(2017), Rosa and Burdick (2017), and Charity Hudley (2017).provide the following concrete research questions:
.How do social hierarchies and language
ideologies inﬂuence the decisions made during
the development and deployment lifecycle?
What kinds of NLP systems do these decisions
result in, and what kinds do they foreclose?
General assumptions: To which linguistic
norms do NLP systems adhere (Bender,
2019; Ruane et al., 2019)? Which language
practices are implicitly assumed to be
standard, ordinary, correct, or appropriate?
Task deﬁnition: For which speakers
are NLP systems (and NLP resources)
developed? (See Joshi et al. (2020) for
a discussion.) How do task deﬁnitions
discretize the world? For example, how
are social groups delineated when deﬁning
demographic attribute prediction tasks
(e.g., Koppel et al., 2002; Rosenthal and
McKeown, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2013)?
What about languages in native language
prediction tasks (Tetreault et al., 2013)?
Data: How are datasets collected, preprocessed, and labeled or annotated? What are
the impacts of annotation guidelines, annotator assumptions and perceptions (Olteanu
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