As a starting point for engaging with communities affected by NLP systems, we therefore
provide the following concrete research questions:
.How do communities become aware of NLP
systems? Do they resist them, and if so, how?
.What additional costs are borne by communities for whom NLP systems do not work well?
.Do NLP systems shift power toward oppressive
institutions (e.g., by enabling predictions that
communities do not want made, linguistically
based unfair allocation of resources or opportunities (Rosa and Flores, 2017), surveillance,
or censorship), or away from such institutions?
.Who is involved in the development and
deployment of NLP systems? How do
decision-making processes maintain power relations between technologists and communities
affected by NLP systems? Can these processes be changed to reimagine these relations?
5 Case study
To illustrate our recommendations, we present a
case study covering work on African-American
English (AAE).5Work analyzing “bias” in the context of AAE has shown that part-of-speech taggers,
language identiﬁcation systems, and dependency
parsers all work less well on text containing
features associated with AAE than on text without
these features (Jørgensen et al., 2015, 2016; Blodgett et al., 2016, 2018), and that toxicity detection
We survey 146 papers analyzing "bias" in NLP systems, finding that their
motivations are often vague, inconsistent, and lacking in normative reasoning,
despite the fact that analyzing "bias" is an inherently normative process. We
further find that these papers' proposed quantitative techniques for measuring
or mitigating "bias" are poorly matched to their motivations and do not engage
with the relevant literature outside of NLP. Based on these findings, we
describe the beginnings of a path forward by proposing three recommendations
that should guide work analyzing "bias" in NLP systems. These recommendations
rest on a greater recognition of the relationships between language and social
hierarchies, encouraging researchers and practitioners to articulate their
conceptualizations of "bias"---i.e., what kinds of system behaviors are
harmful, in what ways, to whom, and why, as well as the normative reasoning
underlying these statements---and to center work around the lived experiences
of members of communities affected by NLP systems, while interrogating and
reimagining the power relations between technologists and such communities.
Su Lin Blodgett Solon Barocas Hal Daumé III Hanna Wallach