Angie Zhang’s research while affiliated with University of Texas at Austin and other places

The proliferating adoption of platform-based gig work increasingly raises concerns for worker conditions. Past studies documented how platforms leveraged design to exploit labor, withheld information to generate power asymmetries, and left workers alone to manage logistical overheads as well as social isolation. However, researchers also called attention to the potential of helping workers overcome such costs via worker-led datasharing, which can enable collective actions and mutual aid among workers, while offering advocates, lawmakers and regulatory bodies insights for improving work conditions. To understand stakeholders' desiderata for a data-sharing system (i.e. functionality and policy initiatives that it can serve), we interviewed 11 policy domain experts in the U.S. and conducted co-design workshops with 14 active gig workers across four domains. Our results outline policymakers' prioritized initiatives, information needs, and (mis)alignments with workers' concerns and desires around data collectives. We offer design recommendations for data-sharing systems that support worker needs while bringing us closer to legislation that promote more thriving and equitable gig work futures.

Platform-based laborers face unprecedented challenges and working conditions that result from algorithmic opacity, insufficient data transparency, and unclear policies and regulations. The CSCW and HCI communities increasingly turn to worker data collectives as a means to advance related policy and regulation, hold platforms accountable for data transparency and disclosure, and empower the collective worker voice. However, fundamental questions remain for designing, governing and sustaining such data infrastructures. In this workshop, we leverage frameworks such as data feminism to design sustainable and power-aware data collectives that tackle challenges present in various types of online labor platforms (e.g., ridesharing, freelancing, crowdwork, carework). While data collectives aim to support worker collectives and complement relevant policy initiatives, the goal of this workshop is to encourage their designers to consider topics of governance, privacy, trust, and transparency. In this one-day session, we convene research and advocacy community members to reflect on critical platform work issues (e.g., worker surveillance, discrimination, wage theft, insufficient platform accountability) as well as to collaborate on codesigning data collectives that ethically and equitably address these concerns by supporting working collectivism and informing policy development.

Research exploring how to support decision-making has often used machine learning to automate or assist human decisions. We take an alternative approach for improving decision-making, using machine learning to help stakeholders surface ways to improve and make fairer decision-making processes. We created "Deliberating with AI", a web tool that enables people to create and evaluate ML models in order to examine strengths and shortcomings of past decision-making and deliberate on how to improve future decisions. We apply this tool to a context of people selection, having stakeholders---decision makers (faculty) and decision subjects (students)---use the tool to improve graduate school admission decisions. Through our case study, we demonstrate how the stakeholders used the web tool to create ML models that they used as boundary objects to deliberate over organization decision-making practices. We share insights from our study to inform future research on stakeholder-centered participatory AI design and technology for organizational decision-making.

AI technologies continue to advance from digital assistants to assisted decision-making. However, designing AI remains a challenge given its unknown outcomes and uses. One way to expand AI design is by centering stakeholders in the design process. We conduct co-design sessions with gig workers to explore the design of gig worker-centered tools as informed by their driving patterns, decisions, and personal contexts. Using workers' own data as well as city-level data, we create probes -- interactive data visuals -- that participants explore to surface the well-being and positionalities that shape their work strategies. We describe participant insights and corresponding AI design considerations surfaced from data probes about: 1) workers' well-being trade-offs and positionality constraints, 2) factors that impact well-being beyond those in the data probes, and 3) instances of unfair algorithmic management. We discuss the implications for designing data probes and using them to elevate worker-centered AI design as well as for worker advocacy.

Research exploring how to support decision-making has often used machine learning to automate or assist human decisions. We take an alternative approach for improving decision-making, using machine learning to help stakeholders surface ways to improve and make fairer decision-making processes. We created "Deliberating with AI", a web tool that enables people to create and evaluate ML models in order to examine strengths and shortcomings of past decision-making and deliberate on how to improve future decisions. We apply this tool to a context of people selection, having stakeholders -- decision makers (faculty) and decision subjects (students) -- use the tool to improve graduate school admission decisions. Through our case study, we demonstrate how the stakeholders used the web tool to create ML models that they used as boundary objects to deliberate over organization decision-making practices. We share insights from our study to inform future research on stakeholder-centered participatory AI design and technology for organizational decision-making.

In this paper, we unpack the magnitude effects of the determinants of pedestrian crashes using a multivariate analysis approach. We consider four sets of exogenous factors that characterize residential neighborhoods as well as potentially affect pedestrian crashes and the racial composition of such crashes: (1) crash risk exposure (CE) attributes, (2) cultural variables, (3) built environment (BE) features, and (4) sociodemographic (SD) factors. Our investigation uses pedestrian crash and related data from the City of Houston, Texas, which we analyze at the spatial Census Block Group (CBG) level. Our results indicate that social resistance considerations (that is, minorities resisting norms as they are perceived as being set by the majority group), density of transit stops, and road design considerations (in particular in and around areas with high land-use diversity) are the three strongest determinants of pedestrian crashes, particularly in CBGs with a majority of the resident population being Black. The findings of this study can enable policymakers and planners to develop more effective countermeasures and interventions to contain the growing number of pedestrian crashes in recent years, as well as racial disparities in pedestrian crashes. Importantly, transportation safety engineers need to work with social scientists and engage with community leaders to build trust before leaping into implementing planning countermeasures and interventions. Issues of social resistance, in particular, need to be kept in mind.

Hyper-partisan misinformation has become a major public concern. In order to examine what type of misinformation label can mitigate hyper-partisan misinformation sharing on social media, we conducted a 4 (label type: algorithm, community, third-party fact-checker, and no label) X 2 (post ideology: liberal vs. conservative) between-subjects online experiment (N = 1,677) in the context of COVID-19 health information. The results suggest that for liberal users, all labels reduced the perceived accuracy and believability of fake posts regardless of the posts' ideology. In contrast, for conservative users, the efficacy of the labels depended on whether the posts were ideologically consistent: algorithmic labels were more effective in reducing the perceived accuracy and believability of fake conservative posts compared to community labels, whereas all labels were effective in reducing their belief in liberal posts. Our results shed light on the differing effects of various misinformation labels dependent on people's political ideology.