different relationships with NLP systems or
different social positions. For example, Ruane
et al. (2019) argue for a “deep understanding of
the user groups [sic] characteristics, contexts, and
interests” when designing conversational agents.
Papers about NLP systems developed for the
same task often conceptualize “bias” differently. Even papers that cover the same NLP task
often conceptualize “bias” in ways that differ substantially and are sometimes inconsistent. Rows 3
and 4 of Table 3 (in the appendix) contain machine
translation papers with different conceptualizations
of “bias,” leading to different proposed techniques,
while rows 5 and 6 contain papers on “bias” in embedding spaces that state different motivations, but
propose techniques for quantifying stereotyping.
Papers’ motivations conﬂate allocational and
representational harms. We found that the papers’ motivations sometimes (16%) name immediate representational harms, such as stereotyping,
alongside more distant allocational harms, which,
in the case of stereotyping, are usually imagined as
downstream effects of stereotypes on résumé ﬁltering. Many of these papers use the imagined downstream effects to justify focusing on particular system behaviors, even when the downstream effects
are not measured. Papers on “bias” in embedding
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