Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Ethics and Social Impacts of AIE-Government and Public ServicesPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.

“Ethical” artificial intelligence in the welfare state: Discourse and discrepancy in Australian social services

James, Alexandra, Whelan, Andrew·2022·Critical Social Policy
DOI 10.1177/0261018320985463
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In recent years, a discourse of ‘ethical artificial intelligence’ has emerged and gained international traction in response to widely publicised AI failures. In Australia, the discourse around ethical AI does not accord with the reality of AI deployment in the public sector. Drawing on institutional ethnographic approaches, this paper describes the misalignments between how technology is described in government documentation, and how it is deployed in social service delivery. We argue that the propagation of ethical principles legitimates established new public management strategies, and pre-empts questions regarding the efficacy of AI development; instead positioning implementation as inevitable and, provided an ethical framework is adopted, laudable. The ethical AI discourse acknowledges, and ostensibly seeks to move past, widely reported administrative failures involving new technologies. In actuality, this discourse works to make AI implementation a reality, ethical or not.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0261018320985463

Cites

42 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Adkins L, 2012, Measure and Value
  2. Braun V, 2014, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9
  3. Dawson D, 2019, Artificial Intelligence: Australia’s Ethics Framework
  4. Goodsell C, 2014, The New Case for Bureaucracy
  5. Macleod L, 2017, AIAL Forum, 89, 59
  6. Madden M, 2017, Wash. UL Rev, 95, 53
  7. Nye D (1994) American Technological Sublime (first edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
James, A., & Whelan, A.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
James, Alexandra
ORCID
Venue
Critical Social Policy
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-01-11
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
22-42
ISSN
  • 0261-0183 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-703X
DOI
10.1177/0261018320985463
OpenAlex
W3119182709
Cited by
45
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Critical Social Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
ethical artificial intelligence, welfare state, social services, New Public Management, AI implementation, public sector technology, administrative failure, institutional ethnography, Australian social policy

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