Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

On the importance of ethnographic methods in AI research

Nature Machine Intelligence volume 3, pages 187–189 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

To truly understand the societal impact of AI, we need to look beyond the exclusive focus on quantitative methods, and focus on qualitative methods like ethnography, which shed light on the actors and institutions that wield power through the use of these technologies.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly embedded in law enforcement agencies around the world, there is mounting evidence of the injustice arising from their indiscriminate use1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Deployed with the promise of speed, efficiency and neutrality, their impacts on society have been far more sobering8. Methods like predictive policing, under the guise of ‘smartness’, have been shown to disproportionately police vulnerable communities, and entrench institutional methods of exclusion and surveillance9.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Benjamin, R. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code (Polity, 2019).

  2. Eubanks, V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (St. Martin’s Press, 2018).

  3. Noble, S. U. Algorithms of Oppression (NYU Press, 2018).

  4. Raji, I. D. et al. in Proc. AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 145–151 (ACM, 2020).

  5. Hicks, M. Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing (MIT Press, 2018).

  6. Keyes, O. Proc. ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Vol. 2 88 (ACM, 2018).

  7. Prasad, M. & Marda, V. In Artificial Intelligence: Human Rights, Social Justice and Development 145–151 (APC, Article 19, Sida, 2019).

  8. Devich-Cyril, M. The Atlantic http://go.nature.com/3bvkfjS (2020).

  9. Lum, K. & Issac, W. Significance 13, 14–19 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moss, E. & Sloane, M. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 330–331 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Forsythe, D. Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence 8–9 (Stanford Univ. Press, 2001).

  12. Marda, V. in Artificial Intelligence: Human Rights, Social Justice and Development 9–13 (APC, Article 19, Sida, 2019).

  13. Reeves, S., Kuper, A. & Hodges, B. D. BMJ 337, a1020 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nader, L. J. Ethnograph. Theor. 1, 211–219 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nader, L. (ed.) Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge (Routledge, 2014).

  16. Barabas C., Doyle, C., Rubinovitz, J. B. & Dinakar, K. in ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 167–176 (ACM, 2020).

  17. Elish, M. C. & Boyd, D. Preprint at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3040201 (2017).

  18. From the Commissioner’s Desk (Delhi Police, 2015).

  19. Singh, K. P. Hindustan Times http://go.nature.com/3uqfX64 (2017).

  20. CAG’s Performance Audit report on Manpower and Logistics Management in Delhi Police” presented (Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2020); https://go.nature.com/2NTAhf8

  21. Marda, V & Narayan, S in Proc. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 317–324 (ACM, 2020).

  22. Seaver, N. in Knowing Algorithms in DigitalSTS: A Field Guide for Science and Technology Studies (eds. Vertesi, J. & Ribes, D) 412–422 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2019).

  23. Haraway, D. Fem. Stud. 14, 575–599 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Delhi Police selects Barco for city’s first C4I Surveillance Center (Barco, 2010); http://go.nature.com/3uqab4j

  25. Hanna, A. & Park, M. T. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08850 (2020).

  26. Christin, A. Theor. Soc. 49, 897–918 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Latour, B. in The Lure of Whitehead (eds. Gaskill, N. & Nocek, A. J.) 34 (Univ. Minnesota Press, 2014).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank N. Raval, R. Renno and M. Ansari for their feedback on various drafts of this piece.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Vidushi Marda, Shivangi Narayan.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Article 19, Bangalore, India

    Vidushi Marda

  2. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

    Shivangi Narayan

Authors
  1. Vidushi Marda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shivangi Narayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Vidushi Marda or Shivangi Narayan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marda, V., Narayan, S. On the importance of ethnographic methods in AI research. Nat Mach Intell 3, 187–189 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00323-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00323-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing