Measurement as governance in and for responsible AI
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Measurement of social phenomena is everywhere, unavoidably, in sociotechnical systems. This is not (only) an academic point: Fairness-related harms emerge when there is a mismatch in the measurement process between the thing we purport to be measuring and the thing we actually measure. However, the measurement process -- where social, cultural, and political values are implicitly encoded in sociotechnical systems -- is almost always obscured. Furthermore, this obscured process is where important governance decisions are encoded: governance about which systems are fair, which individuals belong in which categories, and so on. We can then use the language of measurement, and the tools of construct validity and reliability, to uncover hidden governance decisions. In particular, we highlight two types of construct validity, content validity and consequential validity, that are useful to elicit and characterize the feedback loops between the measurement, social construction, and enforcement of social categories. We then explore the constructs of fairness, robustness, and responsibility in the context of governance in and for responsible AI. Together, these perspectives help us unpack how measurement acts as a hidden governance process in sociotechnical systems. Understanding measurement as governance supports a richer understanding of the governance processes already happening in AI -- responsible or otherwise -- revealing paths to more effective interventions.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
8 papers.
- 2023Personality Traits in Large Language Modelscited by 169
- 2022The Fallacy of AI Functionalitycited by 88
- 2024Position: Measure Dataset Diversity, Don't Just Claim Itcited by 26
- 2025Measuring What Matters: Connecting AI Ethics Evaluations to System Attributes, Hazards, and Harmscited by 5
- 2025Theory-Grounded Evaluation of Human-Like Fallacy Patterns in LLM Reasoningcited by 2
- 2026To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systemscited by 1
- 2021Machines & Influence: An Information Systems Lenscited by 0
- 2026Elder-Sim: A Psychometrically Validated Platform for Personality-Stable Elderly Digital Twinscited by 0
- 2026To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systems30 Apr 2026
- 2026Elder-Sim: A Psychometrically Validated Platform for Personality-Stable Elderly Digital Twins16 Mar 2026
- 2025Measuring What Matters: Connecting AI Ethics Evaluations to System Attributes, Hazards, and Harms11 Oct 2025
- 2025Theory-Grounded Evaluation of Human-Like Fallacy Patterns in LLM Reasoning10 Jun 2025
- 2024Position: Measure Dataset Diversity, Don't Just Claim It11 Jul 2024
- 2023Personality Traits in Large Language Models1 Jul 2023
- 2022The Fallacy of AI Functionality20 Jun 2022
- 2021Machines & Influence: An Information Systems Lens26 Nov 2021