CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Ethics and Social Impacts of AILegal and Labor StudiesAI and HR Technologies

The “black box” at work

Open access
Ajunwa, Ifeoma·2020·Big Data & Society
DOI 10.1177/2053951720938093
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An oversized reliance on big data-driven algorithmic decision-making systems, coupled with a lack of critical inquiry regarding such systems, combine to create the paradoxical “black box” at work. The “black box” simultaneously demands a higher level of transparency from the worker in regard to data collection, while shrouding the decision-making in secrecy, making employer decisions even more opaque to the worker. To access employment, the worker is commanded to divulge highly personal information, and when hired, must submit further still to algorithmic processes of evaluations which will make authoritative claims as to the workers’ productivity. Furthermore, in and out of the workplace, the worker is governed by an invisible data-created leash deploying wearable technology to collect intimate worker data. At all stages, the worker is confronted with a lack of transparency, accountability, or explanation as to the inner workings or even the logic of the “black box” at work. This data revolution of the workplace is alarming for several reasons: (1) the “black box at work” not only serves to conceal disparities in hiring, but could also allow for a level of “data-laundering” that beggars any notion of equal opportunity in employment and (2) there exists, the danger of a “mission creep” attitude to data collection that allows for pervasive surveillance, contributing to the erosion of both the personhood and autonomy of workers. Thus, the “black box at work” not only enables worker domination in the workplace, it deprives the worker of Rawlsian justice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2053951720938093

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Ajunwa I, 2018, St. Louis University Law Journal, 63, 21
  2. Ajunwa I, 2020, Cardozo L. Rev, 1
  3. Ajunwa I, 2021, Harv. J. L. Tech
  4. Ajunwa I, 2017, California Law Review, 105, 735
  5. Anderson C, 2008, Wired
  6. Astor M, 2017, The New York Times
  7. Bales R, Berkeley Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 41, 1
  8. Barber L, 2006, E-Recruitment Developments
  9. Barocas S, 2016, California Law Review, 104, 671
  10. Blank C, 2014, QSR
  11. Citron D, 2014, Washington Law Review, 89, 1
  12. Desai D, 2017, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 31, 1
  13. Grimmelmann J, 2017, California Law Review, 7, 164
  14. Katyal S, 2019, UCLA Law Review, 66, 54
  15. Kroll J, 2017, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165, 633
  16. Lohr S, 2013, The NY Times
  17. Lyon D, 1994, The Rise of Surveillance Society
  18. Mayson S, 2019, Yale Law Journal, 128, 2218
  19. Rawlinson K, 2013, The Independent
  20. Rutkin A, 2014, New Scientist
  21. Turner K, 2016, The Washington Post
  22. Young IM, 1979, The Philosophical Forum, 11, 30

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ajunwa, I.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Ajunwa, Ifeoma
Venue
Big Data & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-07
Volume
7
Issue
2
ISSN
2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2053951720938093
OpenAlex
W3094124460
Cited by
72
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
Keywords
algorithmic decision-making, black box, workplace surveillance, transparency, accountability, wearable devices, personal information disclosure, hiring discrimination, equal employment opportunity, employee autonomy, Rawlsian justice, mission creep, employer-worker relations

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