IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2020004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

FAT Flow: A data science ethics framework

Author

Listed:
  • MARTENS, David

Abstract

The impact of data science in our society is undeniable, both in generating cost-efficiencies and in o ering better services and products. As data science often involves making decisions for humans, from deciding on whether to give credit or not, to a self-driving car deciding how to drive, the manner in which companies conduct data science will have large implications for humans (including their customers) too. The interest in the ethical aspects of data science is growing, and have become an increased focus point in both research and practice. Data science ethics looks at what is right and what is wrong when conducting data science. This goes beyond what is legal, and considers aspects as privacy, discrimination against sensitive groups, the ability to explain predictions, and accountability. This paper provides a framework in which concepts, techniques and cautionary tales related to data science ethics can be placed. Companies can use the framework to think about the ethical aspects of their own data science projects, be it at the start of a project or to review current data science practices. It provides guidance on what the important concepts are, how techniques can be used to improve on their data science, and what cautionary tales exist in domains that might be similar to their own. The FAT Flow framework looks at three dimensions: (1) the role of the humans involved in the project, being data subject, data scientist, manager and model applicant; (2) the stage of the data science project: from data gathering to model deployment; and (3) the FAT evaluation criteria: Fair, Accountable and Transparent.

Suggested Citation

  • MARTENS, David, 2020. "FAT Flow: A data science ethics framework," Working Papers 2020004, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2020004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docstore/d:irua:1463
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bovens, Mark, 2006. "Analysing and Assessing Public Accountability. A Conceptual Framework," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 1, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    2. Edmond Awad & Sohan Dsouza & Richard Kim & Jonathan Schulz & Joseph Henrich & Azim Shariff & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2018. "The Moral Machine experiment," Nature, Nature, vol. 563(7729), pages 59-64, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pauline Allen & David Hughes & Peter Vincent-Jones & Christina Petsoulas & Shane Doheny & Jennifer A. Roberts, 2016. "Public Contracts as Accountability Mechanisms: Assuring quality in public health care in England and Wales," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 20-39, January.
    2. Qian, Lixian & Yin, Juelin & Huang, Youlin & Liang, Ya, 2023. "The role of values and ethics in influencing consumers’ intention to use autonomous vehicle hailing services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Popoola, Oluwatoyin Muse Johnson & Che-Ahmad, Ayoib & Samsudin, Rose Shamsiah, 2014. "Fraud and Forensic Accounting: Knowledge and Risk Assessment Task Performance in Malaysian Public Sector – Conceptual study," MPRA Paper 66680, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2014.
    4. Yulia Sullivan & Marc Bourmont & Mary Dunaway, 2022. "Appraisals of harms and injustice trigger an eerie feeling that decreases trust in artificial intelligence systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 308(1), pages 525-548, January.
    5. Klockmann, Victor & von Schenk, Alicia & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2022. "Artificial intelligence, ethics, and intergenerational responsibility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 284-317.
    6. Marcus Buckmann & Andy Haldane & Anne-Caroline Hüser, 2021. "Comparing minds and machines: implications for financial stability," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(3), pages 479-508.
    7. Kassens-Noor, Eva & Cai, Meng & Kotval-Karamchandani, Zeenat & Decaminada, Travis, 2021. "Autonomous vehicles and mobility for people with special needs," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 385-397.
    8. Steve J. Bickley & Benno Torgler, 2021. "Cognitive Architectures for Artificial Intelligence Ethics," CREMA Working Paper Series 2021-27, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Joanna Sleigh & Shannon Hubbs & Alessandro Blasimme & Effy Vayena, 2024. "Can digital tools foster ethical deliberation?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Poszler, Franziska & Geisslinger, Maximilian & Betz, Johannes & Lütge, Christoph, 2023. "Applying ethical theories to the decision-making of self-driving vehicles: A systematic review and integration of the literature," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Du, Manqing & Zhang, Tingru & Liu, Jinting & Xu, Zhigang & Liu, Peng, 2022. "Rumors in the air? Exploring public misconceptions about automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 237-252.
    12. Wolfgang Habla & Mitesh Kataria & Peter Martinsson & Kerstin Roeder, 2024. "Should it stay, or swerve? Trading off lives in dilemma situations involving autonomous cars," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 929-951, May.
    13. Francisco Torres, 2006. "On the efficiency-legitimacy trade-off in EMU," Working Papers de Economia (Economics Working Papers) 36, Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial, Universidade de Aveiro.
    14. Zhang, Qiyuan & Wallbridge, Christopher D. & Jones, Dylan M. & Morgan, Phillip L., 2024. "Public perception of autonomous vehicle capability determines judgment of blame and trust in road traffic accidents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    15. Mattei, Paola, 2007. "The welfare state and new challenge from the back door," TranState Working Papers 65, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    16. Rejali, Sina & Aghabayk, Kayvan & Esmaeli, Saeed & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2023. "Comparison of technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior, and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to assess a priori acceptance of fully automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Staněk, Rostislav & Krčál, Ondřej & Čellárová, Katarína, 2022. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps: Identifying procedural preferences against helping others in the presence of moral hazard," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    18. Victor Klockmann & Alicia von Schenk & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Diffused Pivotality," Working Papers halshs-03237453, HAL.
    19. Karen Huang & Regan M. Bernhard & Netta Barak-Corren & Max Bazerman & Joshua D. Greene, 2021. "Veil-of-ignorance reasoning mitigates self-serving bias in resource allocation during the COVID-19 crisis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, January.
    20. Hensel, Lukas & Witte, Marc & Caria, A. Stefano & Fetzer, Thiemo & Fiorin, Stefano & Götz, Friedrich M. & Gomez, Margarita & Haushofer, Johannes & Ivchenko, Andriy & Kraft-Todd, Gordon & Reutskaja, El, 2022. "Global Behaviors, Perceptions, and the Emergence of Social Norms at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 473-496.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2020004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joeri Nys (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ftufsbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.