ACM FAccT 2024 Call for Tutorials

Overview

ACM FAccT solicits proposals for tutorials to be presented at the 2024 Conference, which will be held both in-person and online. The in-person conference will take place in June 3-6, 2024 in Rio de Janeiro (Brasil). Tutorials will be run in-person, and presenters are expected to attend the in-person conference. We also expect an online audience, so tutorial presenters may, in addition to their live presentation, be asked to pre-record a version of the tutorial and attend a live online Q&A during the conference. Specific guidelines regarding virtual accommodations will be announced at a later date.

Tutorial Types

The goal of tutorials is to educate and broaden the perspective of our interdisciplinary community. Tutorials should address practical, technical, policy, regulatory, ethical, or societal issues related to FAccT for a broad audience. We are soliciting three types of tutorials for 2023: dialogue/translation tutorials, implications tutorials, and practice tutorials. We will give presenters either 45 or 90 minutes to present their tutorial.

We welcome perspectives from a variety of disciplines, including computer science, economics, law, philosophy, political science, communication, sociology, education, policy, and social work, and from a variety of perspectives, including research, practice, policy, civil society, and impacted communities. An overarching goal of the tutorials track is to represent perspectives from diverse populations impacted by this technology throughout the world. Thus, we particularly welcome proposals from individuals from underrepresented communities.

To better understand the types of tutorials fit with the conference, please check the list of accepted tutorials from previous years: 2022 2021 2020

Dialogue/Translation Tutorials

Dialogue/Translation tutorials should build bridges between disciplines, by fostering dialogue around a concept or tool, or by translating concepts from one discipline for broader audiences. These tutorials should be geared towards an interested audience, but not assume more than a beginner’s familiarity with the topics. Dialogue/Translation tutorials should situate the topic and its role before proceeding to a detailed explanation of the topic.

A ‘translation’ tutorial could explain key concepts from one discipline in a way that is practically useful for other disciplinary audiences, or it could introduce ideas to the FAccT community that the community might not otherwise be aware of For example, a policymaker might explain the needs of a federal agency when it comes to regulating and understanding algorithms.

A ‘dialogue’ tutorial could involve an interdisciplinary team of presenters, taking turns to explain their own disciplinary approach to some key concept, followed by a dialogue/discussion between the presenters. For instance, a member of the team with computer science expertise might explain the relevant computer science concepts, and a member of the team with legal expertise might explain their perspective on related concepts, followed by a discussion of the key ideas and lessons that their disciplines can exchange.

Implications Tutorials

Implications tutorials should cover known legal, policy, or socio-economic effects of the use of algorithmic systems in society. These tutorials should emphasize “real-world” implications with known examples. For instance, an implications tutorial may focus on specific case studies, walking the audience through the likely or known causes and effects of a particular FAccT issue for specific individuals, communities, policymakers, or society more broadly.

We particularly encourage submissions by human rights / civil rights experts, including (but not limited to) lawyers, policy advocates, civil society representatives, and others who work closely with individuals and communities affected by algorithmic systems and who can offer a more in-depth understanding of the processes around the use of these systems.

Practice Tutorials

We also welcome tutorials focusing on the application, use, and deployment of tools and frameworks proposed by FAccT scholarship in real-world practice. Tutorials should focus on tools and frameworks that have already been deployed/evaluated in actual practice or in the wild, not merely at a ‘proof-of-concept’ stage.

We particularly encourage submissions by practitioners and decision-makers on the ground whose day-to-day work concerns algorithmic, data-driven systems in socially consequential domains.

The tutorial should overview the core tool/framework for the general FAccT audience, situate it in the context where it was evaluated or deployed, analyze the eventual decision about its use, and if applicable, discuss the consequences and ramifications of the tool after deployment.

Topics of Interest

Suggested topics for tutorials include but are not limited to the following list.

• Theoretical, qualitative or quantitative assessment of fairness, discrimination, social equality or vulnerability.
• Theories of and social and technical mechanisms for individual and collective accountability; Democratic legitimacy and governance mechanisms.
• Transparency, interpretability, and explainability, e.g. theories of explanation from social sciences and psychology, discussion of necessity, limitations, and real-world uses of existing explanation methods from computer science/Machine Learning literature.
• Explorations of and introductions to key concepts from Critical Race Theory, Critical Data Studies, Feminist Theory.
• Methodologies relevant to FAccT issues, including empirical methods in the social sciences; computational methods, e.g., methods and limitations of inferring causality or uncertainty estimation; the contrast between quantitative and qualitative explanations and methodologies; computational methods for collecting and analyzing data about socio-technical systems ‘in the wild’, such as web scraping, or citizen science methodologies.
• Community-based approaches and human factors, e.g. participatory algorithm design; community designed and maintained systems; activism-driven technological change; human-computer interaction; humans-in-the-loop designs; information visualization; user experience design.
• Perspectives and theory relating to the power exercised through control over data, software, platforms, and protocols; e.g. market concentration, introduction to competing analyses of power.
• Case studies on the use and impact of automated decision making in industry (e.g. insurance, banking, marketing, media/social media, health, retail), nonprofits, and/or governments, including regulatory agencies.
• Descriptions of government or policy needs, issues, or case studies, including with the goal of spurring needed research, collaboration, or discussion (e.g., federal agency analysis of needs for the regulation of AI or platforms).
• Accounts of the implications of deployment of socio-technical systems, especially in geographies previously under-represented in FAccT, such as Africa, Asia, South America, and Oceania.
• Explanations and evaluations of regulatory models and their differences, including models originating outside North America and Europe.
• Guidance for practitioners on how to effectively challenge the development of unethical technologies: e.g. internally, or with tools like strategic litigation or public activism.
• In line with the ACM FAccT Statement on Technology and Human Rights, we encourage submissions that highlight the role of the technologies we study in contexts of state oppression and armed conflicts, particularly in regions that have typically received less attention from our community.
• Anything else of relevance to the FAccT community!

Proposal Format and Application Process

The proposal should consist of a maximum of 2 pages not including references. Proposals should include:

• Title: Titles should be in the format, "Translation/Dialogue Tutorial: title" ; “Implications Tutorial: title"; or “Practice tutorial: title”, depending on the type of tutorial being proposed.
• Team: Given the duration of tutorials, we encourage tutorials to be presented by one to three people, though more may be involved in its preparation. For the tutorial presenters, please include links to evidence of knowledge translation and communication abilities, such as previous workshops, academic or public-facing talks, tutorials, community organization, and other forms of facilitation. .
• Description & Impact Statement: A description of the topic you plan to cover, including references and an impact statement that clearly articulates the main goals and outcomes of the tutorial. Note that this description will be given the highest weight during the selection.
• Proposed Length: Please also mention here the proposed length (45 or 90 mins), but keep in mind that we might conditionally accept a proposal and suggest a different length.
• Timeline: A short timeline description of how you plan to break down the material over 45 or 90 minutes. This description should touch on the “online experience” of your tutorial.
• Previous Iterations: A web link or relevant information to the proposed tutorial if it has been delivered previously at any other conference or similar venue.

Submissions must be in PDF format and should be formatted according to the two-column interim ACM Layout Template. Authors who are unfamiliar with ACM templates may simply submit proposals in two-column format, with one-inch margins, 9 point Times New Roman font.

Tutorial proposals will be assessed by the Tutorial Chairs, with selections governed by quality and the need for a balanced and diverse program of interest to the FAccT community.

Note (CRAFT): ACM FAccT also solicits proposals on CRAFT (Critiquing and Rethinking Accountability Fairness and Transparency). Proposals received under the CRAFT Call may be more appropriate as proposals for Tutorials, and vice-versa. In such cases, the Tutorial and CRAFT Co-Chairs may transfer such proposals to the other track, in consultation with proposal authors.

Tutorials co-chairs

Please contact tutorials@facctconference.org for any questions.

• Heloisa Candello, IBM Research
• Andrew Smart, Google Research
• Jenny L. Davis, Vanderbilt University