CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Ethics and Social Impacts of AIQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Methodological Considerations for Centering Workers’ Epistemic Authority in AI Research

Open access
Miceli, Milagros, Dinika, Adio-Adet, Kauffman, Krystal, Salim Wagner, Camilla, Sachenbacher, Laurenz, Hanna, Alex, Gebru, Timnit·2025·Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
DOI 10.1609/aies.v8i2.36667
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The global AI industry is fueled by hidden and precarized labor, yet worker voices remain largely absent from the research that studies them. This paper introduces Workers' Inquiry as a Research Methodology or WIRM, a participatory methodology designed to shift AI research away from extractive practices and toward co-production with workers. Grounded in Marxist Workers’ Inquiry, WIRM centers workers as community researchers who shape the design, interpretation, and framing of research. We describe how WIRM was developed and implemented in the Data Workers' Inquiry (DWI) project across multiple countries, highlighting how the methodology adapts to diverse contexts of economic, physical, and political precarity. Rather than presenting empirical findings, this paper focuses on the methodology itself: its theoretical roots, structural components, and practical execution. We offer three case illustrations to demonstrate the method’s flexibility and limitations. We conclude by reflecting on key challenges and tensions, and propose WIRM as a replicable framework for worker-led AI research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aies.v8i2.36667

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The Data Workers' Inquiry project supports workers in leading research projects in their own workplaces and with their own visions, and facilitates labor organizing efforts, such as the formation of the African Content Moderation Union.

    “In addition, viewing workers as community researchers and experts, the Data Workers’ Inquiry project [91] supports workers in leading research projects in their own workplaces and with their own visions, and facilitates labor organizing efforts, such as the formation of the African Content Moderation Union [85].”

    From 'The plan is just survival': Data Work in Kenya and the Regime of Entrapment (2026) · cites this paper as [91]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Abdelkadir, N. A.; Yang, T.; Kapania, S.; Estefanos, M.; Ge- brekidan, F. B.; Zelalem, Z.; Ali, M.; Berhe, R.; Baker, D.; Talat, Z.; Miceli, M.; Hanna, A.; and Gebru, T. 2025. The Role of Expertise in Effectively Moderating Harmful Social Media Content. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '25, 1-21. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 979-8-4007- 1394-1.
  2. Adams, R. 2021. Can Artificial Intelligence Be Decolo- nized? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 46(1-2): 176- 197.
  3. Alquati, R. 2019. Co-Research and Worker's Inquiry. South Atlantic Quarterly, 118(2): 470-478.
  4. Barabas, C.; Doyle, C.; family=Rubinovitz, g.-i., given=JB; and Dinakar, K. 2020. Studying up: Reorienting the Study of Algorithmic Fairness around Issues of Power. In Pro- ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountabil- ity, and Transparency, FAT* '20, 167-176. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-6936-7.
  5. Birhane, A.; Isaac, W.; Prabhakaran, V.; Diaz, M.; Elish, M. C.; Gabriel, I.; and Mohamed, S. 2022. Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EAAMO '22. New York, NY, USA: Association for Com- puting Machinery. ISBN 9781450394772.
  6. Braverman, H. 1998. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-1-58367-375-1 978-1-58367-374-
  7. Brereton, M.; Roe, P.; Schroeter, R.; and Lee Hong, A. 2014. Beyond Ethnography: Engagement and Reciprocity as Foundations for Design Research out Here. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '14, 1183-1186. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-2473-1.
  8. Bridges, L. E. 2024. Competing digital capacities: between state-led digital governance and local data center trade- offs. Information, Communication & Society, 27(10): 1906- 1923.
  9. Casilli, A. A. 2025. Waiting for Robots: The Hired Hands of Automation. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226- 82096-5.
  10. Cooke, B.; and Kothari, U. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Development studies. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781856497947.
  11. Cornish, F.; Breton, N.; Moreno-Tabarez, U.; Delgado, J.; Rua, M.; de Graft Aikins, A.; and Hodgetts, D. 2023. Partic- ipatory Action Research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1): 34.
  12. Couldry, N.; and Mejias, U. A. 2019. The costs of connec- tion: how data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Culture and economic life. Stanford Univer- sity Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-0975-4.
  13. Crawford, K. 2021. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-20957-0.
  14. Dalal, S. 2024. Lessons from Workers' Inquiry: A So- ciotechnical Approach to Audits of Algorithmic Manage- ment Systems. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 30(4): 36-40.
  15. Edwards, D.; Cooper, Z. G. T.; and Hogan, M. 2024. The making of critical data center studies. Convergence, 0(0): 13548565231224157. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231224157. · DOI
  16. Fals-Borda, O. 1987. The Application of Participatory Action-Research in Latin America. International Sociology, 2(4): 329-347.
  17. Fuchs, C. 2014. Digital Labour and Karl Marx. Routledge, 1 edition.
  18. Gillespie, T. 2020. Content Moderation, AI, and the Ques- tion of Scale. Big Data & Society, 7(2): 2053951720943234.
  19. Gramsci, A. 1992. Prison Notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231080837. Edited and trans- lated by Joseph A. Buttigieg. Gregory, K. n.d. 'Worker Data Science' Can Teach Us How to Fix the Gig Economy. Wired.
  20. Grohman, R.; Mendonca, M.; and Woodcock, J. 2023. Worker Resistance in Digital Capitalism-Communication and Work From Below: The Role of Communication in Or- ganizing Delivery Platform Workers. International Journal of Communication, 17(19).
  21. Hara, K.; Adams, A.; Milland, K.; Savage, S.; Callison- Burch, C.; and Bigham, J. P. 2018. A Data-Driven Analysis of Workers' Earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Pro- ceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '18, 1-14. Association for Com- puting Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-5620-6.
  22. Harding, S. 1998. Is there a Feminist Method? In Kemp, S.; and Squires, J., eds., Feminisms, 0. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-289270-6.
  23. Howard, D.; and Irani, L. 2019. Ways of Knowing When Re- search Subjects Care. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '19, 1-16. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1- 4503-5970-2.
  24. Indígena (FSI) Fundación Sabiduria; and Kothari, B. 1997. Rights to the Benefits of Research: Compensating Indige- nous Peoples for Their Intellectual Contribution. Human Organization, 56(2): 127-137.
  25. Irani, L. 2015. The Cultural Work of Microwork. New Media & Society, 17(5): 720-739.
  26. Jason, L. A.; and Glenwick, D. S. 2015. Introduction to Community-Based Methodological Approaches. In Jason, L. A.; and Glenwick, D. S., eds., Handbook of Methodolog- ical Approaches to Community-Based Research, 1-10. Ox- ford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-024365-4.
  27. Kara, S. 2023. Cobalt red: how the blood of the Congo pow- ers our lives. New York: St. Martin's Press, first edition edition. ISBN 978-1-250-28430-3.
  28. Kauffman, K.; and Williams, A. 2023. Turk Wars: How AI Threatens the Workers Who Fuel It. Stanford Social Inno- vation Review. Kolinko collective. 2010. Proposal for an Inquiry in Call Centers -Kolinko -Libcom.Org.
  29. Lather, P. 1991. Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Ped- agogy within/in the Postmodern. Routledge. ISBN 978-0- 203-45131-1.
  30. Lawson, H. A. 2015. Introducing Participatory Action Re- search. In Participatory Action Research, 1-34. Oxford Uni- versity Press. ISBN 978-0-19-020439-6.
  31. Le Dantec, C. A.; and Fox, S. 2015. Strangers at the Gate: Gaining Access, Building Rapport, and Co-Constructing Community-Based Research. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1348-1358. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503- 2922-4.
  32. Le Ludec, C.; Cornet, M.; and Casilli, A. A. 2023. The Prob- lem with Annotation. Human Labour and Outsourcing be- tween France and Madagascar. Big Data & Society, 10(2): 20539517231188723.
  33. Marshall, P. A.; and Rotimi, C. 2001. Ethical Challenges in Community-Based Research. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 322(5): 241-245.
  34. McInnis, B.; Cosley, D.; Nam, C.; and Leshed, G. 2016. Tak- ing a HIT: Designing around Rejection, Mistrust, Risk, and Workers' Experiences in Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Pro- ceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '16, 2271-2282. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-3362-7.
  35. Mhlambi, S.; and Tiribelli, S. 2023. Decolonizing AI Ethics: Relational Autonomy as a Means to Counter AI Harms. Topoi, 42(3): 867-880.
  36. Miceli, M.; and Posada, J. 2022. The Data Production Dis- positif. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, volume 6, 37.
  37. Miceli, M.; Schuessler, M.; and Yang, T. 2020. Between Subjectivity and Imposition: Power Dynamics in Data An- notation for Computer Vision. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 4: 115:1-115:25.
  38. Mohamed, S.; Png, M.; and Isaac, W. 2020. Decolonial Ai: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence. Philosophy and Technology, 33(4): 659-684.
  39. Muldoon, J.; Cant, C.; Wu, B.; and Graham, M. 2024. A Typology of Artificial Intelligence Data Work. Big Data & Society, 11(1): 20539517241232632. Notes from Below. 2018. The Workers' Inquiry and Social Composition.
  40. Peruzzo, C. M. K.; Bassi, I. G.; and Silva Junior, C. H. F. 2022. Diálogo Em Paulo Freire Nas Interfaces Com a Comunicac ¸ão Popular e Comunitária e a Pesquisa Partici- pante. Comunicac ¸ão & Educac ¸ão, 27(2): 33-48.
  41. Posada, J. 2024. Deeply Embedded Wages: Navigating Dig- ital Payments in Data Work. Big Data & Society, 11(2): 20539517241242446.
  42. Pretty, J. N. 1995. Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 23(8): 1247-1263.
  43. Roberts, S. T. 2019. Behind the Screen: Content Modera- tion in the Shadows of Social Media. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-23588-3.
  44. Simpson, A. 2007. On Ethnographic Refusal: Indigeneity, 'Voice' and Colonial Citizenship. Junctures: The Journal for Thematic Dialogue, (9).
  45. Sloane, M.; Moss, E.; Awomolo, O.; and Forlano, L. 2022. Participation Is Not a Design Fix for Machine Learning. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Opti- mization, 1-6. ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-9477-2.
  46. Smith, J. H. 2022. The eyes of the world: mining the dig- ital age in the Eastern DR Congo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-77435-0 978-0-226-81606- 7.
  47. Spinuzzi, C. 2005. The Methodology of Participatory De- sign. Technical Communication, 52(2): 163-174.
  48. Stoecker, R. 2003. Community-Based Research: From Prac- tice to Theory and Back Again. Michigan Journal of Com- munity Service Learning, 9(2).
  49. Swantz, M. L. 2008. Participatory Action Research as Prac- tice. In The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. SAGE Publications Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4129-2029-2 978-1-84860- 793-4.
  50. Tubaro, P.; Casilli, A. A.; and Coville, M. 2020. The Trainer, the Verifier, the Imitator: Three Ways in Which Human Plat- form Workers Support Artificial Intelligence. Big Data & Society, 7(1): 2053951720919776.
  51. Valdivia, A. 2024. The supply chain capitalism of AI: a call to (re)think algorithmic harms and resistance through environmental lens. Information, Communica- tion & Society, 0(0): 1-17. Publisher: Routledge eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2420021. · DOI
  52. Warnock, R.; Taylor, F. M.; and Horton, A. 2022. Should We Pay Research Participants? Feminist Political Economy for Ethical Practices in Precarious Times. Area, 54(2): 195- 202.
  53. Webster, J. 2016. Microworkers of the Gig Economy: Sepa- rate and Precarious. New Labor Forum, 25(3): 56-64.
  54. Woodcock, J. 2021. Towards a Digital Workerism: Workers' Inquiry, Methods, and Technologies. NanoEthics, 15(1): 87- 98.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Miceli, M., Dinika, A.-A., Kauffman, K., Salim Wagner, C., Sachenbacher, L., Hanna, A., & Gebru, T.
Affiliations
  • Weizenbaum Institute (DE)
  • DAIR Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Publisher
Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
Published
2025-10-15
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
1698-1710
ISSN
3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1609/aies.v8i2.36667
OpenAlex
W4415230619
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
5.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Keywords
participatory research methods, data workers, precarity, epistemic authority

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