# Making Transparency Advocates: An Educational Approach Towards Better Algorithmic Transparency in Practice

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15363 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15363/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.00973/) (2020)
- [Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.05239/) (2018)
- [Artificial Intelligence: the global landscape of ethics guidelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.11668/) (2019)
- [Measuring the Quality of Explanations: The System Causability Scale (SCS). Comparing Human and Machine Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.09024/) (2019)
- [Towards Accountability in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Public Administrations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.01434/) (2021)
- [Pathways through Conspiracy: The Evolution of Conspiracy Radicalization through Engagement in Online Conspiracy Discussions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.10729/) (2022)
- [Teaching Responsible Data Science: Charting New Pedagogical Territory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.10564/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Concerns about the risks and harms posed by artificial intelligence (AI) have resulted in significant study into algorithmic transparency, giving rise to a sub-field known as Explainable AI (XAI). Unfortunately, despite a decade of development in XAI, an existential challenge remains: progress in research has not been fully translated into the actual implementation of algorithmic transparency by organizations. In this work, we test an approach for addressing the challenge by creating transparency advocates, or motivated individuals within organizations who drive a ground-up cultural shift towards improved algorithmic transparency. Over several years, we created an open-source educational workshop on algorithmic transparency and advocacy. We delivered the workshop to professionals across two separate domains to improve their algorithmic transparency literacy and willingness to advocate for change. In the weeks following the workshop, participants applied what they learned, such as speaking up for algorithmic transparency at an organization-wide AI strategy meeting. We also make two broader observations: first, advocacy is not a monolith and can be broken down into different levels. Second, individuals' willingness for advocacy is affected by their professional field. For example, news and media professionals may be more likely to advocate for algorithmic transparency than those working at technology start-ups.