Algorithmic Governance - A Public Perspective

Introduction

In our digitalising world, algorithmic systems are widely used in public governance. However, evidence suggests that algorithmic governance is perceived as less legitimate compared to governance that involves humans. Despite well-known deficiencies and biases in human decision-making, perceived legitimacy of algorithmic governance increases when humans are present in some capacity (so-called humans-in-the-loop).

Theory of Legitimacy Judgments

I argue that in order to explain the legitimizing effect of humans-in-the-loop, we need a theory of how legitimacy judgments are created and changed in the minds of individuals when they encounter algorithmic systems of rule. To this end, AGAPP infuses the study of political legitimacy with a theory of ecological rationality stemming from cognitive science.

Legitimation Heuristic Model

I propose a novel Legitimation Heuristic Model to explore the cognitive dynamics of legitimacy judgments as context-bound evaluations. The empirical investigation focuses on a new European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS).

Case Study: ETIAS

ETIAS is a paradigmatic case of algorithmic governance as it relies on big data and algorithms to perform risk profiling and implement migration policy. This project collects empirical data on how individuals assess the legitimacy of ETIAS by means of rigorous mixed-method research design.

Research Methods

It integrates methods from Human-Computer Interaction research, including:

1. Think-aloud protocols of participants’ interaction with a mock-up ETIAS interface.
2. Visual elicitation into focus groups.
3. Survey experiments to ensure effective treatment.

Implications of AGAPP

AGAPP breaks new ground as it extends the use of heuristic assessment models to legitimacy research. While AGAPP focuses on applications of the Legitimation Heuristics Model to algorithmic governance, if the model turns out to be an accurate portrayal of the legitimacy judgment process, it has wider implications for other governance contexts and for the study of cognition of legitimacy more broadly.