Data practices shape research and practice on fairness in machine learning (fair ML). Critical data studies offer important reflections and critiques for the responsible advancement of the field by highlighting shortcomings and proposing recommendations for improvement. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis of fair ML datasets, demonstrating how unreflective yet common practices hinder the reach and reliability of algorithmic fairness findings. We systematically study protected information encoded in tabular datasets and their usage in 280 experiments across 142 publications. Our analyses identify three main areas of concern: (1) a \textbf{lack of representation for certain protected attributes} in both data and evaluations; (2) the widespread \textbf{exclusion of minorities} during data preprocessing; and (3) \textbf{opaque data processing} threatening the generalization of fairness research. By conducting exemplary analyses on the utilization of prominent datasets, we demonstrate how unreflective data decisions disproportionately affect minority groups, fairness metrics, and resultant model comparisons. Additionally, we identify supplementary factors such as limitations in publicly available data, privacy considerations, and a general lack of awareness, which exacerbate these challenges. To address these issues, we propose a set of recommendations for data usage in fairness research centered on transparency and responsible inclusion. This study underscores the need for a critical reevaluation of data practices in fair ML and offers directions to improve both the sourcing and usage of datasets.

Algorithmic fairness has emerged as a critical concern in artificial intelligence (AI) research. However, the development of fair AI systems is not an objective process. Fairness is an inherently subjective concept, shaped by the values, experiences, and identities of those involved in research and development. To better understand the norms and values embedded in current fairness research, we conduct a meta-analysis of algorithmic fairness papers from two leading conferences on AI fairness and ethics, AIES and FAccT, covering a final sample of 139 papers over the period from 2018 to 2022. Our investigation reveals two concerning trends: first, a US-centric perspective dominates throughout fairness research; and second, fairness studies exhibit a widespread reliance on binary codifications of human identity (e.g., "Black/White", "male/female"). These findings highlight how current research often overlooks the complexities of identity and lived experiences, ultimately failing to represent diverse global contexts when defining algorithmic bias and fairness. We discuss the limitations of these research design choices and offer recommendations for fostering more inclusive and representative approaches to fairness in AI systems, urging a paradigm shift that embraces nuanced, global understandings of human identity and values.

Recent research has revealed undesirable biases in NLP data and models. However, these efforts largely focus on social disparities in the West, and are not directly portable to other geo-cultural contexts. In this position paper, we outline a holistic research agenda to re-contextualize NLP fairness research for the Indian context, accounting for Indian societal context, bridging technological gaps in capability and resources, and adapting to Indian cultural values. We also summarize findings from an empirical study on various social biases along different axes of disparities relevant to India, demonstrating their prevalence in corpora and models.

Recent research has revealed undesirable biases in NLP data and models. However, these efforts focus on social disparities in West, and are not directly portable to other geo-cultural contexts. In this paper, we focus on NLP fair-ness in the context of India. We start with a brief account of the prominent axes of social disparities in India. We build resources for fairness evaluation in the Indian context and use them to demonstrate prediction biases along some of the axes. We then delve deeper into social stereotypes for Region andReligion, demonstrating its prevalence in corpora and models. Finally, we outline a holistic research agenda to re-contextualize NLP fairness research for the Indian context, ac-counting for Indian societal context, bridging technological gaps in NLP capabilities and re-sources, and adapting to Indian cultural values. While we focus on India, this framework can be generalized to other geo-cultural contexts.

This survey article assesses and compares existing critiques of current fairness-enhancing technical interventions in machine learning (ML) that draw from a range of non-computing disciplines, including philosophy, feminist studies, critical race and ethnic studies, legal studies, anthropology, and science and technology studies. It bridges epistemic divides in order to offer an interdisciplinary understanding of the possibilities and limits of hegemonic computational approaches to ML fairness for producing just outcomes for society's most marginalized. The article is organized according to nine major themes of critique wherein these different fields intersect: 1) how "fairness" in AI fairness research gets defined; 2) how problems for AI systems to address get formulated; 3) the impacts of abstraction on how AI tools function and its propensity to lead to technological solutionism; 4) how racial classification operates within AI fairness research; 5) the use of AI fairness measures to avoid regulation and engage in ethics washing; 6) an absence of participatory design and democratic deliberation in AI fairness considerations; 7) data collection practices that entrench "bias," are non-consensual, and lack transparency; 8) the predatory inclusion of marginalized groups into AI systems; and 9) a lack of engagement with AI's long-term social and ethical outcomes. Drawing from these critiques, the article concludes by imagining future ML fairness research directions that actively disrupt entrenched power dynamics and structural injustices in society.

Across machine learning (ML) sub-disciplines, researchers make explicit mathematical assumptions in order to facilitate proof-writing. We note that, specifically in the area of fairness-accuracy trade-off optimization scholarship, similar attention is not paid to the normative assumptions that ground this approach. Such assumptions presume that 1) accuracy and fairness are in inherent opposition to one another, 2) strict notions of mathematical equality can adequately model fairness, 3) it is possible to measure the accuracy and fairness of decisions independent from historical context, and 4) collecting more data on marginalized individuals is a reasonable solution to mitigate the effects of the trade-off. We argue that such assumptions, which are often left implicit and unexamined, lead to inconsistent conclusions: While the intended goal of this work may be to improve the fairness of machine learning models, these unexamined, implicit assumptions can in fact result in emergent unfairness. We conclude by suggesting a concrete path forward toward a potential resolution.

Across machine learning (ML) sub-disciplines researchers make mathematical assumptions to facilitate proof-writing. While such assumptions are necessary for providing mathematical guarantees for how algorithms behave, they also necessarily limit the applicability of these algorithms to different problem settings. This practice is known--in fact, obvious-- and accepted in ML research. However, similar attention is not paid to the normative assumptions that ground this work. I argue such assumptions are equally as important, especially in areas of ML with clear social impact, such as fairness. This is because, similar to how mathematical assumptions constrain applicability, normative assumptions also limit algorithm applicability to certain problem domains. I show that, in existing papers published in top venues, once normative assumptions are clarified, it is often possible to get unclear or contradictory results. While the mathematical assumptions and results are sound, the implicit normative assumptions and accompanying normative results contraindicate using these methods in practical fairness applications.