Toward inclusive tech policy design: a method for underrepresented voices to strengthen tech policy documents
Toward inclusive tech policy design: a method for underrepresented voices to strengthen tech policy documents
复制标题
实现包容性技术政策设计：针对代表性不足的声音加强技术政策文件的方法
DOI：
10.1007/s10676-019-09497-z
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Batya Friedman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Meg Young;Lassana Magassa;Batya Friedman
要想取得成功，政策必须预见到广泛的选民。然而，技术政策的制定往往主要考虑到主流人群。在本文中，借鉴价值敏感型设计和折扣评估方法，我们引入了一种新的方法--多元化声音--从代表不足的群体的角度来加强出版前的技术政策文件。由于具有成本效益和高影响力，多样化的声音方法通过征求“经验”专家小组(即特定利益攸关方小组的成员和/或为该小组服务的成员)的意见进行干预。我们首先描述该方法。然后，我们报告了两个案例研究，展示了它的用途：一个是关于增强现实技术的白皮书，有关于残疾人、以前或现在被监禁的人和妇女的专家小组；另一个是关于自动驾驶车辆技术的战略文件，有关于年轻人、非汽车司机和极低收入人群的专家小组。在这两个案例研究中，专家小组查明了出版前文件中的重大缺陷，如果得到解决，将减轻拟议政策建议对这些特定利益攸关群体的一些不同影响。我们的讨论包括对该方法的反思，它成功的证据，它的局限性，以及未来的方向。
To be successful, policy must anticipate a broad range of constituents. Yet, all too often, technology policy is written with primarily mainstream populations in mind. In this article, drawing on Value Sensitive Design and discount evaluation methods, we introduce a new method—Diverse Voices—for strengthening pre-publication technology policy documents from the perspective of underrepresented groups. Cost effective and high impact, the Diverse Voices method intervenes by soliciting input from “experiential” expert panels (i.e., members of a particular stakeholder group and/or those serving that group). We first describe the method. Then we report on two case studies demonstrating its use: one with a white paper on augmented reality technology with expert panels on people with disabilities, people who were formerly or currently incarcerated, and women; and the other with a strategy document on automated driving vehicle technologies with expert panels on youth, non-car drivers, and extremely low-income people. In both case studies, panels identified significant shortcomings in the pre-publication documents which, if addressed, would mitigate some of the disparate impact of the proposed policy recommendations on these particular stakeholder groups. Our discussion includes reflection on the method, evidence for its success, its limitations, and future directions.