Papakyriakopoulos et al. (2020); Ravfogel et al.
(2020); Rozado (2020); Sen and Ganguly (2020);
Shin et al. (2020); Strengers et al. (2020).
Other representational harms Hovy and Søgaard (2015); Blodgett et al. (2016); Bolukbasi
et al. (2016b); Hovy and Spruit (2016); Blodgett
and O’Connor (2017); Larson (2017); Schnoebelen
(2017); Blodgett et al. (2018); Curry and Rieser
(2018); Díaz et al. (2018); Dixon et al. (2018); Kiritchenko and Mohammad (2018); Park et al. (2018);
Shen et al. (2018); Thelwall (2018); Zhao et al.
(2018b); Badjatiya et al. (2019); Bagdasaryan et al.
(2019); Bamman et al. (2019); Cao and Daumé
(2019); Chaloner and Maldonado (2019); Cho et al.
(2019); Davidson et al. (2019); De-Arteaga et al.
(2019); Fisher (2019); Font and Costa-jussà (2019);
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