A Systematic Literature Review on Equity and Technology in HCI and Fairness: Navigating the Complexities and Nuances of Equity Research

Haiyi Zhu; Motahhare Eslami; Seyun Kim; Yuanchen Bai

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 153 references

A Systematic Literature Review on Equity and Technology in HCI and Fairness: Navigating the Complexities and Nuances of Equity Research

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Only 27% of equity-tech papers define the term, review finds

desk verdict Useful map of a fragmented field, but the 'only 27% define equity' headline overstates the gap once you exclude the 42 motivation-only papers the authors themselves classify as not equity-focused. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14886 v1 pith:VJR235DH submitted 2025-01-24 cs.CY

Seyun Kim , Yuanchen Bai , Haiyi Zhu , Motahhare Eslami This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CY

keywords equitytechnologysystematicliteraturereviewHCIalgorithmicfairnessdefinitionsparticipatorydesignvaluetensions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Across 202 papers from HCI and fairness-focused venues, this review argues that equity research is growing quickly but is fragmented because researchers rarely say what they mean by equity. Only 27% of the papers give an explicit definition, and the gap is wider in HCI (21%) than in fairness venues (40%). The paper maps the definitions that do appear into three types—need-based, contribution-based, and equality-based—and shows that the two communities approach equity differently: HCI mostly surfaces inequities through qualitative work, while fairness venues mostly build systems, algorithms, and frameworks. It concludes that the missing shared vocabulary hampers the development of a common framework for equity in technology, and it offers a four-dimension framework with seven recommendations for future research.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the systematic literature review itself, built on a structured review protocol: a corpus of 202 papers retrieved by searching for "equit*" or "inequit*" in titles, abstracts, or keywords of the selected HCI and fairness venues, then filtered through title-and-abstract screening. The argument is carried by the coding scheme the authors apply to that corpus: closed coding for definitions, methods, and publication data, and open coding for motivations, interventions, and tensions. The three-way partition of equity definitions (need-based, contribution-based, equality-based), the four-part taxonomy of research approaches (equity as motivation, surfacing inequities, interventions, participation), and the resulting four-dimension equity framework are the concrete objects that support the paper's conclusions.

What would settle it

Re-run the same review with broader search stems (e.g., "accessib*", "social justice", "inclusi*", "fairness") across the same venues, or with full-text search instead of title/abstract/keywords, and check whether the 27% explicit-definition rate and the HCI/fairness definition gap survive; if the rate rises substantially or the gap narrows, the paper's central portrait describes only a subset of the field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a portrait of an emerging field that has not yet cohered. Using a systematic literature review of 202 research articles, the authors find a surge in equity-related publications from 2018 to 2022, alongside a persistent absence of explicit equity definitions: 73% of the corpus uses "equity" without defining it, and HCI papers are about half as likely as fairness papers to define the term. Where definitions exist, they fall into need-based, contribution-based, and equality-based categories that are not interchangeable. The authors also show that researchers' motivations cluster around existing societal and technological inequities, their methods split sharply by community, and their efforts face tensions between equity and utility values, social values, and equity itself. On this basis, the paper argues that the lack of clear and explicit definitions—especially in HCI—may hinder the common framework and shared understanding the field needs.

Load-bearing premise

The whole quantitative portrait depends on the search assumption that papers about equity and technology will use the literal stems "equit*" or "inequit*" in the title, abstract, or keywords of the selected venues—an assumption the authors concede misses relevant work such as Branham et al. [21].

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the pattern holds, a paper claiming to advance "equity" is currently doing so without a shared referent, so readers and reviewers cannot tell whether findings are comparable across studies.
Explicitly choosing among need-based, contribution-based, or equality-based definitions would make equity claims checkable and let results accumulate instead of colliding.
HCI's strength in surfacing inequities and fairness venues' strength in building interventions could be combined, since only 6 authors in the corpus publish in both communities.
Researchers who report value tensions and trade-offs—equity vs. utility, social values, or other equity—can use the four-dimension framework to state what they prioritized and why.
Treating equity as a mere motivation, as 21% of the corpus does, is identified as a gap that the framework's recommendations target.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Going beyond the paper, the definition gap it measures may be partly a vocabulary artifact: work that advances equity under labels like accessibility or social justice without using "equit*" was excluded by design, so the true share of definition-rich equity work could be higher than 27%.
A testable extension would be to code the same corpus for which stakeholder groups are centered in each definition type; need-based definitions may associate with participatory methods and equality-based definitions with statistical parity metrics.
If the field adopted the three-type definitional taxonomy, one could ask whether definition type predicts intervention choice—for instance, whether equality-based definitions lead to fairness metrics and need-based definitions lead to resource-allocation systems.
The authors' caution against techno-solutionism leaves open a harder question: whether some equity goals are better served by non-technological policy changes, which the paper gestures at but does not systematically analyze.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this review is worth refereeing. It gives the HCI/fairness community something it didn't have: a map of how 'equity' is actually used across 202 papers, with a definition taxonomy and intervention typology. But treat the headline 'only 27% define equity' with caution. The denominator includes 42 papers the authors label 'equity merely as motivation' (Section 7.1). Those papers were never about equity, and they're unlikely to define it. Recomputing over the 160 equity-focused papers gives roughly 34% (54/160), still low but less dramatic. The HCI/fairness gap (21% vs 40%) may persist, but the paper doesn't report this sensitivity analysis, and it matters because the central claim leans on it.

The real contributions are the qualitative ones: the three definition categories (need/contribution/equality), the four intervention types (monitoring/surfacing, system/algorithm, framework, stakeholder participation), and the seven recommendations. These are induced from the corpus in a transparent way, and they ring true. The PRISMA workflow is documented carefully, including the iterative keyword development.

Soft spots, in order of severity. (1) The keyword search (equit*/inequit* in title/abstract/keyword) is narrow and the authors know it; they name Branham et al. as a missed paper. That's fine for a scoping review, but it means every percentage is about a subset, not the field. (2) Closed-coding reliability is 0.66, moderate; open-coding reliability is unreported. For some claims (e.g., 47% vs 10% monitoring) that's a real limitation. (3) Table 1 and the text disagree on AIES/EAAMO counts (text: AIES 9, EAAMO 12; table: AIES 12, EAAMO 9). Sloppy but fixable. (4) The 'only 6 authors overlap' statistic is interesting but not interpreted much.

Who benefits: anyone entering equity research in HCI or fairness, and anyone teaching it. The framework is a good checklist. I'd accept for peer review; the revisions are minor (fix the counts, report sensitivity on the definition rate, acknowledge coding reliability). The central argument - equity is fragmented and often undefined, and the two communities approach it differently - holds up.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a systematic literature review, following the PRISMA workflow, of 202 research articles from HCI venues (SIGCHI/SIGACCESS sponsored) and Fairness-focused venues (FAccT, AIES, EAAMO, SaTML) that mention 'equit*' or 'inequit*' in the title, abstract, or keywords. The review characterizes why researchers study equity (existing societal and technological inequities, failures of prior efforts), how they define equity (need-based, contribution-based, equality-based), how they conduct equity research (monitoring/surfacing inequities, three types of interventions), and tensions among values. Based on these findings, the authors propose a four-dimension equity framework with seven recommendations. A central finding is that only 27% of the corpus explicitly defines equity, with a lower rate in HCI (21%) than in Fairness venues (40%).

Significance. If the findings hold, this review provides a useful and much-needed map of an emerging, rapidly growing area at the intersection of equity and technology. Strengths include a transparent PRISMA-based process with explicit search strings, venue lists, inclusion criteria, and coding categories; the authors report inter-rater reliability (moderate Cohen's kappa) and openly discuss limitations, including the exclusion of relevant work that does not use the literal term 'equit*'. The typologies of definitions, motivations, interventions, and tensions are genuinely useful for future researchers, and the proposed framework and recommendations are actionable. The paper also makes a valuable empirical contribution by quantifying the HCI/Fairness gap in definitional clarity and methodological approach.

major comments (3)

[§5.1, §7.1 (Table 2)] The headline statistic that only 27% (54/202) of the corpus explicitly defines equity is computed over all 202 papers, including the 42 papers (21%) the authors themselves classify as 'equity merely as motivation' (Table 2). These papers are described as mentioning equity only to motivate the work without engaging with the concept, so they are unlikely to contain formal definitions; their inclusion in the denominator mechanically depresses the reported rate. If none of the 42 motivation-only papers define equity, the rate among the 160 equity-focused papers would be 54/160 ≈ 34%; if some do, the rate is higher still. The paper neither reports this sensitivity analysis nor breaks down definition rates by the papers' equity engagement category. Because this statistic anchors the central claim that the lack of explicit definitions hinders a shared equity framework, the authors should report definition rates separately for motivation-only and equity-focused papers, and re-state the central claim accordingly.
[§3.3.1, §3.3.2, §7.1] The reliability of the coding that produces the 'equity merely as motivation' category and the intervention-type percentages is not fully established. Open coding was conducted without inter-rater reliability checks, and the closed-coding kappa for the entire corpus is only 0.66 (moderate). Since the size of the motivation-only category directly enters the definition-rate denominator (Major Comment 1) and the intervention-type percentages in Table 2 are a core contribution, the authors should provide per-category reliability or a consensus process demonstrating that these categories are stable. Without this, the magnitude of the motivation-only category, and therefore the corrected definition rate, remains uncertain.
[§3.1, §9] The search string requires 'equit*' or 'inequit*' in the title, abstract, or keywords, which excludes relevant equity research like Branham et al. [21], as the authors acknowledge in Section 9. As a result, the corpus constitutes papers that explicitly use the term 'equity,' not the full universe of equity-related research in HCI and Fairness venues. The central claims about growth rates, the definitional gap, and the HCI/Fairness contrast are therefore conditional on this operationalization. The authors should either narrow the title and abstract claims accordingly, or add a sensitivity analysis using related terms (e.g., 'inequality,' 'social justice,' 'accessibility') to test whether the reported patterns persist.

minor comments (6)

[§5.3] The text states that the authors 'categorized all papers into six categories' but then lists five categories (Empirical-Qualitative, Empirical-Quantitative, Technical/Systems, Design, Theoretical); please correct the count.
[§8.2] There is a duplicated word in 'responsibility for the space space'; please fix the typo.
[§3.1, Figure 1] The PRISMA flow diagram is referenced as Figure 1, but the text does not report the exact numbers at each PRISMA stage (identified, screened, excluded, included). Please add a completed flow diagram with counts.
[Appendix] The list of the 202 included papers is not provided in the appendix or as supplementary material; making the corpus list available would improve reproducibility and allow readers to verify the coding.
[§4.1.1] The paragraph on growth correctly excludes 2023 papers from Figure 2, but the text could be clearer about the data collection cutoff (September 2023) and that the figure's x-axis ends at 2022.
[§5.1] The term 'equality-based definition' might be confused with the equality/equity distinction used elsewhere in the paper; consider adding a brief clarification that this category refers to papers that operationalize equity as statistical parity or equal treatment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equity literature review's corpus statistics and thematic synthesis are self-contained descriptions of the collected papers.

full rationale

This paper is a systematic literature review, not a derivation with fitted parameters or predicted outcomes. Its input is a corpus defined by transparent inclusion criteria: papers containing 'equit*' or 'inequit*' in title, abstract, or keyword across specified HCI and Fairness venues. All reported percentages, growth trends, and thematic categories are descriptive codings of that corpus. The coding categories (need-based, contribution-based, and equality-based definitions; motivation-only vs. monitoring/surfacing vs. interventions) were induced from the papers and then used to summarize them, which is standard thematic-analysis practice rather than a hidden reuse of fitted parameters. The central claim about the absence of explicit equity definitions (27%) is an empirical count and is not entailed by the search or coding definitions by construction. The paper's self-citations, such as Park et al. [111] for 'value transparency' and several other prior works used as examples, are external prior studies and are not load-bearing for the central empirical claims. The acknowledged limitation that relevant papers without the literal term 'equit*' or 'inequit*' were excluded (e.g., Branham et al. [21]) affects the generalizability of the corpus but does not make the analysis circular. The concern that the 27% statistic's denominator includes papers the authors themselves label as 'equity merely as motivation' is a methodological validity and sensitivity question, not a reduction of the finding to its input by construction. Therefore, no specific circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters or invented physical entities appear. The review rests on corpus-construction and coding assumptions rather than fitted constants, so the ledger records these domain assumptions explicitly.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Explicit appearance of equit* or inequit* in title, abstract, or keywords is a valid operational proxy for equity-related research in HCI and fairness venues.
Search strategy in Section 3.1 uses only these strings; Section 9 admits relevant work like Branham et al. is excluded when the word equity is absent.
domain assumption The selected venues (ACM SIGCHI, SIGACCESS, FAccT, AIES, EAAMO, SaTML) adequately represent the HCI and Fairness communities.
Section 3.1 defines the venue set; Section 9 notes ICML/NeurIPS and domain venues were excluded, so representativeness is assumed.
domain assumption The authors' closed- and open-coding categories can capture the equity content of the corpus.
Section 3.3 reports moderate closed-coding reliability (kappa 0.66) and no reliability assessment for open coding; categories like 'equity discussed briefly' are author judgments.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Literature Review on Equity and Technology in HCI and Fairness: Navigating the Complexities and Nuances of Equity Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJR235DH

@misc{pith2026250114886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Literature Review on Equity and Technology in HCI and Fairness: Navigating the Complexities and Nuances of Equity Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJR235DH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14886}
}

read the original abstract

Equity is crucial to the ethical implications in technology development. However, implementing equity in practice comes with complexities and nuances. In response, the research community, especially the human-computer interaction (HCI) and Fairness community, has endeavored to integrate equity into technology design, addressing issues of societal inequities. With such increasing efforts, it is yet unclear why and how researchers discuss equity and its integration into technology, what research has been conducted, and what gaps need to be addressed. We conducted a systematic literature review on equity and technology, collecting and analyzing 202 papers published in HCI and Fairness-focused venues. Amidst the substantial growth of relevant publications within the past four years, we deliver three main contributions: (1) we elaborate a comprehensive understanding researchers' motivations for studying equity and technology, (2) we illustrate the different equity definitions and frameworks utilized to discuss equity, (3) we characterize the key themes addressing interventions as well as tensions and trade-offs when advancing and integrating equity to technology. Based on our findings, we elaborate an equity framework for researchers who seek to address existing gaps and advance equity in technology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14886 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Publication counts in HCI and Fairness community. Our corpus includes papers up to September 2023, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Methods distribution for HCI and Fairness papers. We counted the methods used for each paper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A Framework for future researchers aiming to study the intersection of equity and technology. This [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[21]

Stacy M Branham and Shaun K Kane. 2015. Collaborative accessibility: How blind and sighted companions co-create accessible home spaces. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2373–2382

2015
[2]

Hammaad Adam, Ming Ying Yang, Kenrick Cato, Ioana Baldini, Charles Senteio, Leo Anthony Celi, Jiaming Zeng, Moninder Singh, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. 2022. Write It Like You See It: Detectable Differences in Clinical Notes by Race Lead to Differential Model Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’22) ....

arXiv 2022
[3]

J Stacy Adams. 1963. Towards an understanding of inequity. The journal of abnormal and social psychology 67, 5 (1963), 422

1963
[4]

Abdelghafour Al-Zawahreh and Faisal Al-Madi. 2012. The utility of equity theory in enhancing organizational effectiveness. European journal of economics, finance and administrative sciences 46, 3 (2012), 159–169

2012
[5]

Bidwell, and Caitlin C

Lameck Mbangula Amugongo, Nicola J. Bidwell, and Caitlin C. Corrigan. 2023. Invigorating Ubuntu Ethics in AI for Healthcare: Enabling Equitable Care. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 583–592. doi:10.1145/3593013. 3594024

doi:10.1145/3593013 2023
[6]

Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2022. Machine bias. In Ethics of data and analytics . Auerbach Publications, 254–264

2022
[7]

Laura Anselmi, Mylene Lagarde, and Kara Hanson. 2015. Equity in the allocation of public sector financial resources in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review. Health policy and planning 30, 4 (2015), 528–545

2015
[8]

Mariam Asad. 2019. Prefigurative Design as a Method for Research Justice.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 200:1–200:18. doi:10.1145/3359302

doi:10.1145/3359302 2019

Show all 153 references

[9]

Tita Alissa Bach, Amna Khan, Harry Hallock, Gabriela Beltrão, and Sonia Sousa. 2024. A systematic literature review of user trust in AI-enabled systems: An HCI perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40, 5 (2024), 1251–1266

2024
[10]

Jack Bandy. 2021. Problematic machine behavior: A systematic literature review of algorithm audits. Proceedings of the acm on human-computer interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–34

2021
[11]

Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1301–1310. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753521

2010
[12]

Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI methodology: social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 675–684

2011
[13]

Sullivan, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian

Ashkan Bashardoust, Sorelle Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, Blair D. Sullivan, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2023. Reducing Access Disparities in Networks Using Edge Augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’23...

2023
[14]

Mohammed Basheri, Liz Burd, and Nilufar Baghaei. 2012. A Multi-Touch Interface for Enhancing Collaborative UML Diagramming. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI ’12) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 30–33. ...

2012
[15]

Allan Beever. 2004. Aristotle on equity, law, and justice. Legal theory 10, 1 (2004), 33–50

2004
[16]

Jason R. Bent. 2019. Is Algorithmic Affirmative Action Legal? https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law- journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2020/04/Is-Algorithmic-Affirmative-Action-Legal.pdf

2019
[17]

Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Michael Kearns, and Aaron Roth. 2021. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research 50, 1 (2021), 3–44

2021
[19]

Ganoe, Shin-I Shih, and John M

Marcela Borge, Craig H. Ganoe, Shin-I Shih, and John M. Carroll. 2012. Patterns of Team Processes and Breakdowns in Information Analysis Tasks. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New...

2012
[20]

Alan Borning and Michael Muller. 2012. Next steps for value sensitive design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1125–1134. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 2, Article CSCW181. Publication date: April 2025. CSCW181:30 S...

2012
[22]

Kirsten Bray and Christina Harrington. 2021. Speculative Blackness: Considering Afrofuturism in the Creation of Inclusive Speculative Design Probes. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

2021
[23]

Redmiles

Casey Breen, Cormac Herley, and Elissa M. Redmiles. 2022. A Large-Scale Measurement of Cybercrime Against Individuals. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–41. doi:...

2022
[25]

Jeffrey Brown, Tina Park, Jiyoo Chang, Mckane Andrus, Alice Xiang, and Christine Custis. 2022. Attrition of Workers with Minoritized Identities on AI Teams. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

2022
[27]

John M Carroll. 2003. HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science . Elsevier

2003
[28]

Simon Caton and Christian Haas. 2024. Fairness in machine learning: A survey. Comput. Surveys 56, 7 (2024), 1–38

2024
[29]

Denita Cepiku and Marco Mastrodascio. 2021. Equity in public services: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review 81, 6 (2021), 1019–1032

2021
[30]

Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. How child welfare workers reduce racial disparities in algorithmic decisions. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Co...

2022
[31]

Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Ruiqi Wang, Paige Bullock, Alexandra Chouldechova, Zhiwei Steven Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2021. Soliciting stakeholders’ fairness notions in child maltreatment predictive systems. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

2021
[32]

Alex Chohlas-Wood, Joe Nudell, Keniel Yao, Zhiyuan (Jerry) Lin, Julian Nyarko, and Sharad Goel. 2021. Blind Justice: Algorithmically Masking Race in Charging Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’21). Association for Comput...

2021
[33]

Ishita Chordia, Leya Breanna Baltaxe-Admony, Ashley Boone, Alyssa Sheehan, Lynn Dombrowski, Christopher A Le Dantec, Kathryn E Ringland, and Angela DR Smith. 2024. Social Justice in HCI: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in C...

2024
[34]

Houston Claure, Seyun Kim, René F Kizilcec, and Malte Jung. 2023. The social consequences of machine allocation behavior: Fairness, interpersonal perceptions and performance. Computers in human behavior 146 (2023), 107628

2023
[35]

Merijke Coenraad, Jen Palmer, Diana Franklin, and David Weintrop. 2019. Enacting Identities: Participatory Design as a Context for Youth to Reflect, Project, and Apply Their Emerging Identities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and ...

2019
[38]

Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir

Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2021. Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond" Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir". arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01122 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[39]

Greg d’Eon, Joslin Goh, Kate Larson, and Edith Law. 2019. Paying Crowd Workers for Collaborative Work.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 125:1–125:24. doi:10.1145/3359227

2019 doi
[40]

Kayla DesPortes, Shiri Mund, and Clarisa James. 2021. Examining the Design and Development of a Social Justice Makerspace. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 397:1–397:26. doi:10. 1145/3479541

2021
[41]

Alicia DeVos, Aditi Dhabalia, Hong Shen, Kenneth Holstein, and Motahhare Eslami. 2022. Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users’ strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys...

2022
[42]

Carl DiSalvo, Phoebe Sengers, and Hrönn Brynjarsdóttir. 2010. Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1975–1984

2010
[43]

Lynn Dombrowski, Ellie Harmon, and Sarah Fox. 2016. Social justice-oriented interaction design: Outlining key design strategies and commitments. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems . 656–671

2016
[44]

Julia Dressel and Hany Farid. 2018. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science advances 4, 1 (2018), eaao5580

2018
[45]

Xiaotong Du, Willow Yao, and Sunyoung Kim. 2021. Lessons Learned from Supporting Low-Income Older Adults to Use a Tablet PC in the Age of Digital Divide. In Adjunct Publication of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (MobileHCI ’21) . Associat...

2021
[46]

Vadim Dukhanin, Alexandra Searle, Alice Zwerling, David W Dowdy, Holly A Taylor, and Maria W Merritt. 2018. Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 198 (2018), 27–35

2018
[47]

Ezequiel Duque, Guilherme Fonseca, Heitor Vieira, Gustavo Gontijo, and Lucila Ishitani. 2019. A systematic literature review on user centered design and participatory design with older people. In Proceedings of the 18th Brazilian symposium on human factors in computing systems . 1–11

2019
[49]

Casey Fiesler, Shannon Morrison, and Amy S Bruckman. 2016. An archive of their own: A case study of feminist HCI and values in design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 2574–2585

2016
[50]

Eureka Foong and Elizabeth Gerber. 2021. Understanding Gender Differences in Pricing Strategies in Online Labor Marketplaces. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–1...

2021
[51]

Sarah Fox, Mariam Asad, Katherine Lo, Jill P Dimond, Lynn S Dombrowski, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2016. Exploring social justice, design, and HCI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3293–3300

2016
[52]

Sarah Fox, Jill Dimond, Lilly Irani, Tad Hirsch, Michael Muller, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2017. Social Justice and Design: Power and oppression in collaborative systems. In Companion of the 2017 acm conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing . 117–122

2017
[53]

Nancy Fraser. 2008. Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In Geographic Thought. Routledge, 72–89

2008
[54]

Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-sensitive design. interactions 3, 6 (1996), 16–23

1996
[55]

Michael Fröhlich, Franz Waltenberger, Ludwig Trotter, Florian Alt, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2022. Blockchain and cryptocurrency in human computer interaction: a systematic literature review and research agenda. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 155–177

2022
[56]

Colin M Gray, Lorena Sanchez Chamorro, Ike Obi, and Ja-Nae Duane. 2023. Mapping the Landscape of Dark Patterns Scholarship: A Systematic Literature Review. In Companion Publication of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 188–193

2023
[57]

Haimson, Daniel Delmonaco, Peipei Nie, and Andrea Wegner

Oliver L. Haimson, Daniel Delmonaco, Peipei Nie, and Andrea Wegner. 2021. Disproportionate Removals and Differing Content Moderation Experiences for Conservative, Transgender, and Black Social Media Users: Marginalization and Moderation Gray Areas. Proceedings of the ACM on Hu...

2021 doi
[60]

Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 216:1–216:25. doi:10.1145/3359318

2019 doi
[63]

Alexis Hope, Catherine D’Ignazio, Josephine Hoy, Rebecca Michelson, Jennifer Roberts, Kate Krontiris, and Ethan Zuckerman. 2019. Hackathons as Participatory Design: Iterating Feminist Utopias. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI...

2019
[64]

Tony Hope, Lars Peter Østerdal, and Andreas Hasman. 2010. An inquiry into the principles of needs-based allocation of health care. Bioethics 24, 9 (2010), 470–480

2010
[65]

All of the White People Went First

Mo Houtti, Moyan Zhou, Loren Terveen, and Stevie Chancellor. 2023. "All of the White People Went First": How Video Conferencing Consolidates Control and Exacerbates Workplace Bias. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 121:1–121:25. doi:10...

2023 doi
[67]

Jane Im, Sarita Schoenebeck, Marilyn Iriarte, Gabriel Grill, Daricia Wilkinson, Amna Batool, Rahaf Alharbi, Audrey Funwie, Tergel Gankhuu, Eric Gilbert, and Mustafa Naseem. 2022. Women’s Perspectives on Harm and Justice after Online Harassment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-...

2022 doi
[68]

Abigail Z Jacobs and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Measurement and fairness. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 375–385

2021
[69]

Xiaofu Jin, Emily Kuang, and Mingming Fan. 2021. ”Too Old to Bank Digitally? ”: A Survey of Banking Practices and Challenges Among Older Adults in China. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New...

2021
[70]

Harry Jones. 2009. Equity in Development: Why it is Important and how to Achieve . Overseas Development Institute

2009
[71]

Naveena Karusala, Victoria G, Shirley Yan, and Richard Anderson. 2023. Unsettling Care Infrastructures: From the Individual to the Structural in a Digital Maternal and Child Health Intervention. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (C...

2023
[72]

Michael Katell, Meg Young, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Vivian Guetler, Aaron Tam, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, and P. M. Krafft. 2020. Toward Situated Interventions for Algorithmic Equity: Lessons from the Field. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountab...

2020
[73]

Oh Yes! Over-Preparing for Meetings Is My Jam :)

Mannat Kaur, Harshini Sri Ramulu, Yasemin Acar, and Tobias Fiebig. 2023. "Oh Yes! Over-Preparing for Meetings Is My Jam :)": The Gendered Experiences of System Administrators. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 141:1–141:38. doi:10.1145/3579617

2023 doi
[74]

Arif Ali Khan, Sher Badshah, Peng Liang, Muhammad Waseem, Bilal Khan, Aakash Ahmad, Mahdi Fahmideh, Mahmood Niazi, and Muhammad Azeem Akbar. 2022. Ethics of AI: A systematic literature review of principles and challenges. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on ...

2022
[76]

Seunghyun Kim, Afsaneh Razi, Gianluca Stringhini, Pamela J Wisniewski, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. A human-centered systematic literature review of cyberbullying detection algorithms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–34

2021
[77]

P. M. Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Jennifer E. Lee, Shankar Narayan, Micah Epstein, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Aaron Tam, Vivian Guetler, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, Pa Ousman Jobe, Franziska Putz, Brian Robick, and Bissan Barghouti. 2021. An Action-Oriented AI Pol...

2021
[78]

Benjamin Laufer, Sameer Jain, A Feder Cooper, Jon Kleinberg, and Hoda Heidari. 2022. Four years of FAccT: A reflexive, mixed-methods analysis of research contributions, shortcomings, and future prospects. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, a...

2022
[79]

Min Kyung Lee and Su Baykal. 2017. Algorithmic mediation in group decisions: Fairness perceptions of algorithmically mediated vs. discussion-based social division. In Proceedings of the 2017 acm conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing . 1035–1048

2017
[80]

Min Kyung Lee, Nina Grgić-Hlača, Michael Carl Tschantz, Reuben Binns, Adrian Weller, Michelle Carney, and Kori Inkpen. 2020. Human-centered approaches to fair and responsible AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

2020
[81]

Procaccia

Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Compute...

2019
[82]

Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems . 1603–1612

2015
[83]

Karen Levy, Kyla E Chasalow, and Sarah Riley. 2021. Algorithms and decision-making in the public sector. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 17 (2021), 309–334

2021
[84]

Amna Liaqat and Cosmin Munteanu. 2020. Leveraging Peer Support for Mature Immigrants Learning to Write in Informal Contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 106:1–106:24. doi:10.1145/3415177

2020 doi
[85]

Georgianna E Lin, Elizabeth D Mynatt, and Neha Kumar. 2022. Investigating Culturally Responsive Design for Menstrual Tracking and Sharing Practices Among Individuals with Minimal Sexual Education. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ...

2022
[86]

Michael Madaio, Lisa Egede, Hariharan Subramonyam, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2022. Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners’ Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–26

2022
[87]

Why Are You Playing Games? You Are a Girl!

Daniel Madden, Yuxuan Liu, Haowei Yu, Mustafa Feyyaz Sonbudak, Giovanni M Troiano, and Casper Harteveld. 2021. “Why Are You Playing Games? You Are a Girl!”: Exploring Gender Biases in Esports. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ...

2021
[88]

Noëmi Manders-Huits. 2011. What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design. Science and engineering ethics 17, 2 (2011), 271–287

2011
[89]

Jon Mandle. 2009. Rawls’s’ A theory of justice’: An introduction . Cambridge University Press

2009
[91]

Aqueasha Martin-Hammond and Tanjala S. Purnell. 2022. Bridging Community, History, and Culture in Personal Informatics Tools: Insights from an Existing Community-Based Heart Health Intervention for Black Americans. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, GROUP ...

2022 doi
[93]

Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica 22, 3 (2012), 276–282

2012
[94]

Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54, 6 (2021), 1–35

2021
[95]

Amanda Menking, Ingrid Erickson, and Wanda Pratt. 2019. People Who Can Take It: How Women Wikipedians Negotiate and Navigate Safety. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

2019
[96]

Carmen Mills and Julie Ballantyne. 2016. Social justice and teacher education: A systematic review of empirical work in the field. Journal of Teacher Education 67, 4 (2016), 263–276

2016
[97]

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G Altman, and PRISMA Group*. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine 151, 4 (2009), 264–269

2009
[98]

Evgeny Morozov. 2013. To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism . PublicAffairs. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 2, Article CSCW181. Publication date: April 2025. CSCW181:34 Seyun Kim et al

2013
[99]

Biega, Krishna P

Nuno Mota, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Asia J. Biega, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Hoda Heidari. 2020. On the Desiderata for Online Altruism: Nudging for Equitable Donations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 126:1–126:21. doi:10.1145/3415197

2020 doi
[100]

Michael J Muller and Sarah Kuhn. 1993. Participatory design. Commun. ACM 36, 6 (1993), 24–28

1993
[101]

Viginia Murphy-Berman, John J Berman, Purnima Singh, Anju Pachauri, and Pramod Kumar. 1984. Factors affecting allocation to needy and meritorious recipients: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 6 (1984), 1267

1984
[102]

Egelman, Laurie R

Emerson Murphy-Hill, Jillian Dicker, Amber Horvath, Maggie Morrow Hodges, Carolyn D. Egelman, Laurie R. Weingart, Ciera Jaspan, Collin Green, and Nina Chen. 2023. Systemic Gender Inequities in Who Reviews Code. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (Apr...

2023 doi
[103]

Ece Çiğdem Mutlu, Niloofar Yousefi, and Ozlem Ozmen Garibay. 2022. Contrastive counterfactual fairness in algorithmic decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 499–507

2022
[104]

Julia Nee, Genevieve Macfarlane Smith, Alicia Sheares, and Ishita Rustagi. 2021. Advancing Social Justice through Linguistic Justice: Strategies for Building Equity Fluent NLP Technology. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ’21) . Associatio...

2021
[106]

Judith Odili Uchidiuno, Jessica Hammer, Ken Koedinger, and Amy Ogan. 2021. Fostering Equitable Help-Seeking for K- 3 Students in Low Income and Rural Contexts. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing M...

2021
[107]

Supreme Court of the United States. 2023. Students for fair admissions, INC. v. President And fellows Of Harvard College. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

2023
[108]

Anna Offenwanger, Alan John Milligan, Minsuk Chang, Julia Bullard, and Dongwook Yoon. 2021. Diagnosing Bias in the Gender Representation of HCI Research Participants: How It Happens and Where We Are. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syste...

2021
[109]

Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela DR Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–16

2020
[111]

Joon Sung Park, Karrie Karahalios, Niloufar Salehi, and Motahhare Eslami. 2022. Power dynamics and value conflicts in designing and maintaining socio-technical algorithmic processes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–21

2022
[112]

Caroline Criado Perez. 2019. Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men . Abrams

2019
[113]

Hans Persson, Henrik Åhman, Alexander Arvei Yngling, and Jan Gulliksen. 2015. Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal acc...

2015
[114]

Adrian Petterson, Keith Cheng, and Priyank Chandra. 2023. Playing with Power Tools: Design Toolkits and the Framing of Equity. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–...

2023
[115]

Stephen Pfohl, Yizhe Xu, Agata Foryciarz, Nikolaos Ignatiadis, Julian Genkins, and Nigam Shah. 2022. Net Benefit, Calibration, Threshold Selection, and Training Objectives for Algorithmic Fairness in Healthcare. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountabi...

2022
[116]

Philip E Poekert, Sue Swaffield, Ema K Demir, and Sage A. Wright. 2020. Leadership for professional learning towards educational equity: A systematic literature review. Professional Development in Education 46, 4 (2020), 541–562

2020
[117]

Robert D Pritchard. 1969. Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational behavior and human performance 4, 2 (1969), 176–211

1969
[119]

Bhagyashree Puranik, Upamanyu Madhow, and Ramtin Pedarsani. 2022. A Dynamic Decision-Making Framework Promoting Long-Term Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 54...

2022
[120]

Aare Puussaar, Kyle Montague, Sean Peacock, Thomas Nappey, Robert Anderson, Jennine Jonczyk, Peter Wright, and Philip James. 2022. SenseMyStreet: Sensor Commissioning Toolkit for Communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 324:1–324:...

2022 doi
[121]

Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, Yuwen Wu, Brian Hsu, Sakshi Jain, Jennifer Ramos, Jon Adams, Robert Hallman, and Kinjal Basu. 2023. Disentangling and Operationalizing AI Fairness at LinkedIn. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (F...

2023
[123]

Tim Räz. 2021. Group fairness: Independence revisited. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 129–137

2021
[124]

Lydia Reader, Pegah Nokhiz, Cathleen Power, Neal Patwari, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Sorelle Friedler. 2022. Models for Understanding and Quantifying Feedback in Societal Systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAcc...

2022
[125]

Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Ayesha Bhimdiwala, Ananya Bhattacharjee, Amna Batool, Dipto Das, Nusrat Jahan Mim, Abdullah Hasan Safir, Sharifa Sultana, Taslima Akter, C Estelle Smith, et al. 2023. Many Worlds of Ethics: Ethical Pluralism in CSCW. In Companion Publication of th...

2023
[126]

Samantha Robertson, Tonya Nguyen, and Niloufar Salehi. 2021. Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment Algorithms. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’2...

2021
[127]

Erna Ruijer, Gregory Porumbescu, Rebecca Porter, and Suzanne Piotrowski. 2023. Social equity in the data era: A systematic literature review of data-driven public service research.Public Administration Review 83, 2 (2023), 316–332

2023
[128]

Sakaguchi-Tang, Jay L

Dawn K. Sakaguchi-Tang, Jay L. Cunningham, Wendy Roldan, Jason Yip, and Julie A. Kientz. 2021. Co-Design with Older Adults: Examining and Reflecting on Collaboration with Aging Communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 362:1–362:28...

2021 doi
[129]

Shruti Sannon and Andrea Forte. 2022. Privacy Research with Marginalized Groups: What We Know, What’s Needed, and What’s Next. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 455:1–455:33. doi:10.1145/3555556

2022 doi
[130]

Jakob Schoeffer and Niklas Kuehl. 2021. Appropriate fairness perceptions? On the effectiveness of explanations in enabling people to assess the fairness of automated decision systems. In Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and So...

2021
[131]

Joanne Schulze, Laura Anne Winter, Kevin Woods, and Kath Tyldesley. 2017. Investigating the significance of social justice in educational psychology practice—A systematic literature review. Educational and Child Psychology (2017)

2017
[132]

Hong Shen, Alicia DeVos, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. 2021. Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–29

2021
[133]

Kristen Shinohara, Michael McQuaid, and Nayeri Jacobo. 2020. Access differential and inequitable access: Inaccessi- bility for doctoral students in computing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–12

2020
[134]

Kristen Shinohara, Mick McQuaid, and Nayeri Jacobo. 2021. The Burden of Survival: How Doctoral Students in Computing Bridge the Chasm of Inaccessibility. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) . Association for Computing Machi...

2021 doi
[135]

Mona Sloane, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. 2022. Participation Is Not a Design Fix for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (, Arlington, VA, USA,) (EAAMO ’22). Associati...

2022
[136]

Kiley Sobel, Julie A Kientz, Tamara L Clegg, Carmen Gonzalez, and Jason C Yip. 2017. Equity & inclusivity at IDC. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on interaction design and children . 761–767. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 2, Article CSCW181. Publication d...

2017
[137]

Stewart, Jina Lee, Erin Walker, and Amy Ogan

Jaemarie Solyst, Tara Nkrumah, Angela B. Stewart, Jina Lee, Erin Walker, and Amy Ogan. 2022. Understanding Instructors’ Cultivation of Connectedness in K-12 Online Synchronous Culturally Responsive STEM and Computing Education. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interact...

2022
[138]

Stewart, Motahhare Eslami, Jessica Hammer, and Amy Ogan

Jaemarie Solyst, Shixian Xie, Ellia Yang, Angela E.B. Stewart, Motahhare Eslami, Jessica Hammer, and Amy Ogan
[139]

Logan Stapleton, Min Hun Lee, Diana Qing, Marya Wright, Alexandra Chouldechova, Ken Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM...

2022
[140]

Evropi Stefanidi, Marit Bentvelzen, Paweł W Woźniak, Thomas Kosch, Mikołaj P Woźniak, Thomas Mildner, Stefan Schneegass, Heiko Müller, and Jasmin Niess. 2023. Literature Reviews in HCI: A Review of Reviews. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computin...

2023
[141]

Jake M L Stein, Vidminas Vizgirda, Max Van Kleek, Reuben Binns, Jun Zhao, Rui Zhao, Naman Goel, George Chalhoub, Wael S Albayaydh, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2023. ‘You Are You and the App. There’s Nobody Else. ’: Building Worker- Designed Data Institutions within Platform Hegemony. ...

2023 doi
[142]

O’Leary, Everlyne Kimani, Michael K

Elizabeth Stowell, Teresa K. O’Leary, Everlyne Kimani, Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, Timothy Bickmore, and Andrea G. Parker. 2020. Investigating Opportunities for Crowdsourcing in Church-Based Health Interventions: A Participatory Design Study. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Confe...

2020
[143]

Yolande Strengers, Lizhen Qu, Qiongkai Xu, and Jarrod Knibbe. 2020. Adhering, Steering, and Queering: Treatment of Gender in Natural Language Generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machin...

2020
[144]

What Is Your Envisioned Future?

Zhaoyuan Su, Lu He, Sunit P Jariwala, Kai Zheng, and Yunan Chen. 2022. "What Is Your Envisioned Future?": Toward Human-AI Enrichment in Data Work of Asthma Care. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 267:1–267:28. doi:10.1145/3555157

2022 doi
[145]

Wenjing Tao, Janne Agerholm, and Bo Burström. 2016. The impact of reimbursement systems on equity in access and quality of primary care: a systematic literature review. BMC health services research 16, 1 (2016), 1–10

2016
[146]

Jordan Taylor, Ellen Simpson, Anh-Ton Tran, Jed R Brubaker, Sarah E Fox, and Haiyi Zhu. 2024. Cruising Queer HCI on the DL: A Literature Review of LGBTQ+ People in HCI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

2024
[147]

David Tedjopurnomo, Zhifeng Bao, Farhana Choudhury, Hui Luo, and A. K. Qin. 2022. Equitable Public Bus Network Optimization for Social Good: A Case Study of Singapore. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22). Associat...

2022
[148]

Carlos Toxtli, Siddharth Suri, and Saiph Savage. 2021. Quantifying the Invisible Labor in Crowd Work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 319:1–319:26. doi:10.1145/3476060

2021 doi
[150]

I’m a Little Less Inclined to Do It

Judith Odili Uchidiuno, Jaemarie Solyst, Erik Harpstead, and Ross Higashi. 2023. “I’m a Little Less Inclined to Do It”: How Afterschool Programs’ Culture Impact Co-Design Processes and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23) ...

2023
[151]

Wallach, and Marc Hassenzahl

Alarith Uhde, Nadine Schlicker, Dieter P. Wallach, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2020. Fairness and Decision-Making in Collaborative Shift Scheduling Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery,...

2020
[152]

Kelly, and Vassilis Kostakos

Niels van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Danula Hettiachchi, Senuri Wijenayake, Ryan M. Kelly, and Vassilis Kostakos
[153]

It Is Currently Hodgepodge

Rama Adithya Varanasi and Nitesh Goyal. 2023. “It Is Currently Hodgepodge”: Examining AI/ML Practitioners’ Challenges during Co-Production of Responsible AI Values. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 2, Article CSCW...

2023
[154]

Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

2018
[155]

Briana Vecchione, Karen Levy, and Solon Barocas. 2021. Algorithmic Auditing and Social Justice: Lessons from the History of Audit Studies. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ’21) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9...

2021
[156]

Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. 2018. Fairness definitions explained. In Proceedings of the international workshop on software fairness. 1–7

2018
[157]

Wagman and Lisa Parks

Kelly B. Wagman and Lisa Parks. 2021. Beyond the Command: Feminist STS Research and Critical Issues for the Design of Social Machines. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 101:1–101:20. doi:10.1145/3449175

2021 doi
[158]

Wallace, Stacey D

James R. Wallace, Stacey D. Scott, and Carolyn G. MacGregor. 2013. Collaborative Sensemaking on a Digital Tabletop and Personal Tablets: Prioritization, Comparisons, and Tableaux. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13) . Associa...

2013
[159]

Elaine Walster, Ellen Berscheid, and G William Walster. 1973. New directions in equity research.Journal of personality and social psychology 25, 2 (1973), 151

1973
[160]

Elaine Walster and G William Walster. 1975. Equity and social justice. Journal of social issues 31, 3 (1975), 21–43

1975
[161]

Hartal (Strike) Happens Here Everyday

Asra Sakeen Wani, Divyanshu Kumar Singh, and Pushpendra Singh. 2022. “Hartal (Strike) Happens Here Everyday”: Understanding Impact of Disruption on Education in Kashmir. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22) . Association for...

2022
[162]

Mega Wanti, Renate Wesselink, Harm Biemans, and Perry den Brok. 2022. Determining factors of access and equity in higher education: A systematic review. Equity in Education & Society 1, 2 (2022), 279–296

2022
[163]

Jane Webster and Richard T Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly (2002), xiii–xxiii

2002
[164]

Lauren Westendorf, Orit Shaer, Petra Varsanyi, Hidde Van Der Meulen, and Andrew L. Kun. 2017. Understanding Collaborative Decision Making Around a Large-Scale Interactive Tabletop.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 1–21. doi:10.1145/3134745

2017 doi
[165]

Claudia Ramirez Wiedeman. 2002. Teacher preparation, social justice, equity: A review of the literature. Equity &Excellence in Education 35, 3 (2002), 200–211

2002
[166]

Maranke Wieringa. 2020. What to account for when accounting for algorithms: a systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 1–18

2020
[167]

Pamela J Wisniewski, Neha Kumar, Christine Bassem, Sarah Clinch, Susan M Dray, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Cliff Lampe, Michael Muller, and Anicia N Peters. 2018. Intersectionality as a Lens to Promote Equity and Inclusivity within SIGCHI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conf...

2018
[168]

Benjamin Xie, Alannah Oleson, Jayne Everson, and Amy J. Ko. 2022. Surfacing Equity Issues in Large Computing Courses with Peer-Ranked, Demographically-Labeled Student Feedback. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (April 2022), 65:1–65:39. doi:10.1145/3512912

2022 doi
[169]

Minyoung Yoo, Arne Berger, Joseph Lindley, David Philip Green, Yana Boeva, Iohanna Nicenboim, and William Odom
[170]

It’s Complicated

Øivind Klungseth Zahlsen, Elena Parmiggiani, and Yngve Dahl. 2022. Challenges of scaling participatory design: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 34th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . 143–159. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No...

2022
[172]

In Companion Publication of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference

Beyond Academic Publication: Alternative Outcomes of HCI Research. In Companion Publication of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 114–116

2023
[2019]

Crowdsourcing Perceptions of Fair Predictors for Machine Learning: A Recidivism Case Study. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 28 (Nov. 2019). doi:10.1145/3359130

2019 doi
[2023]

I Would Like to Design

“I Would Like to Design”: Black Girls Analyzing and Ideating Fair and Accountable AI. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581378

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Stacy M Branham and Shaun K Kane. 2015. Collaborative accessibility: How blind and sighted companions co-create accessible home spaces. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2373–2382

2015

[2] [2]

Hammaad Adam, Ming Ying Yang, Kenrick Cato, Ioana Baldini, Charles Senteio, Leo Anthony Celi, Jiaming Zeng, Moninder Singh, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. 2022. Write It Like You See It: Detectable Differences in Clinical Notes by Race Lead to Differential Model Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’22) ....

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

J Stacy Adams. 1963. Towards an understanding of inequity. The journal of abnormal and social psychology 67, 5 (1963), 422

1963

[4] [4]

Abdelghafour Al-Zawahreh and Faisal Al-Madi. 2012. The utility of equity theory in enhancing organizational effectiveness. European journal of economics, finance and administrative sciences 46, 3 (2012), 159–169

2012

[5] [5]

Bidwell, and Caitlin C

Lameck Mbangula Amugongo, Nicola J. Bidwell, and Caitlin C. Corrigan. 2023. Invigorating Ubuntu Ethics in AI for Healthcare: Enabling Equitable Care. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 583–592. doi:10.1145/3593013. 3594024

doi:10.1145/3593013 2023

[6] [6]

Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2022. Machine bias. In Ethics of data and analytics . Auerbach Publications, 254–264

2022

[7] [7]

Laura Anselmi, Mylene Lagarde, and Kara Hanson. 2015. Equity in the allocation of public sector financial resources in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review. Health policy and planning 30, 4 (2015), 528–545

2015

[8] [8]

Mariam Asad. 2019. Prefigurative Design as a Method for Research Justice.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 200:1–200:18. doi:10.1145/3359302

doi:10.1145/3359302 2019