Mark Rouncefield

Rob Procter, Peter Tolmie, Mark Rouncefield

The need for AI systems to provide explanations for their behaviour is now widely recognised as key to their adoption. In this paper, we examine the problem of trustworthy AI and explore what delivering this means in practice, with a focus on healthcare applications. Work in this area typically treats trustworthy AI as a problem of Human-Computer Interaction involving the individual user and an AI system. However, we argue here that this overlooks the important part played by organisational accountability in how people reason about and trust AI in socio-technical settings. To illustrate the importance of organisational accountability, we present findings from ethnographic studies of breast cancer screening and cancer treatment planning in multidisciplinary team meetings to show how participants made themselves accountable both to each other and to the organisations of which they are members. We use these findings to enrich existing understandings of the requirements for trustworthy AI and to outline some candidate solutions to the problems of making AI accountable both to individual users and organisationally. We conclude by outlining the implications of this for future work on the development of trustworthy AI, including ways in which our proposed solutions may be re-used in different application settings.

Rob Procter, Mark Rouncefield

Exploring the socio-technical challenges confronting the adoption of AI in organisational settings is something that has so far been largely absent from the related literature. In particular, research into requirements for trustworthy AI typically overlooks how people deal with the problems of trust in the tools that they use as part of their everyday work practices. This article presents some findings from an ongoing ethnographic study of how current tools are used in air traffic control work and what it reveals about requirements for trustworthy AI in air traffic control and other safety-critical application domains.

Rob Procter, Mark Rouncefield, Peter Tolmie

We examine the problem of explainable AI (xAI) and explore what delivering xAI means in practice, particularly in contexts that involve formal or informal and ad-hoc collaboration where agency and accountability in decision-making are achieved and sustained interactionally. We use an example from an earlier study of collaborative decision-making in screening mammography and the difficulties users faced when trying to interpret the behavior of an AI tool to illustrate the challenges of delivering usable and effective xAI. We conclude by setting out a study programme for future research to help advance our understanding of xAI requirements for safe and ethical AI.

Peter Tolmie, Rob Procter, David William Randall et al.

Social media and user-generated content (UGC) are increasingly important features of journalistic work in a number of different ways. However, their use presents major challenges, not least because information posted on social media is not always reliable and therefore its veracity needs to be checked before it can be considered as fit for use in the reporting of news. We report on the results of a series of in-depth ethnographic studies of journalist work practices undertaken as part of the requirements gathering for a prototype of a social media verification 'dashboard' and its subsequent evaluation. We conclude with some reflections upon the broader implications of our findings for the design of tools to support journalistic work.

Peter Tolmie, Rob Procter, Mark Rouncefield et al.

Inspired by a European project, PHEME, that requires the close analysis of Twitter-based conversations in order to look at the spread of rumors via social media, this paper has two objectives. The first of these is to take the analysis of microblogs back to first principles and lay out what microblog analysis should look like as a foundational programme of work. The other is to describe how this is of fundamental relevance to Human-Computer Interaction's interest in grasping the constitution of people's interactions with technology within the social order. Our critical finding is that, despite some surface similarities, Twitter-based conversations are a wholly distinct social phenomenon requiring an independent analysis that treats them as unique phenomena in their own right, rather than as another species of conversation that can be handled within the framework of existing Conversation Analysis. This motivates the argument that Microblog Analysis be established as a foundationally independent programme, examining the organizational characteristics of microblogging from the ground up. We articulate how aspects of this approach have already begun to shape our design activities within the PHEME project.