are not measured. Papers on “bias” in embedding
spaces are especially likely to do this because embeddings are often used as input to other systems:
“However, none of these papers [on embeddings]
have recognized how blatantly sexist the
embeddings are and hence risk introducing biases
of various types into real-world systems. ”
—Bolukbasi et al. (2016a)“It is essential to quantify and mitigate gender bias
in these embeddings to avoid them from affecting
downstream applications. ” —Zhou et al. (2019)
In contrast, papers that provide surveys or frameworks for analyzing “bias” in NLP systems treat
representational harms as harmful in their own
right. For example, Mayﬁeld et al. (2019) and
Ruane et al. (2019) cite the harmful reproduction
of dominant linguistic norms by NLP systems (a
point to which we return in section 4), while Bender
(2019) outlines a range of harms, including seeing
stereotypes in search results and being made invisible to search engines due to language practices.
3.2 Techniques
Papers’ techniques are not well grounded in the
relevant literature outside of NLP. Perhaps unsurprisingly given that the papers’ motivations are
often vague, inconsistent, and lacking in normative
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