proposed by Nissenbaum: “Many hands,” “bug,” “computer as scapegoat,” and “ownership without liability.” They effectively elucidate how these barriers obscure accountability, primarily concerning “who is accountable,” “For what,” “To whom,” and “under what circumstances.” The authors also provide solutions to “weakening the barriers,” including developing rigorous care standards and defining acceptable levels of adverse outcomes. The paper assumes that accountability is a universal good and therefore does not spend any effort at convincing actors on the need for it. It also fails to consider accountability from the economic standpoint as this would have a greater appeal to the creators of these computer systems who are mainly motivated by economic gains.

The AI comics excel in simplifying complex AI concepts, employing everyday analogies to enhance reader comprehension. They serve as valuable educational tools, bridging the gap between non-technical audiences and experts looking to convey intricate technical phenomena to the general public. The use of images fosters immersion and better concept comprehension. Nonetheless, one drawback, is the oversimplification of intricate concepts. While beneficial for educating beginners, they may fall short in conveying the nuances and complexities of AI and machine learning to a more in-depth understanding.

Data journalism serves as a cornerstone in data acquisition, analysis, dissemination, advocacy, and public education, among other crucial functions. From the readings and recordings, a robust case emerges for data journalism’s pivotal role and its responsibility to the public in the modern information age.

Methodological Contributions to Research

Kevin Guyan’s “Queer Data” raises pertinent questions concerning various study designs, encompassing methodologies and data collection tools. These salient questions underline the potential for researchers to inadvertently introduce biases, particularly against minority and marginalized populations. Beyond spotlighting these methodological limitations, data journalists champion novel approaches to data collection and analysis, often breaking away from academic conventions. These avant-garde approaches establish fresh methodological avenues for comprehensively understanding our world. Moreover, they set an innovative precedent for defining research methodologies, thus empowering researchers and data enthusiasts. Nikki’s work in “Data Set Failures and Intersectional Data” further advances methodological contributions by exploring intersectionality and novel approaches tailored to specific research contexts.

Facilitating Data Access for the Public

Alex Howard’s discourse on “Data Journalism in the Second Machine Age” artfully showcases how data journalism creatively sources, analyzes, and disseminates data. This creative process encompasses digitizing paper records into searchable online archives and employing data-driven methods to illuminate intricate societal issues. It spans concerns such as air pollution, corruption, food security, national security, and healthcare, delivering them to the public with flair and impact. This not only educates the public but also serves as a potent advocacy tool.

Advocacy and Ensuring Accountability

Inextricably linked to data accessibility, data journalism plays a pivotal role in advocacy and fostering accountability. By uncovering concealed issues and underscoring those previously disregarded, data journalists mobilize the necessary attention for policy shifts and concrete actions. A striking instance is the controversial publication of personally identifiable information about gun owners by New York-based Journal News, which, despite causing public outrage, catalyzed substantial policy alterations in New York State’s gun laws. Additional examples from renowned sources like Wikileaks, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, La Nacion, and more covering topics like corruption, ambulance response times, fundraising, serve as invaluable assets for advocacy and structural accountability.

The Dark Side of Data Journalism

Nonetheless, data journalism is not immune to ethical dilemmas. As illuminated in the podcast “Becoming Data: Data and Humanity (A Data & Society Podcast) Episode 1,” data journalists may sometimes unintentionally publish information about vulnerable groups, inadvertently perpetuating oppression within societal power dynamics. A concerning example revolves around the publication of eviction data, which landlords and real estate agents could exploit when selecting tenants, potentially perpetuating inequality and structural injustices that society seeks to alleviate.

The discourse above demonstrates that data journalism is an indispensable societal cornerstone, extending its influence across data utilization, accessibility, advocacy, and accountability. While its capacity to empower and enlighten is profound, data journalism must tread carefully, acknowledging the complex terrain of ethical responsibilities and the potential consequences that could either uplift or harm the public it serves.

This week’s reading delves into the expansive realm of data journalism, commencing with a manifesto that outlines twelve challenges crucial for critical data practice. These challenges scrutinize data journalism’s capacity not only to mold relationships among diverse stakeholders but also to craft representations of the world. They span the wide spectrum of data collection, public involvement, objectivity, social justice, and the art of storytelling with and about data.

In the subsequent but interrelated narratives, the compendium explores themes including data collection, data cleaning or standardization, data context, measurements, algorithms, numbers, stakeholder validation, stakeholder participation, dissemination, data infrastructures like databases, the dynamics of numbers, indigenous data sovereignty, and collaboration, among others.

For the sake of structure and clarity, I will delineate the discussion into three major themes: data collection and integrity, data ownership, and the narrative aspects of working with data.

One significant insight from this week’s reading is that data isn’t always readily available to fulfill the needs of data journalists. Even when data appears accessible, it may lack completeness, currency, or proper formatting. Consequently, data journalists frequently find themselves compelled to construct their datasets to convey the intended narratives. A multitude of approaches was shared for this purpose, ranging from basic online searches to more intricate methods such as undercover data collection. Importantly, these projects often require collaboration with readers, volunteers, experts, indigenous communities, and power structures. Additionally, ensuring data integrity emerged as a paramount concern. Rigorous data quality assurance processes, including field revisits, triangulation, expert and community member verification, and adherence to predefined data cleaning standards, are essential to maintain the accuracy and trustworthiness of data-driven narratives.

The notion of indigenous data sovereignty raises complex questions regarding data ownership, control, harm, and collective benefit. It reminded me of how design justice, in this case, maybe data justice principle could be applied to protect the rights of indigenous people “to own, control, access and possess data that derive from them, and which pertain to their members, knowledge systems, customs or territories.”  It was revealed that Western data protection models are ill-suited for safeguarding indigenous data sovereignty since they primarily focus on individual rights, whereas indigenous data is collective. Data journalism emerges as a promising avenue for challenging this status quo by empowering indigenous peoples to frame their narratives and hold those in power accountable.

The most captivating aspect of this week’s reading for me revolves around the art of telling stories with and about data. The concept of “narrating a number” is particularly enlightening, highlighting how numbers, despite their sociotechnical characteristics, can be potent tools for obfuscating real social issues. The text elaborates on two fundamental speaking positions in data journalism: the Visual Embedded within Narrative and the Narrative Embedded within the Visual. The former deploys visual representations to support or illustrate narrative points, with the narrative being the primary focus. In contrast, the latter prioritizes visuals, using narrative to explain or provide context. This fluid approach allows data journalists to effectively communicate their ideas and engage their audience, recognizing that both narratives and visuals are invaluable tools in data journalism.

This has been a profoundly enlightening journey, prompting me to contemplate the multifaceted challenges and ethical considerations inherent in this field. I found the issue of data integrity particularly relevant, as it emphasizes the rigorous processes necessary to ensure that data-driven narratives are not only compelling but also trustworthy. Furthermore, the exploration of indigenous data sovereignty raises crucial questions about whose voices and stories are heard in data journalism, challenging us to consider how we can empower marginalized communities to take control of their narratives. The concept of “narrating a number” and the two fundamental speaking positions provide a fresh perspective on the interplay between narratives and visuals. It reminds us that data journalism is an art that requires a delicate balance between storytelling and visualization.

In “Design Justice,” the overarching theme of “FREEDOM FROM BIAS” takes center stage as a fundamental pillar of designing for the public. Costanza-Chock embarks on a mission to shed light on the often unintended but profound impact of design choices, revealing their potential to reinforce oppressive systems. While acknowledging that most modern designers don’t consciously perpetuate these systems, the author asserts that their decisions frequently unintentionally contribute to the matrix of oppression. Consequently, the book advocates for the deliberate institutionalization of a framework that compels designers to thoughtfully consider the broader societal implications of their creations. This entails active engagement with the communities that interact with the resulting products, including both present and potential users.

Costanza-Chock’s exploration commences with an in-depth examination of the concept of design, aiming to formulate a practical definition. While acknowledging that humans are natural designers, the author narrows their focus to professional designers who craft for the public. Design is portrayed as both a verb and a noun, encompassing the manipulation of future objects and systems. This process involves an array of tools, ranging from specialized software to traditional wisdom.

Throughout the book, Costanza-Chock expertly dissects key concepts such as design justice, intersectionality, the matrix of domination, and affordances. The author effectively demonstrates how design plays a pivotal role in the allocation of benefits and burdens among diverse groups of people. Drawing from personal experiences as a member of a minority group and highlighting institutional biases stemming from design choices, Costanza-Chock illustrates how these biases manifest as disaffordances. These disaffordances often translate into microaggressions experienced by marginalized communities, who are simultaneously more susceptible to severe forms of oppression.

Addressing the systemic biases on a significant scale necessitates concerted and organized efforts. Costanza-Chock argues that achieving design justice requires a coalition comprising designers, developers, social movement organizations, policymakers, and everyday individuals. The author proposes several remedial design concepts that could contribute to tackling this challenge effectively. These include value-sensitive design, participatory design, designing for accessibility, inclusive design, universal design, and the need for retooling for design justice. A recurring theme is the indispensable role of communities in driving the desired changes in design decisions and outcomes.

However, some questions linger in the reader’s mind. Costanza-Chock’s call for systemic change raises concerns about who bears the additional costs associated with rectifying these issues. In a landscape dominated by profit-driven private sector entities, the distribution of these costs remains a significant challenge. The book leaves readers pondering, “Who should foot the bill for fixing a biased system: the community of users, the designers/manufacturers, the government, or civil society?” A classic example is the limited availability of books translated into Braille for the visually impaired. Who should shoulder the responsibility and cost: authors/publishers, the user community, the government, or civil society? This is just one of many complex examples of fixing a systemic bias.

Additionally, some of the author’s proposals might seem overly utopian. For instance, the expectation that designers should engage not only with current users but also with potential users raises practical challenges. Defining a representative community of potential users could prove daunting in the long run and may lead to analysis paralysis, potentially stifling innovation and development.

In conclusion, “Design Justice” by Sasha Costanza-Chock provides a thought-provoking exploration of the critical intersection between design, justice, and societal impact. The book calls for a conscious examination of design choices and their consequences, underscoring the importance of involving affected communities. While it offers compelling insights and innovative solutions, it also leaves readers contemplating the practical challenges and costs associated with implementing these ideas in a profit-driven world.