Algorithm Registers
A Box-Ticking Exercise or Meaningful Tool for Transparency
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12839426 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Esther Nieuwenhuizen (0000-0003-0199-8848, Utrecht University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 415-433 |
| Publication date | 2024-11-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Information Polity (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1875-8754 • E-ISSN: 1570-1255 |
| Publisher | IOS Press (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1177/15701255241297107 |
| OpenAlex | W4406954587 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 32 |
Governments increasingly implement algorithm registers—openly accessible overviews of algorithms used in decision-making—to promote transparency and accountability. However, the contribution of these registers is questioned: some scholars claim that governments only disclose politically non-sensitive algorithms and provide information with limited usefulness for accountability purposes. In contrast, a more optimistic view is also put forward: registers help organizations to be transparent to the public, which increases public trust in algorithm use. In response to this academic debate, this paper aims to provide a theoretical understanding and an empirical mapping of the different factors that shape algorithm registers and their implications. I conducted in-depth interviews with 27 respondents, both developers (public organizations) and key users (oversight authorities and societal watchdogs) of algorithm registers in the Netherlands, and I analyzed 33 policy documents. The findings nuance the current criticisms. While I find that public organizations indeed selectively disclose information and registers are currently not found useful by societal watchdogs and oversight authorities, there are also dynamics that could contribute to more responsible use of algorithms by public organizations, such as a potential disciplining effect of registers. This study highlights the importance of going beyond the rhetoric on algorithm registers, by establishing a deep understanding of the indirect and unexpected dynamics they create. The paper concludes that algorithm registers are currently not a meaningful tool for transparency, but a meaningful box-ticking exercise for public organizations
Computer security · Transparency (behavior · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Computer Science · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI
Dutch Comfort
Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a critical audience
Institutionalised distrust and human oversight of artificial intelligence
Denzin, Norman
Transparency as Manipulation? Uncovering the Disciplinary Power of Algorithmic Transparency
Artificial Intelligence as a Public Service
Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making
Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research
Seeing without knowing
Publishing public performance results on the Internet
A big data state of mind
The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI
Assessing public value failure in government adoption of artificial intelligence
Using numbers that do not count
Explaining Why the Computer Says No
Accountable Artificial Intelligence
Human–AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making
Theorizing from Qualitative Research in Public Administration
Effects of Transparency on the Perceived Trustworthiness of a Government Organization
| Citations per year | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |