SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 46 Sayı: 1

Gender Dynamics in Artificial Intelligence Governance: A Critical Analysis of International Policy Documents

Yapay Zekâ Yönetişiminde Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dinamikleri: Uluslararası Politika Belgelerinin Eleştirel Analizi

Çiğdem Tuğaç(ANKARA HACI BAYRAM VELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2555-6641
Pages
256–294
Publication Date
2026-07-28
🏛️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)

It further highlights the need for a feminist data justice approach that recognizes these often invisible dimensions of labor and inequality to foster more inclusive and equitable AI governance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Artificial intelligence (AI) governance is frequently constructed in contemporary policy documents through discourses of technical neutrality and operational efficiency.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study examines three globally influential and norm-setting policy frameworks, namely, the European Union’s AI Act, the OECD AI Principles, and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, through a multi-layered qualitative content analysis combining open coding, implicit discourse analysis, and the analysis of strategic silences.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It further highlights the need for a feminist data justice approach that recognizes these often invisible dimensions of labor and inequality to foster more inclusive and equitable AI governance.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay Zekâ Yönetişimi · Toplumsal Cinsiyet Körlüğü · Feminist Veri Adaleti

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) governance is frequently constructed in contemporary policy documents through discourses of technical neutrality and operational efficiency. However, this rationality risks reproducing existing inequalities rather than transforming them by detaching technological transformation from its social context. This study critically examines how gender is constructed and positioned within international AI governance documents, with a particular focus on care labor, social reproduction, and the invisibility of digital labor. The study examines three globally influential and norm-setting policy frameworks, namely, the European Union’s AI Act, the OECD AI Principles, and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, through a multi-layered qualitative content analysis combining open coding, implicit discourse analysis, and the analysis of strategic silences. The findings demonstrate that gender is constructed through four key discursive mechanisms: a vulnerability discourse that limits women’s roles in decision-making processes, an ontological exclusion that marginalizes care labor from market-based value frameworks, a form of technical solutionism that reduces structural inequalities to issues of data quality, and the invisibility of digital labor underpinning AI production processes. The study argues that framing gender inequality primarily as a technical problem of bias obscures the structural dimensions of care labor, social reproduction, and digital labor embedded within contemporary AI governance paradigms. It further highlights the need for a feminist data justice approach that recognizes these often invisible dimensions of labor and inequality to foster more inclusive and equitable AI governance.

Özet

Yapay zekâ yönetişimi, güncel politika metinlerinde sıklıkla teknik tarafsızlık ve operasyonel verimlilik söylemleri üzerinden inşa edilmektedir. Ancak bu rasyonalite, teknolojik dönüşümü toplumsal bağlamdan kopararak mevcut eşitsizlikleri dönüştürmekten ziyade yeniden üretme riski taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, uluslararası yapay zekâ yönetişim belgelerinde toplumsal cinsiyetin konumlandırılma biçimlerini bakım emeği, sosyal yeniden üretim ve dijital emeğin görünmezliği ekseninde eleştirel bir perspektifle analiz etmektedir. Araştırma kapsamında, küresel ölçekte norm belirleyici nitelik taşıyan Avrupa Birliği Yapay Zekâ Yasası, OECD Yapay Zekâ İlkeleri ve UNESCO Yapay Zekâ Etiği Tavsiye Kararı açık kodlama, örtük söylem analizi ve stratejik sessizlik analizini bir araya getiren çok katmanlı bir nitel içerik analizi yaklaşımıyla incelenmiştir. Bulgular, toplumsal cinsiyetin bu belgelerde dört temel söylemsel mekanizma aracılığıyla kurgulandığını göstermektedir: kadınların karar alma süreçlerindeki konumunu sınırlayan kırılganlık söylemi, bakım emeğini piyasa temelli değer anlayışının dışına iten ontolojik dışlanma, yapısal eşitsizlikleri veri kalitesine indirgeyen teknik çözümcülük ve yapay zekâ üretim süreçlerini mümkün kılan dijital emeğin görünmezliği. Çalışma, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğinin ağırlıklı olarak teknik bir yanlılık problemi olarak çerçevelenmesinin, bakım emeği, sosyal yeniden üretim ve dijital emeğin yapısal boyutlarını görünmez kıldığını ileri sürmektedir. Bu doğrultuda çalışma, daha kapsayıcı ve adil bir yapay zekâ yönetişimi için bu görünmez emek ve eşitsizlik biçimlerini tanıyan feminist veri adaleti yaklaşımının gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tuğaç, Ç. (2026). Gender Dynamics in Artificial Intelligence Governance: A Critical Analysis of International Policy Documents. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 46 Sayı: 1, 256–294. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2026.46.1.1159

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Bahangulu, J., & Owusu-Berko, L. (2025). Algorithmic bias, data ethics, and governance: Ensuring fairness, transparency and compliance in AI-powered business analytics applications. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.2.0571. google scholar
  2. Banerjee, P., Hati, M., Dorage, R., Singh, S., & Jadhav, V. (2025). She, the algorithm, and the invisible hand: Re-imagining economic paradigms in the age of feminist AI. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 7\(3). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i03.45549. google scholar
  3. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code. Cambridge: Polity. google scholar Buslón, N., Cortés, A., Catuara-Solarz, S., Cirillo, D., & Rementeria, M. (2023). Raising awareness of sex and gender bias in artificial intelligence and health. Frontiers in Global Women's Health, 4, 970312. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2023.970312. google scholar
  4. Camilleri, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence governance: Ethical considerations and implications for social responsibility. Expert Systems, 41. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.13406. google scholar
  5. Casilli, A. (2019). En attendant les robots: Enquête sur le travail du clic. Seuil. google scholar
  6. Cirillo, D., Catuara-Solarz, S., Morey, C., Guney, E., Subirats, L., Mellino, S., \. & Mavridis, N. (2020). Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare. NPJ digital medicine, 3\(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0288-5. google scholar
  7. Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams Press. google scholar
  8. Dalmer, N., Ellison, K., Katz, S., & Marshall, B. (2022). Ageing, embodiment and datafication: Dynamics of power in digital health and care technologies. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 15\(2). https://doi.org/10.3384/ijal.1652-8670.3499. google scholar
  9. Demir, M. (2025). Yapay zekâ sosyolojisi: Kavramsal bir çerçeve ve alan önerisi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 13\(2), 661-674. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i2.2568. google scholar
  10. Dinçer, P. (2026). Yapay zekâ etiği ve kapsayıcılık: Türkiye'de kurumsal söylemin sınırları. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 19\(1), 83--100. https://doi.org/10.37093/ijsi.1760924. google scholar
  11. D'Ignazio, C., & Klein, L.F. (2020). Data feminism. The MIT press. google scholar
  12. Eşitti, Ş. (2025). Algoritmik yanlılık, yapay zekâ ve toplumsal cinsiyet: Dijital medya ve yapay zekâda eşitsizliklerin yeniden üretimi. İçinde Ş. Eşitti & S. Çoban (Ed)., Medya ve kadın: Kuramlar, yaklaşımlar ve perspektifler (ss. 32--50). Çanakkale: Paradigma. google scholar
  13. European Parliament. (2024, July 12). Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved February 12, 2026, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng. google scholar
  14. Federici, S. (2021). Patriarchy of the wage: Notes on Marx, gender, and feminism. PM Press. google scholar
  15. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed). Sage. google scholar
  16. Fraser, N. (2017). Crisis of care? On the social-reproductive contradictions of contemporary capitalism. In T. Bhattacharya (Ed)., Social reproduction theory: Remapping class, recentering oppression (pp. 21-36). Pluto Press. google scholar
  17. G7 Hiroshima AI Process. (2023). About the Hiroshima AI process. Retrieved July 23, 2026, from https://www.soumu.go.jp/hiroshimaaiprocess/en/index.html. google scholar
  18. Gao, Q., & An, H. (2024). Technology-neutral Illusion: The ethical and social challenges in the age of artificial intelligence. Sociology, Philosophy and Psychology, 1\(2). https://doi.org/10.70267/frygj645. google scholar
  19. GPAI. (2024). Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved July 23, 2026, from https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/global-partnership-on-artificial-intelligence.html. google scholar
  20. Gray, M.L., & Suri, S. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop silicon valley from building a new global underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. google scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14\(3), 575--599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066. google scholar
  22. Hemanth, J., & Lakshminarayana, K. (2025). Ethical AI in the IT industry: Addressing bias, transparency, and accountability in algorithmic decision-making. Interantional Journal of Scientıfıc Research in Engineerıng and Management, 9\(3). https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem42652. google scholar
  23. Heyndels, S. (2023). Technology and Neutrality. Philosophy & Technology, 36, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00672-1. google scholar
  24. Jain, S., & Zarghamee, H. (2023). Invisible women: A psycho‐economic exploration of domestic and reproductive labor. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 20(4), 654--665. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1805. google scholar
  25. Joyce, K., & Cruz, T. (2024). A sociology of artificial ıntelligence: Inequalities, power, and data justice. Socius, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231241275393. google scholar
  26. Karaağaçlı, M. (2025). Yapay zeka uygulamalarında etik gereksinimi. Uluslararasi Bilişim Sistemleri ve Uygulamalari Dergisi, 1\(1), 1-18. google scholar
  27. Kendir-Gök, Y. (2025). Yapay Zekâ Hikâyesi: Cinsiyetlendirilmiş ve Hegemonik Bilginin Algoritmik Yeniden Üretimi. Feminist Tahayyül: Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6\(2), 284-314. https://doi.org/10.57193/FeminTa.2025.284. google scholar
  28. Lau, P.L. (2025). Rewriting the narrative of AI bias: A data feminist critique of algorithmic inequalities in healthcare. Law, Technology and Humans, 7\(2), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3845. google scholar
  29. Lendvai, G., & Gosztonyi, G. (2025). Algorithmic bias as a core legal dilemma in the age of artificial intelligence: Conceptual basis and the current state of regulation. Laws, 14\(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14030041. google scholar
  30. Mandel, H., Lazarus, A., & Moreno, A. (2024). The value of work: The Gendered outcomes of organizational wage reforms. Feminist Economics, 30, 69-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2024.2375986. google scholar
  31. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed). Sage Publications. google scholar
  32. Miller, B. (2020). Is technology value-neutral?. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 46, 53-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919900965. google scholar
  33. Mohla, S., Bagh, B., & Guha, A. (2024). Thinking beyond bias: Analyzing multifaceted impacts and implications of AI on gendered labour. ArXiv, abs/2406.16207. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2406.16207. google scholar
  34. Noble, S.U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press. google scholar
  35. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16\(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691773384. google scholar
  36. OECD. (2024). OECD AI principles (updated May 2024). Retrieved February 20, 2026, from https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles. google scholar
  37. OECD. (2025, February 7). Launch of the Hiroshima AI Process (HAIP) reporting framework. Retrieved July 21, 2026, from https://www.oecd.org/en/events/2025/02/launch-of-the-hiroshima-ai-process-reporting-framework.html. google scholar
  38. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data ıncreases ınequality and threatens democracy. Crown. google scholar
  39. Radanliev, P. (2025). Privacy, ethics, transparency, and accountability in AI systems for wearable devices. Frontiers in Digital Health, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1431246. google scholar
  40. Risse, L. (2025). By how much is 'women's work' undervalued in the economy?\*. Economic Record, 101, 421-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4932.70012. google scholar
  41. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., \. Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52\(4), 1893-1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. google scholar
  42. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage. google scholar
  43. Schwiter, K., & Steiner, J. (2020). Geographies of care work: The commodification of care, digital care futures and alternative caring visions. Geography Compass, 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12546. google scholar
  44. Sebastiao, S., & Dias, D. (2025). AI transparency: A conceptual, normative, and practical frame analysis. Media and Communication. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9419. google scholar
  45. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge. google scholar
  46. Ulnicane, I., Eke, D. O., Knight, W., Ogoh, G., & Stahl, B. C. (2021). Good governance as a response to discontents? Déjà vu, or lessons for AI from other emerging technologies. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 46\(1-2), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1840220. google scholar
  47. Ulnicane, I., & Aden, A. (2023). Power and politics in framing bias in Artificial Intelligence policy. Review of Policy Research, 40\(5), 665-687. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12567. google scholar
  48. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial ıntelligence. Retrieved February 25, 2026, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381133/PDF/381133eng.pdf.multi.page=3. google scholar
  49. Urhan, B. (2022). Dijital emek platformlarında toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizlikleri. Çalışma ve Toplum, 5\(75), 2583-2611. https://doi.org/10.54752/ct.1191421. google scholar
  50. Üçler, N., & Şahin, Z. B. (2025). Yapay zeka uygulamalarında toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğinin yeniden üretimi: Kodlama ve veri setlerindeki gizli önyargılar. Yeni Yüzyıl'da İletişim Çalışmaları, 3\(12), 1-13. google scholar
  51. Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Cambridge, Polity Press. google scholar
  52. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2022). Blueprint for an AI bill of rights: Making automated systems work for the American people. The White House. google scholar
  53. Yılmaz, B. O., & Ünlü, A. (2024). Dijital çalışma platformlarının toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğine etkisi. _Dijitalleşen dünyada birey, google scholar
  54. toplum, siyaset kongresi bildiriler kitabı_ içinde (ss. 86–97). Işık Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  55. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. google scholar
  56. Zhang, J., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02103-9. google scholar
  57. Cirillo, D., Catuara-Solarz, S., Morey, C., Guney, E., Subirats, L., Mellino, S., \. & Mavridis, N. (2020). Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare. NPJ digital medicine, 3\(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0288-5. google scholar
  58. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed). Sage. google scholar
  59. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed). Sage Publications. google scholar
  60. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., \. Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52\(4), 1893-1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. google scholar