This paper proposes and models a novel approach to public engagement with the use of algorithms in public services. Algorithms pose significant risks which need to be anticipated and mitigated through democratic governance, including public engagement. We argue that as the challenge of creating responsible algorithms within a dynamic innovation system is one that will never definitively be accomplished – and as public engagement is not singular or pre-given but is always constructed through performance and in relation to other processes and events – public engagement with algorithms needs to be conducted and conceptualised as relational, systemic, and ongoing. We use a systemic mapping approach to map and analyse 77 cases of public engagement with the use of algorithms in public services in the UK 2013–2020 and synthesise the potential benefits and risks of these approaches articulated across the cases. The mapping shows there was already a diversity of public engagement on this topic in the UK by 2020, involving a wide range of different policy areas, framings of the problem, affordances of algorithms, publics, and formats of public engagement. While many of the cases anticipate benefits from the adoption of these technologies, they also raise a range of concerns which mirror much of the critical literature and highlight how algorithmic approaches may sometimes foreclose alternative options for policy delivery. The paper concludes by considering how this approach could be adopted on an ongoing basis to ensure the responsible governance of algorithms in public services, through a ‘public engagement observatory’.

中文翻译：

---

仅限公共算法：通过英国公共服务中算法的使用来绘制公众参与度

本文提出并建模了一种在公共服务中使用算法来进行公众参与的新方法。算法带来重大风险，需要通过民主治理（包括公众参与）来预测和减轻。我们认为，在动态创新系统中创建负责任的算法是一项永远无法最终完成的挑战，而且公众参与不是单一的或预先给定的，而是始终通过绩效并与其他流程和事件相关来构建的。公众对算法的参与需要以相关的、系统的和持续的方式进行和概念化。我们使用系统性绘图方法来绘制和分析 2013 年至 2020 年英国在公共服务中使用算法的 77 个公众参与案例，并综合了这些案例中阐述的这些方法的潜在收益和风险。该图显示，到 2020 年，英国已经就这一主题进行了多样化的公众参与，涉及广泛的不同政策领域、问题框架、算法的可供性、公众和公众参与的形式。虽然许多案例预计采用这些技术会带来好处，但它们也引发了一系列担忧，这些担忧反映了许多批评文献，并强调算法方法有时可能会排除政策交付的替代选择。本文最后考虑了如何持续采用这种方法，以确保通过“公众参与观察站”对公共服务中的算法进行负责任的治理。