<100 subscribers
Written by Madhuri Rahman - March 2024
The concept of techno-reflexivity (Nabben & Zargham, 2020) presents a compelling argument for embedding deeper awareness of developers' inherent biases in the design and development of technological infrastructures. Addressing the inherent biases of developers is not merely a matter of personal reflection but a systemic necessity.
Here I look at how incorporating the four I's framework, a tool taken from the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion space (EDI) can offer a way to understand the roots of the 'biases' people hold. The four I's framework highlights the manifestation or operation of privilege and power across four levels: Ideological, Institutional, Interpersonal, and Internalised. Individual biases manifest at the interpersonal level of the framework, but are rooted in historical ideologies that have been embedded over time within our culture, society and laws.
I'd like to say upfront that the wider point I'm making here, is to argue for greater diversity and representation in the field of technology design and development. I don't believe it's possible for an individual researcher, designer or developer to identify power dynamics playing out across all levels. Rather, by increasing representation and including people in the design process who have lived experience of navigating these power dynamics across different levels, digital infrastructure can have a profoundly more just impact on society.
Ideological Level: At the ideological level, digital infrastructures often embody prevailing societal beliefs that can either perpetuate or challenge systemic inequalities. Consider the case of an automated market maker (AMM). AMMs are designed to provide liquidity in financial markets through algorithms that facilitate trading without requiring a traditional buyer and seller to match directly. However, if the underlying algorithm is designed with preferential treatment for transactions of higher monetary value, it could perpetuate the ideology that wealthier participants—those who can afford larger transactions—are more valuable or deserving of better service. This design choice reflects and reinforces a capitalist, societal belief that "rich people matter more than poor people," by providing them with faster or more profitable trading opportunities. Such a system not only widens the gap between rich and poor but also embeds a harmful ideology into the infrastructure itself, affecting how individuals interact with and benefit from financial markets. By applying techno-reflexivity and critically examining these ideological underpinnings during the design phase, developers could alter how the AMM algorithm prioritises transactions, aiming for a more equitable system that does not inherently favour wealthier users.
Institutional Level: At the institutional level, the influences that shape a developer's perspective often stem from the broader institutions they have interacted with throughout their lives, which can profoundly affect their design choices. Consider the design of the Bitcoin ecosystem. This system was conceptualised and developed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, a period marked by widespread distrust in traditional banking institutions and the financial stability they purported to offer. As a result, Bitcoin was designed with a decentralisation ethos to liberate individuals from reliance on these flawed financial institutions. However, in focusing on this liberatory aspect, the environmental impact of maintaining the Bitcoin blockchain—a process that requires substantial computational power and energy—was significantly overlooked. This oversight reflects the institutional contexts that the developer came through, prioritising financial independence and security without equal consideration of environmental sustainability. These institutional influences highlight how developers' backgrounds can lead to skewed priorities in design, emphasising some values at the expense of others.
Interpersonal Level: Interpersonal dynamics within the technology development process can also reflect and reinforce existing privilege and power dynamics within systems. The interactions between team members, the way feedback is solicited and received, and whose voices are prioritised or marginalised in development discussions all influence the final product. Techno-reflexivity encourages developers to reflect on these dynamics: How do interpersonal interactions within their teams and with stakeholders influence the design and function of the technology? Are certain perspectives or concerns systematically overlooked or undervalued?
Internalised Level: Finally, at the internalised level, members of marginalised groups may have internalised societal beliefs that affect their participation in technological fields. This might manifest as imposter syndrome, lower self-efficacy, or reluctance to advocate for one's ideas. Techno-reflexivity can be extended to support practices that empower all team members to recognise and overcome these internalised limitations. This might involve training programmes, mentorship, and creating a culture that actively challenges the stereotypes and barriers that marginalised groups face within the tech industry. Moreover, partnering with organisations already doing this work and supporting them to go further with resources and promotion.
Incorporating the four I's framework into techno-reflexivity offers a more holistic approach to designing digital infrastructures. It provides a structured way for developers to navigate the complexity of power dynamics at multiple levels—from the personal beliefs of the developers to the societal norms that shape user interactions with technology. By doing so, it not only enhances the reflexivity process but also ensures that digital infrastructures are built with a conscious effort to promote social good and reduce systemic oppression.
To operationalise this integrated framework, organisations can adopt comprehensive audit practices that examine technologies through the lens of the four I's, ensuring that each level is addressed systematically. Furthermore, continuous education on social justice and ethics in technology should be embedded in the professional development of all stakeholders involved in technology design and deployment.
The importance of increasing representation in the design of digital infrastructure cannot be overstated. No individual researcher or designer can easily identify all the power dynamics at play across these levels on their own. Conducting this kind of analysis requires engaging with and centring the voices of those with lived experiences of navigating these dynamics. These individuals are often underrepresented in technology fields. If they are not visibly present, it is crucial to seek out groups that are platforming these voices.
By expanding the scope of techno-reflexivity to include the four I's framework, developers and organisations can better understand and dismantle the complex layers of power and privilege that often go unnoticed but significantly shape digital landscapes and user experiences. This approach not only fosters greater innovation and inclusivity but also aligns technological advancements with the broader goals of equity and justice.
