skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Trust in Data Science: Collaboration, Translation, and Accountability in Corporate Data Science Projects

Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The trustworthiness of data science systems in applied and real-world settings emerges from the resolution of specific tensions through situated, pragmatic, and ongoing forms of work. Drawing on research in CSCW, critical data studies, and history and sociology of science, and six months of immersive ethnographic fieldwork with a corporate data science team, we describe four common tensions in applied data science work: (un)equivocal numbers, (counter)intuitive knowledge, (in)credible data, and (in)scrutable models. We show how organizational actors establish and re-negotiate trust under messy and uncertain analytic conditions through practices of skepticism, assessment, and credibility. Highlighting the collaborative and heterogeneous nature of real-world data science, we show how the management of trust in applied corporate data science settings depends not only on pre-processing and quantification, but also on negotiation and translation. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for data science research and practice, both within and beyond CSCW.

References

  1. Saleema Amershi, Max Chickering, Steven M Drucker, Bongshin Lee, Patrice Simard, and Jina Suh. 2015. ModelTracker: Redesigning Performance Analysis Tools for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 337--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. 2016. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media Soc.20, 3, 973--989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Chris Anderson. 2008. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. Wired. Retrieved from http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theoryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Cecilia Aragon, Clayton Hutto, Andy Echenique, Brittany Fiore-Gartland, Yun Huang, Jinyoung Kim, Gina Neff, Wanli Xing, and Joseph Bayer. 2016. Developing a Research Agenda for Human-Centered Data Science. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW '16 Companion), 529--535. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ellen Balka and Ina Wagner. 2006. Making Things Work: Dimensions of Configurability As Appropriation Work. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 229--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Eric P S Baumer. 2017. Toward human-centered algorithm design. Big Data Soc.4, 2, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Reuben Binns, Max Van Kleek, Michael Veale, Ulrik Lyngs, Jun Zhao, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2018. "It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), 1--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Geoffrey C. Bowker. 2013. Data Flakes: An Afterword to "Raw Data" Is an Oxymoron. In"Raw Data" Is an Oxymoron, Lisa Gitelman (ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 167--171.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Geoffrey C. Bowker. 2014. The Theory/Data Thing. Int. J. Commun.8, 1795--1799.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. George E. P. Box. 1979. Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. In Robustness in Statistics, Robert L. Launer and Graham N. Wilkinson (eds.). Academic Press, New York, 201--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Engin Bozdag. 2013. Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics Inf. Technol.15, 3 (2013), 209--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Eric Breck, Shanqing Cai, Eric Nielsen, Michael Salib, and D Sculley. 2016. What's your ML Test Score? A rubric for ML production systems. In Reliable Machine Learning in the Wild - NIPS 2016 Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenna Burrell. 2016. How the machine 'thinks': Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc.3, 1, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kevin Daniel André Carillo. 2017. Let's stop trying to be "sexy" -- preparing managers for the (big) data-driven business era. Bus. Process Manag. J.23, 3, 598--622.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kathy Charmaz. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory (Introducing Qualitative Methods series) 2nd Edition. Sage, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Glenn Cohen, Ruben Amarasingham, Anand Shah, Bin Xie, and Bernard Lo. 2014. The legal and ethical concerns that arise from using complex predictive analytics in health care. Health Aff.33, 7, 1139--1147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Harry M. Collins and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kate Crawford and Ryan Calo. 2016. There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature 538, 311--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Morgan Currie, Britt S Paris, Irene Pasquetto, and Jennifer Pierre. 2016. The conundrum of police officer-involved homicides: Counter-data in Los Angeles County. Big Data Soc.3, 2, 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Aritra Dasgupta, Susannah Burrows, Kyungsik Han, and Philip J Rasch. 2017. Empirical Analysis of the Subjective Impressions and Objective Measures of Domain Scientists' Visual Analytic Judgments. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 1193--1204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison. 1992. The Image of Objectivity. Representations 40, 81--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Alain Desrosieres. 1998. The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. John Dewey. 1939. Theory of Valuation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jana Diesner. 2015. Small decisions with big impact on data analytics. Big Data Soc.2, 2, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Paul Dourish. 2016. Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data Soc.3, 2, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Wendy Nelson Espeland and Mitchell L Stevens. 2008. A Sociology of Quantification. Eur. J. Sociol. / Arch. Eur. Sociol. / Eur. Arch. für Soziologie 49, 3, 401--436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Bias in computer systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.14, 3, 330--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jennifer Gabrys, Helen Pritchard, and Benjamin Barratt. 2016. Just good enough data: Figuring data citizenships through air pollution sensing and data stories. Big Data Soc.3, 2, 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Harold Garfinkel. 1964. Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities. Soc. Probl.11, 3 (1964), 225--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Harold Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Tarleton Gillespie. 2014. The Relevance of Algorithms. In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo J. Boczkowski and Kirsten A. Foot (eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, 167--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Lisa Gitelman. 2006. Raw Data is an Oxymoron. MIT Press, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transactions, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Charles Goodwin. 1994. Professional Vision. Am. Anthropol.96, 3, 606--633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Miriam Greis, Emre Avci, Albrecht Schmidt, and Tonja Machulla. 2017. Increasing Users' Confidence in Uncertain Data by Aggregating Data from Multiple Sources. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 828--840. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Franco Turini, Dino Pedreschi, and Fosca Giannotti. 2018. A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Models. arXiv Prepr.1802.01933.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jürgen Habermas. 1992. Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews. Verso, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ian Hacking. 1990. The Taming of Chance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Donna Haraway. 2007. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Richard Harper. 2000. The social organization of the IMF's mission work: An examination of international auditing. In Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy, Marilyn Strathern (ed.). Routledge, London, 21--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mireille Hildebrandt. 2011. Who needs stories if you can get the data? ISPs in the era of big number crunching. Philos. Technol.24, 4, 371--390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Edmund Husserl. 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Philosophy. Northwestern University Press, Evanston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. John P. A. Ioannidis. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med.2, 8 (2005), e124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Steven J. Jackson. 2006. Water Models and Water Politics: Design, Deliberation, and Virtual Accountability. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Digital Government Research, 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Bernward Joerges and Terry Shinn. 2001. A Fresh Look at Instrumentation an Introduction. In Instrumentation Between Science, State and Industry, Bernward Joerges and Terry Shinn (eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthew Kay, Shwetak N Patel, and Julie A Kientz. 2015. How Good is 85%?: A Survey Tool to Connect Classifier Evaluation to Acceptability of Accuracy. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 347--356. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Evelyn Fox Keller. 2000. Models of and Models for: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Biology. Philos. Sci.67, 72--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Helen Kennedy and Giles Moss. 2015. Known or knowing publics? Social media data mining and the question of public agency. Big Data Soc.2, 2, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Mary Beth Kery, Amber Horvath, and Brad Myers. 2017. Variolite: Supporting Exploratory Programming by Data Scientists. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 1265--1276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Rob Kitchin. 2014. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences. Sage Publications, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Rob Kitchin. 2014. Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data Soc.1, 1 (April 2014), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Rob Kitchin and Gavin McArdle. 2016. What makes Big Data, Big Data? Exploring the ontological characteristics of 26 datasets. Big Data Soc.3, 1, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Jon Kleinberg, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2016. A Guide to Solving Social Problems with Machine Learning. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/12/a-guide-to-solving-social-problems-with-machine-learningGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Cory P. Knobel. 2010. Ontic Occlusion and Exposure in Sociotechnical Systems. University of Michigan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Bran Knowles, Mike Harding, Lynne Blair, Nigel Davies, James Hannon, Mark Rouncefield, and John Walden. 2014. Trustworthy by Design. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '14), 1060--1071. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Bran Knowles, Mark Rouncefield, Mike Harding, Nigel Davies, Lynne Blair, James Hannon, John Walden, and Ding Wang. 2015. Models and Patterns of Trust. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 328--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Laura M Koesten, Emilia Kacprzak, Jenifer F A Tennison, and Elena Simperl. 2017. The Trials and Tribulations of Working with Structured Data: -a Study on Information Seeking Behaviour. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 1277--1289. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Bruno Latour. 1987. Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. David Lazer, Ryan Kennedy, Gary King, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2014. The parable of Google flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science 343, 6176, 1203--1205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Sabina Leonelli. 2014. What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of Big Data in biology. Big Data Soc.1, 1, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Sabina Leonelli. 2015. What counts as scientific data? A relational framework. Philos. Sci.82, 5 (2015), 810--821.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Zachary Chase Lipton. 2016. The Mythos of Model Interpretability. In2016 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Michael Luca, Jon Kleinberg, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2016. Algorithms Need Managers, Too. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/01/algorithms-need-managers-tooGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Adrian Mackenzie. 2017. Machine Learners: Archaeology of a Data Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Jacob Metcalf and Kate Crawford. 2016. Where are human subjects in Big Data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data Soc.3, 1, 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Brent D. Mittelstadt, Patrick Allo, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Sandra Wachter, and Luciano Floridi. 2016. The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data Soc.3, 2, 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Brent D. Mittelstadt and Luciano Floridi. 2016. The Ethics of Big Data: Current and Foreseeable Issues in Biomedical Contexts. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22, 2, 303--341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Gauri Naik and Sanika S. Bhide. 2014. Will the future of knowledge work automation transform personalized medicine? Appl. Transl. Genomics 3, 3, 50--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Gina Neff, Anissa Tanweer, Brittany Fiore-Gartland, and Laura Osburn. 2017. Critique and Contribute: A Practice-Based Framework for Improving Critical Data Studies and Data Science. Big Data 5, 2, 85--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Joseph O'Connell. 1993. Metrology: The Creation of Universality by the Circulation of Particulars. Soc. Stud. Sci.23, 1, 129--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Wanda J. Orlikowski. 2007. Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organ. Stud.28, 9, 1435--1448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Frank Pasquale. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Samir Passi and Steven J. Jackson. 2017. Data Vision: Learning to See Through Algorithmic Abstraction. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17), 2436--2447. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Samir Passi and Phoebe Sengers. 2016. "From what I see, this makes sense:" Seeing meaning in algorithmic results. In Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2016 workshop "Algorithms at Work: Empirical Diversity, Analytic Vocabularies, Design Implications,"1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Theodore Porter. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Scienceand Public Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Michael Power. 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. David Powers. 2011. Evaluation: From precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness & correlation. J. Mach. Learn. Technol 2, 1, 37--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Rita Raley. 2013. Dataveillance and Counterveillance. In"Raw Data" Is an Oxymoron, Lisa Gitelman (ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 121--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learning. In2016 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2016), 91--95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Why Should I Trust You?: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1135--1144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Gernot Rieder and Judith Simon. 2016. Datatrust: Or, the political quest for numerical evidence and the epistemologies of Big Data. Big Data Soc.3, 1, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Alan Rubel and Kyle M. L. Jones. 2014. Student privacy in learning analytics: An information ethics perspective. Inf. Soc.32, 2, 143--159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Nadine Schuurman and Ellen Balka. 2009. alt.metadata.health: Ontological Context for Data Use and Integration. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 18, 1, 83--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Andrew D. Selbst and Solon Barocas. 2018. The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines. Fordham Law Rev.Forthcoming, (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Steven Shapin. 1989. The Invisible Technician. Am. Sci.77, 6, 554--563.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Steven Shapin. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Steven Shapin. 1995. Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science. Perspect. Sci.3, 3, 255--275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Steven Shapin. 1995. Trust, Honesty, and the Authority of Science. In Society's Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine, Ruth Ellen Bulger, Elizabeth Meyer Bobby and Harvey Fineberg (eds.). National Academies Press, Washington D.C., 388--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Sameer Singh, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Programs as Black-Box Explanations. ArXiv e-prints 1611.07579.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder. 1994. Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-scale Collaborative Systems. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '94), 253--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. David Stark. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Anselm Strauss and Juliet M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Techniques and Procedures. Sage, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. John Symons and Ramón Alvarado. 2016. Can we trust Big Data? Applying philosophy of science to software. Big Data Soc.3, 2, 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  97. Alex Tabarrok. 2015. The Rise of Opaque Intelligence. Marginal Revolution. Retrieved February 15, 2018 from http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/02/opaque-intelligence.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. Alex S. Taylor, Siân Lindley, Tim Regan, and David Sweeney. 2014. Data and life on the street. Big Data Soc.1, 2, 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. François Thoreau. 2016. 'A mechanistic interpretation, if possible': How does predictive modelling causality affect the regulation of chemicals? Big Data Soc.3, 2, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  100. Michael Veale. 2017. Logics and Practices of Transparency and Opacity in Real-world Applications of Public Sector Machine Learning. In 4th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FAT/ML 2017), Halifax, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viégas, and Moritz Hardt. 2016. Attacking discrimination with smarter machine learning. Google Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. Michele Willson. 2017. Algorithms (and the) everyday. Information, Commun. Soc.20, 1 (2017), 137--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  103. Qian Yang, Alex Scuito, John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Aaron Steinfeld. 2018. Investigating How Experienced UX Designers Effectively Work with Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '18), 585--596. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Tal Zarsky. 2016. The trouble with algorithmic decisions an analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41, 1, 118--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  105. Matthew Zook, Solon Barocas, danah boyd, Kate Crawford, Emily Keller, Seeta Peña Gangadharan, Alyssa Goodman, Rachelle Hollander, Barbara A. Koenig, Jacob Metcalf, Arvind Narayanan, Alondra Nelson, and Frank Pasquale. 2017. Ten simple rules for responsible big data research. PLoS Comput. Biol.13, 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Trust in Data Science: Collaboration, Translation, and Accountability in Corporate Data Science Projects

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 2, Issue CSCW
      November 2018
      4104 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3290265
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 November 2018
      Published in pacmhci Volume 2, Issue CSCW

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader