Algorithmic Fairness and Color-blind Racism: Navigating the Intersection

Jamelle Watson-Daniels

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2402.07778

Algorithmic Fairness and Color-blind Racism: Navigating the Intersection

Jamelle Watson-Daniels

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Our focus lies at the intersection between two broader research perspectives: (1) the scientific study of algorithms and (2) the scholarship on race and racism. Many streams of research related to algorithmic fairness have been born out of interest at this intersection. We think about this intersection as the product of work derived from both sides. From (1) algorithms to (2) racism, the starting place might be an algorithmic question or method connected to a conceptualization of racism. On the other hand, from (2) racism to (1) algorithms, the starting place could be recognizing a setting where a legacy of racism is known to persist and drawing connections between that legacy and the introduction of algorithms into this setting. In either direction, meaningful disconnection can occur when conducting research at the intersection of racism and algorithms. The present paper urges collective reflection on research directions at this intersection. Despite being primarily motivated by instances of racial bias, research in algorithmic fairness remains mostly disconnected from scholarship on racism. In particular, there has not been an examination connecting algorithmic fairness discussions directly to the ideology of color-blind racism; we aim to fill this gap. We begin with a review of an essential account of color-blind racism then we review racial discourse within algorithmic fairness research and underline significant patterns, shifts and disconnects. Ultimately, we argue that researchers can improve the navigation of the landscape at the intersection by recognizing ideological shifts as such and iteratively re-orienting towards maintaining meaningful connections across interdisciplinary lines.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jamelle Watson-Daniels. 2024-02-12. Algorithmic Fairness and Color-blind Racism: Navigating the Intersection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07778

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗