Mapping the Tool Landscape for Stakeholder Involvement in Participatory AI: Strengths, Gaps, and Future Directions
Abstract
Stakeholder Involvement (SHI) during technology development is increasingly promoted in responsible AI (rAI) guidance. However, the lack of concrete, actionable tools to realise this is a well-known issue. To inform the future development of such SHI-supporting tools, this study presents an analysis of the existing tool landscape. We reviewed 216 rAI tools (covering seven meta-reviews, 2020-2024), revealing that only 18% provide actionable support for SHI. Mapping these tools to both the SHI process and the AI lifecycle, we found a strong focus on support when communicating with stakeholders, especially during early ideation stages. Tools supporting many other practical aspects of SHI were rare (e.g. recruiting stakeholders or storing insights) as were tools supporting reactions to gained insights and tools for participation during the testing stage. We point practitioners towards existing tool support and recommend concrete actions and immediate research agendas to address the exposed gaps, facilitating rAI-aligned SHI going forward.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
HCI scholarship has a distinctive role in translating abstract principles into concrete, citizen-centred practices by offering insights into participatory design methods for AI systems and policy, tools to facilitate stakeholder engagement, and socio-technical evaluation.
“HCI scholarship has a distinctive role here: by offering established insights into participatory design methods for AI systems and policy [87, 103, 183], tools to facilitate stakeholder engagement [97], and socio-technical evaluation [12, 110, 131], it helps translate abstract principles into concrete, citizen-centred practices.”
From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [97]
Cites
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · see citing works
The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 · Cited by 1,911 · see citing works
D'Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11805.001.0001 · Cited by 1,738 · see citing works
Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3518482 · Cited by 998 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To do so, we reviewed the 13 meta-reviews of rAI tools and toolkits discussed in Hollanek [30], i.e. [5, 6, 15, 20, 25, 27, 37, 40, 48, 56–59 , 71 ].”
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5 · Cited by 882 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Development Practices rAI tools are designed to guide and support practitioners during the implementation of rAI development and deployment practices and can take various forms, e.g. decks of cards, canvases, checklists, technical metrics, or entire toolkits [30, 48, 56].”
InfluentialGreene, D., Hoffmann, A. L., & Stark, L. (2019) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2019.258 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Participation Is not a Design Fix for Machine Learning
Sloane, M., Moss, E., Awomolo, O., & Forlano, L. (2022) · Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3551624.3555285 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Putting AI ethics to work: are the tools fit for purpose?
Ayling, J., & Chapman, A. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00084-x · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Preventing repeated real world AI failures by cataloging incidents: the AI incident database
McGregor, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i17.17817 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
“It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism
Hudig, A. I., Kallina, E., & Singh, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791968 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kallina, E., & Singh, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2025-04-25
- Pages
- 1-8
- OpenAlex
- W4409719995
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 6.09
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- stakeholder engagement, participatory AI, responsible AI, AI tools, AI lifecycle, stakeholder recruitment, AI testing, research gaps
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
