SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1

Participatory Management Can Help AI Ethics Adhere to the Social Consensus

Mahmut Özer(National Education, Culture, Youth and Sports Commission)0000-0001-8722-8670
Matjaz Perc(University of Maribor, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics)0000-0002-3087-541X
Hayri Eren Suna(Paris Embassy Educational Office, Ministry of Education)0000-0002-6874-7472
Pages
221–238
Publication Date
2024-08-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study underscores the importance of a collaborative, inclusive approach in AI development and management, emphasizing the need to align AI advancements with ethical principles and societal well-being.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly pervasive, significantly altering social structures, cultural dynamics, and labor markets.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The rapid growth of this ecosystem has sparked worldwide debates about AI’s challenges, including its role in reinforcing biases and social inequalities, ignoring societal values, and impacting diverse sectors like genetics, drug production, defense, and democratic processes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study underscores the importance of a collaborative, inclusive approach in AI development and management, emphasizing the need to align AI advancements with ethical principles and societal well-being.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Artificial intelligence · ethics · bias

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly pervasive, significantly altering social structures, cultural dynamics, and labor markets. The rapid growth of this ecosystem has sparked worldwide debates about AI’s challenges, including its role in reinforcing biases and social inequalities, ignoring societal values, and impacting diverse sectors like genetics, drug production, defense, and democratic processes. This study examines AI ethics through the social consensus framework, proposing participatory management as a crucial approach to address these challenges. The methodology spans the entire AI lifecycle, advocating for inclusive practices from the design stage to implementation, monitoring, and control. The participatory management model is structured in three phases: Stakeholder Engagement, which involves active participation from diverse stakeholders in developing AI systems, ensuring a range of perspectives in design, modeling, and implementation; Monitoring and Alignment, which focuses on the continuous observation of AI systems’ interaction with their environments, and Macro-level Impact Analysis, which looks at the broader societal impacts of the AI ecosystem, assessing its influence on various sectors like education, culture, health, and safety. This study underscores the importance of a collaborative, inclusive approach in AI development and management, emphasizing the need to align AI advancements with ethical principles and societal well-being.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özer, M., Perc, M., Suna, H. E. (2024). Participatory Management Can Help AI Ethics Adhere to the Social Consensus. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2024.44.1.0001

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (111)

  1. Acemoğlu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial intelligence, automation and work. NBER Working Paper 24196. National Bureau of Economic Research. google scholar
  2. Acemoğlu, D., Autor, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Can we have pro-worker- AI? Choosing a path of machines in service of minds. CEPR Policy Insight, No.123, 1-12. google scholar
  3. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1990). A model of growth through creative destruction. NBER Working Paper 3223 National Bureau of Economic Research. google scholar
  4. Aghion, P., Howitt, P. (1994). Growth and unemployment. Rev Econ Stud, 61, 477-494. google scholar
  5. Akter, S., McCarthy, G., Sajib, S., Michael, K., Dwivedi, Y. K., D’Ambra, J., & Shen, K. N. (2021). Algorithmic bias in data-driven innovation in the age of AI. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102387. google scholar
  6. Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., & Hua Tan, Y. (2014). Design for values in software development. In Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas, I. v. d. P., (Eds), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design. Springer. google scholar
  7. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (23 May, 2016). Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica. google scholar
  8. Aquino, Y. S. J. (2023). Making decisions: Bias in artificial intelligence and data-driven diagnostic tools. Australian Journal of General Practice, 52(7), 439-442. google scholar
  9. Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper 189. google scholar
  10. Arseniev-Koehler, A., & Foster, J. G. (2022). Machine learning as a model for cultural learning: Teaching an algorithm what it means to be fat. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(4), 1484-1539. google scholar
  11. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2020). Crowdsourcing: Moral machines. Communications of ACM, 63(3). google scholar
  12. Azjen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1108-1121. google scholar
  13. Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2021). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 1052-1092. google scholar
  14. Barocas, S., Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104, 671-732. google scholar
  15. Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J., & Scarpetta, S. (2004). Microeconomic evidence of creative destruction in industrial and developing countries. The World Bank. google scholar
  16. Bates, D. W., Saria, S., Ohno-Machado, L., Shah, A., & Escobar, G. (2014). Big data in health care: using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health Affairs, 33(7), 1123-1131. google scholar
  17. Berman, B. (1989).The computer metaphor: Bureaucratizing the mind. Science as Culture, 1(7), 7-42. google scholar
  18. Berman, B. (1992). Artificial intelligence and the ideology of capitalist reconstruction. AI & Society, 6(2), 103-114. google scholar
  19. Biggio, B. et al. (2013). Evasion attacks against machine learning at test time. In Proc Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (pp. 387-402). google scholar
  20. Birhane, A., Isaac, W., Prabhakaran, V., Diaz, M., Elish, M. C., Gabriel, I., & Mohamed. S. (2022). Power to the people? Opportunities and challenges for participatory AI. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ‘22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 1-8. google scholar
  21. Bondi, E., Xu, L., Acosta-Navas, D., & Killian., J. A. (2021). Envisioning communities: A participatory approach towards AI for social good. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ‘21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 425-436. google scholar
  22. Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293):1573-1576. google scholar
  23. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Mutz, R. (2021).Growth rates of modern science: A latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8, 224. google scholar
  24. Boutyline, A., Arseniev-Koehler, A., & Cornell, D. J. (2023). School, studying, and smarts: Gender stereotypes and education across 80 years of American print media, 1930-2009. Social Forces, 102(1), 263-286. google scholar
  25. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679. google scholar
  26. Bratteteig, T., & Verne, G. (2018). Does AI make PD obsolete? Exploring challenges from artificial ıntelligence to participatory design. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial, 2, 8, 1-5. google scholar
  27. Brauner, P., Hick, A., Philipsen, R., & Ziefle, M. (2023). What does the public think about artificial intelligence?—A criticality map to understand bias in the public perception of AI. Frontiers in Computer Science, 5, 1113903. google scholar
  28. Bozkurt, V., & Gürsoy, D. (2023). The artificial intelligence paradox: Opportunity or threat for humanity?. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, doi: 10.1080/10447318. 2023.2297114. google scholar
  29. Bozkurt, V., & Gürsoy, D. (2023). The artificial intelligence paradox: Opportunity or threat for humanity?. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2297114. google scholar
  30. Brinkmann, L., Baumann, F., Bonnefon, J. F. et al. (2023). Machine culture. Nature Human Behavior, 7(11), 1855-1868. google scholar
  31. Calacci, D (2023). Building dreams beyond labor: Worker autonomy in the age of AI. Intereactions Mag, 48-51. google scholar
  32. Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoğlu, D., et al. (2023). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2401.05377. google scholar
  33. Citron, D. K., Pasquale, F. A. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89. google scholar
  34. Conitzer, V., Brill, M., & Freeman, R. (2015). Crowdsourcing societal tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, (pp. 12131217). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. google scholar
  35. Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature, 538, 311-313. google scholar
  36. de Laat, P. B. (2018). Algorithmic decision-making based on machine learning from big data: can transparency restore accountability? Philos Technol, 31, 525-541. google scholar
  37. da Silva, J. A. T. (2021). The Matthew effect impacts science and academic publishing by preferentially amplifying citations, metrics and status. Scientometrics, 126, 5373-5377. google scholar
  38. Daugherty, P. R., & Wilson, H. J. (2018). Human + machine: Reimagining work in the age ofAI. Harvard Business Review Press. google scholar
  39. Delgado, F., Yang, S., Madaio, M., & Yang, Q. (2023). The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ‘23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 37, 1-23. google scholar
  40. Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structure. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 1-18. google scholar
  41. Didier, E. (2015). Gabriel Tarde and statistical movement. In V. Vargas (Ed), The social after Gabriel Tarde (pp. 299-325). Routledge. google scholar
  42. Erdi, P. (2020). Ranking: The unwritten rules of the social game we all play. Oxford University Press. google scholar
  43. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2016). AI assisted ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 149-156. google scholar
  44. Frank, M. R., Autor, D., Bessen, J. E., et al. (2019). Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor. PNAS, 116(14), 6531-6539. google scholar
  45. Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. Interactions, 3(6), 16-23. google scholar
  46. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(3), 330-347. google scholar
  47. Fu, R., Huang, Y., & Singh, P. V. (2020). AI and algorithmic bias: Source, detection, mitigation and implications, SSRN, doi:/10.2139/ssrn.3681517 google scholar
  48. Gerlich, M. (2023). Perceptions and acceptance of artificial intelligence: A multi-dimensional study. Social Sciences, 12(9), 502. google scholar
  49. Harari, Y. N. (2017). Reboot for the AI revolution. Nature, 550(19), 324-327. google scholar
  50. Hernandez-Ramirez, R. ().Technology and self-modification: Understanding technologies of the self after Foucault. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 9(3), 45-57. google scholar
  51. Hossain, S. Q., & Ahmed, S. I. (2021). Towards a new participatory approach for designing artificial intelligence and data-driven technologies. ACM, New York, NY, USA, google scholar
  52. Hussain, S., Sanders, E. B. N., & Steinert. M. (2012). Participatory design with marginalized people in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities experienced in a field study in Cambodia. International Journal of 'Design 6, 2, 91-109. google scholar
  53. Joyce, K., Smith-Doerr, L., Alegria, S., Bell, S., Cruz, T., Hoffman, S. G., Noble, S. U., & Shestakofsky, B. (2021). Toward a sociology of artificial intelligence: A call for research on inequalities and structural change. Socius, 7. google scholar
  54. Kostick-Quenet, K. M., Gerke, S. (2022). AI in the hands of imperfect users. NPJ Digital Medicine, 5, 197. google scholar
  55. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Kahng, A. et al. (2019). WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 3(CSCW), 181. google scholar
  56. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzales, M., Wimmer, A., & Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Social Networks, 30, 330-342. google scholar
  57. Liu, B. (2012). Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 5(1), 1-167. google scholar
  58. Liu, Z. (2020). Sociological perspectives on artificial intelligence: A typological reading. Sociology Compass, 15(3), e12851. google scholar
  59. Lum, K., & Isaac, W. (2016). To predict and serve?. Significance, 13(5), 14-19. google scholar
  60. Manyika, J., & Sneader, K. (2018). AI, automation, and the future of work: Ten things to solve for. McKinsey Global Institute. google scholar
  61. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2014). Big data. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. google scholar
  62. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 53-63. google scholar
  63. Mittermaier, M., Raza, M. M., & Kvedar, J. C. (2023). Bias in AI-based models for medical applications: Challenges and mitigation strategies. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6, 113. google scholar
  64. Montesano, A. (2011). Ricardo on machinery. What matters: Technical progress or substitution of machines for circulating capital?. History of Economic Ideas, 19(1), 103-124. google scholar
  65. Mu, W. (2023). How artificial intelligence affects workforces: The impact of biased recruitment and job displacement risk. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 23, 19-25. google scholar
  66. Muller, M. J. (2009). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In Human-computer interaction (pp. 181-202). CRC Press. google scholar
  67. Nazer, L. H., Zatarah, R., Waldrip, S., Ke, J. X. C, Moukheiber, M., Khanna, A. K., et al. (2023). Bias in artificial intelligence algorithms and recommendations for mitigation. PLOS Digital Health, 2(6):e0000278. google scholar
  68. Ntoutsi, E., Fafalios, P., Gadiraju, U., et al. (2020). Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems-an introductory survey. WIREs Data Mining Knowl Discov, 10(3):e1356. google scholar
  69. Nevmyvaka, Y., Feng, Y., & Kearns, M. (2006). Reinforcement learning for optimized trade execution. In Proc 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 673-680). ACM. google scholar
  70. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366, 447-453. google scholar
  71. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Books. google scholar
  72. Özer, M. (2023a). The Matthew effect in Turkish education system. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 12(4):704-712. google scholar
  73. Özer, M. (2023b). Matta Etkisi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 19(4):974-984. google scholar
  74. Özer, M. (2024). Başarı oyununda Matta Etkisi ve ödülün asimetrik dağılımı. Reflektif Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1):187-197. google scholar
  75. Özer, M., & Perc, M. (2020). Dream and realities of school tracking and vocational education. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1-7. google scholar
  76. Özer, M., & Perc, M. (2021). Impact of social networks on the labor market inequalities and school-to-work transitions. Journal of Higher Education, 11(1):38-50. google scholar
  77. Özer, M., Perc, M., & Suna, H. E. (in press). AI bias and the amplification of inequalities in the labor market. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society. google scholar
  78. Özer, M. (in press). Potential benefits and risks of artificial intelligence in education. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education. google scholar
  79. Pajarinen M., Rouvinen P., & Ekeland, A. (2015). Computerization threatens one-third of Finnish and Norwegian employment. ETLA Brief, 34. google scholar
  80. Panch, T., Mattie, H., & Atun, R. (2019). Artificial intelligence and algorithmic bias: implications for health systems. Journal of Global Health, 9(2), 010318. google scholar
  81. Parkes, D. C., & Wellman, M. P. (2015). Economic reasoning and artificial intelligence. Science, 349, 267-272. google scholar
  82. Pasquale, F. (2011). Restoring transparency to automated authority. Journal of Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 9, 235-256. google scholar
  83. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. google scholar
  84. Pelacho, M., Ruiz, G., Sanz, F., Tarancon, A., & Clemento-Gallardo, J. (2020). Analysis of the evolution and collaboration networks of citizen science scientific publications. Scientometrics, doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03724-x. google scholar
  85. Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11, 98. google scholar
  86. Perc, M., Özer, M., & Hojnik, J. (2019). Social and juristic challenges of artificial intelligence. Palgrave Communications, 5, 61. google scholar
  87. Piano, S. L. (2020). Ethical principles in machine learning and artificial intelligence: cases from the field and possible ways forward. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 7, 9. google scholar
  88. Rahwan, I. (2018). Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 5-14. google scholar
  89. Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N. et al. (2019). Machine behavior. Nature, 568, 477-486. google scholar
  90. Reinsel, D., Gantz, J., & Rydning, J. (2018). The digitization of the world: From edge to core. IDC White Paper. google scholar
  91. Rigney, D (2010). The Matthew effect: How advantage begets further advantage. Columbia University Press. google scholar
  92. Schwartz, R. D. (1989). Artificial intelligence as a sociological phenomenon. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 14(2), 179-202. google scholar
  93. Shinde, P. P., & Shah, S. (2018). A review of machine learning and deep learning applications. 2018 Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation, 1-6. google scholar
  94. Sjoding, M. W., Dickson, R. P., Iwashyna, T. J., Gay, S. E., & Valley, T. S. (2020). Racial bias in pulse oximetry measurement. google scholar
  95. Sonnenburg, S. et al. (2007). The need for open source software in machine learning. J Mach Learn Res, 8, 2443-2466. google scholar
  96. Soori, M., Arezoo, B., & Dastres, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in advanced robotics, a review. Cognitive Robotics, 3, 54-70. google scholar
  97. Stahl, B. C. (2023). Embedding responsibility in intelligent systems: from AI ethics to responsible AI ecosystems. Scientific Reports, 13, 7586. google scholar
  98. Strevens, M. (2006). The role of the Matthew effect in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(2), 159-170. google scholar
  99. Suleyman, M. (2023). The coming wave: Technology, power, and the twenty-first century’s greatest dilemma. Crown: New York. google scholar
  100. Thimbleby, H. (2003). Explaining code for publication. Softw: Pract Experience, 33, 975-1001. google scholar
  101. Thompson, E. P. (1967). Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism. Past & Present, 38, 56-97. google scholar
  102. Tramer, F. et al. (2017). Ensemble adversarial training: attacks and defences. arxiv.org/abs/1705.07204. google scholar
  103. Turkle, S. (1984).The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Simon and Schuste. google scholar
  104. Ulnicane, I., & Aden, A. (2023). Power and politics in framing bias in Artificial Intelligence policy. Review of Policy Research, 40, 665-687. google scholar
  105. Ye, F. (2017). Scientific metrics: Towards analytical and quantitative sciences. Science Press Beijing & Springer. google scholar
  106. Wan, Y., & Chang, K. W. (2024). The male CEO and the female assistant: Probing gender biases in text-to-image models through paired stereotype test. arXiv: 2402.11089. google scholar
  107. Wolfe, A. (1991). Mind, self, society, and computer: Artificial intelligence and the sociology of mind. American Journal of Sociology, 96(5), 1073-1096. google scholar
  108. Woolgar, S. (1985). Why not a sociology of machines? The case of sociology and artificial intelligence. Sociology, 19(4), 557-572. google scholar
  109. Zarsky, T. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(1), 118-132. google scholar
  110. Zimmer, M (2008). More on the ‘Anonymity’ of the Facebook dataset: It’s Harvard College. MichaelZimmer.org Blog. google scholar
  111. Zuckerman, H. (1989). Accumulation of Advantage and Disadvantage: The Theory and Its Intellectual Biography. In Ed. C Mongardini and S Tabboni (Eds). Robert K. Merton and contemporary sociology (pp.153-176). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. google scholar