Contested delegation: Understanding critical public responses to algorithmic decision-making in the UK and Australia

Abstract

In public and private sectors alike, decision-making is increasingly carried out through the employment of ‘algorithmic actors’ and artificial intelligence. The apparent efficiency of these means in the eyes of politicians and the public has made recourse to them possible. Along with this belief in their efficiency, however, fears emerge that nonhuman actors have displaced judicious human decision-making. This article examines this belief and its contestation, drawing on overlapping notions of ‘delegation’ in the political sociologies of Bruno Latour and Pierre Bourdieu. We undertake two case studies of attempts to delegate decision-making to algorithms: the 2020 UK ‘A-level’ grade determination and the Australian ‘robodebt’ welfare funds recovery scheme. In both cases, the decision-making delegated to algorithms was publicly discredited as critics invoked a different form of fairness than the one used by those deploying the technology. In the ‘A-level’ case, complainants drew on a grammar of individual merit, while complainants in the ‘robodebt’ case made a technical critique of the algorithm’s efficiency. Using a theory of delegation, we contribute to understanding how publics articulate resistance to automated decision-making.

Keywords

A-level algorithm Bruno Latour delegation Pierre Bourdieu

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACOSS. (2017). Pull the plug – Twelve months of robodebt is enough. www.acoss.org.au/media_release/pull-the-plug-twelve-months-of-robodebt-is-enough/

Bedingfield

(2020). Everything that went wrong with the botched A-Levels algorithm. Wired. www.wired.co.uk/article/alevel-exam-algorithm

Beer

(2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13.

Bennett

Carter

Gayo

Kelly

Noble

(2020). Fields, capitals, habitus: Australian culture, inequalities and social divisions. Routledge.

Boltanski

. (2009) On critique: A sociology of emancipation. Polity.

Boltanski

Thévenot

(2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton University Press.

Bosworth

(2017, January 25). Centrelink debt blitz spreading fear, anxiety. Parramatta Advertiser, p. 19.

Bourdieu

(1991). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.

Bourdieu

(2016). Sociologie générale: Cours au Collège de France (1983–1986) [General sociology: Lectures at the Collège de France (1983–1986)]. Seuil.

10.

Brown

M. B.

(2007) Can technologies represent their publics? Technology in Society, 29(3), 327–338.

11.

Bucher

(2016). Neither black nor box: Ways of knowing algorithms. In Kubitschko

Kaun

(Eds.), Innovative methods in media and communication research (pp. 81–98). Palgrave Macmillan.

12.

Burgess

(2020). The lessons we all must learn from the A-levels algorithm debacle. Wired. www.wired.co.uk/article/gcse-results-alevels-algorithm-explained

13.

Burns

J. M. C.

(2010). Cross synthesis and analysis. Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 265–266). Sage.

14.

Burrell

Fourcade

(2021). The society of algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 213–237.

15.

Butler

(2017, January 6). Inquiry into ‘welfare overpayments’. The Australian, p. 4.

16.

Carney

(2019). Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law? Alternative Law Journal, 44(1), 4–10.

17.

Christin

(2016). From daguerreotypes to algorithms: Machines, expertise, and three types of objectivity. Computers and Society, 46(1), 27–32.

18.

Christin

(2017). Algorithms in practice: Comparing web journalism and criminal justice. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717718855

19.

Chun

(2008). On ‘sourcery,’ or code as fetish. Configurations, 16(3), 299–324.

20.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Budget paper No. 2, Budget measures 2015–16.

21.

Coughlan

(2020a). Why did the A-level algorithm say no? BBC. www.bbc.com/news/education-53787203

22.

Coughlan

(2020b). A-levels and GCSEs: Boris Johnson blames ‘mutant algorithm’ for exam fiasco. BBC. www.bbc.com/news/education-53923279

23.

Crawford

(2021). The atlas of AI. Yale University Press.

24.

Elbanna

Engesmo

(2020). A-level results: Why algorithms get things so wrong – and what we can do to fix them. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/a-level-results-why-algorithms-get-things-so-wrong-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-them-142879

25.

Elias

(1987). The retreat of sociologists into the present. Theory, Culture and Society, 4(2–3), 223–247.

26.

Feenberg

(1999). Questioning technology. Routledge.

27.

Ferrari

Graham

(2021). Fissures in algorithmic power: platforms, code, and contestation. Cultural Studies, 35(4–5), 814–832.

28.

Fourcade

(2016). Ordinalization: Lewis A. Coser Memorial Award for Theoretical Agenda Setting 2014. Sociological Theory, 34(3), 175–195.

29.

Foxglove. (2020). We put a stop to the A level grading algorithm! www.foxglove.org.uk/2020/08/17/we-put-a-stop-to-the-a-level-grading-algorithm/

30.

Gamson

W. A.

Wolsfeld

(1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528(1), 114–125.

31.

Gran

A.-B.

Booth

Bucher

(2021). To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide? Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1779–1796.

32.

Henman

(2021). Governing by algorithms and algorithmic governmentality: Towards machinic judgement. In Schuilenburg

Peeters

(Eds.), The algorithmic society: Technology, power, and knowledge (pp. 19–34). Routledge.

33.

Hern

(2020, August 21). Ofqual’s A-level algorithm: Why did it fail to make the grade? The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/21/ofqual-exams-algorithm-why-did-it-fail-make-grade-a-levels

34.

Holzmeyer

(2021). Beyond ‘AI for Social Good’ (AI4SG): Social transformations – not tech-fixes – for health equity. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 46(1–2), 94–125.

35.

James

Whelan

(2022). ‘Ethical’ artificial intelligence in the welfare state: Discourse and discrepancy in Australian social services. Critical Social Policy, 42(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018320985463

36.

Karpik

(2010). Valuing the unique: The economics of singularities. Princeton University Press.

37.

Kemper

Kolkman

(2019). Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a critical audience. Information, Communication & Society, 22(14), 2081–2096.

38.

Kolkman

(2020). ‘F**k the algorithm’?: What the world can learn from the UK’s A-level grading fiasco. LSE Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/08/26/fk-the-algorithm-what-the-world-can-learn-from-the-uks-a-level-grading-fiasco/

39.

Kolkman

(2022). The (in)credibility of algorithmic models to non-experts. Information, Communication & Society, 25(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1761860

40.

Latour

(1994). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.

41.

Latour

(1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.

42.

Latour

(2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

43.

Latour

(2012). An inquiry into modes of existence. Harvard University Press.

44.

Lee

(2020). Did England exam system favour private schools? 4 News FactCheck. www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-england-exam-system-favour-private-schools

45.

MacKenzie

Wajcman

(1999). The social shaping of technology. Open University Press.

46.

Macleod

(2017). Lessons learnt about digital transformation and public administration: Centrelink’s online compliance intervention. AIAL Forum, 89, 59–68.

47.

Malik

(2020, August 23). The cruel exams algorithm has laid bare the unfairness at the heart of our schools. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/23/the-cruel-exams-algorithm-has-laid-bare-the-unfairness-at-the-heart-of-our-schools

48.

Mead

Neves

B. B.

(2018). Recursive approaches to technology adoption, families, and the life course: Actor network theory and strong structuration theory. In Neves

B. B.

Casimiro

(Eds.), Connecting families? Information and communication technologies (pp. 41–57). Policy Press.

49.

Mizen

(2020, June 12). PM sorry for robodebt pain. The Australian Financial Review, p. 4.

50.

Noble

(2018). Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press.

51.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2021). The right to privacy in the digital age. www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/cfi-digital-age.aspx

52.

Ofqual. (2020a). Awarding GCSE, AS, A level, advanced extension awards and extended project qualifications in summer 2020: Interim report. www.gov.uk/government/publications/awarding-gcse-as-a-levels-in-summer-2020-interim-report

53.

Ofqual. (2020b). Consultation decisions. Exceptional arrangements for exam grading and assessment in 2020. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/exceptional-arrangements-for-exam-grading-and-assessment-in-2020

54.

Ofqual. (2021). Student guide to awarding summer 2021.

55.

Pardo-Guerra

J. P.

(2019). Automating finance: Infrastructures, engineers, and the making of electronic markets. Cambridge University Press.

56.

Pasquale

(2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.

57.

Pasquale

Cashwell

(2018). Prediction, persuasion, and the jurisprudence of behaviourism. University of Toronto Law Journal, 68, 63–81.

58.

Pinch

T. J.

Bijker

W. E.

(1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.

59.

Russo

(2018). Digital technologies, ethical questions, and the need of an informational framework. Philosophy & Technology, 31, 655–667.

60.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

61.

Services Australia. (2019). Income compliance programme. Australian Government.

62.

Silva

E. B.

(2000). The cook, the cooker and the gendering of the kitchen. The Sociological Review, 48(4), 612–628.

63.

Silva

E. B.

(2010). Technology, culture, family: Influences on home life. Springer.

64.

Silva

E. B.

(2017). Objects and materials: With, against and beyond Bourdieu. In Adkins

Brosnan

Threadgold

(Eds.), Bourdieusian prospects (pp. 112–131). Routledge.

65.

Smith

D. E.

(2001). Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 7(2), 159–198.

66.

Thomas

S. L.

Nafus

Sherman

(2018). Algorithms as fetish: Faith and possibility in algorithmic work. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717751552

67.

UK Department of Education. (2020, March 18). Schools, colleges and early years settings to close [Press release]. www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-colleges-and-early-years-settings-to-close

68.

Van Onselen

. (2020, November 21). Robodebt was a Morrison fiasco at every stage. The Australian, p. 22.

69.

Wajcman

(1991). Feminism confronts technology. Penn State Press.

70.

Waters

(2021, April 23). Brussels delves into murky territory with plans for AI regulation. Financial Times, p. 6.

71.

Wheaton

Hunt

(2019, July 27). Pensioner angry to receive a $67.55 Centrelink debt from last century. ABC News. www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-27/pensioner-hit-with-67-dollar-centrelink-debt-from-last-century/11350180

72.

Winner

(1995). Citizen virtues in a technological order. In Feenberg

Hannay

(Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge (pp. 65–84). Indiana University Press.

73.

Woolf

Harrison

McManus

(2021). The attitudes, perceptions and experiences of medical school applicants following the closure of schools and cancellation of public examinations in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional questionnaire study of UK medical applicants. BMJ Open, 11(3), e044753.

74.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research design and methods. Sage.

75.

Zelizer

V. A.

(2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton University Press.