Transparansi Algoritmik dan Akuntabilitas Pelayanan Publik Digital: Studi Eksperimental dalam Konteks Kota Bandung

Rizki Mulyana

doi:10.37950/joc.v5i3.852

Authors

Rizki Mulyana Universitas Serang Raya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37950/joc.v5i3.852

Abstract

Pemanfaatan sistem algoritmik dalam pelayanan publik digital memunculkan persoalan mendasar mengenai transparansi, akuntabilitas, keadilan prosedural, dan kepercayaan warga, khususnya ketika keputusan otomatis maupun keputusan yang dibantu algoritma memengaruhi akses masyarakat terhadap pelayanan publik. Penelitian ini menganalisis pengaruh dua dimensi transparansi algoritmik, yaitu accessibility dan explainability, terhadap kepercayaan pada algoritma, kepercayaan pada aparatur publik, persepsi akuntabilitas algoritmik, dan keadilan prosedural dalam konteks pelayanan publik digital di Kota Bandung. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan behavioral public administration melalui dua eksperimen survei berbasis skenario dengan desain faktorial 2 × 2 yang memanipulasi tingkat accessibility rendah–tinggi dan explainability rendah–tinggi pada konteks keputusan berdiskresi rendah dan tinggi. Karena belum tersedia data lapangan aktual, naskah demonstratif ini menggunakan reconstructed pilot/simulated experimental dataset yang terdiri atas 960 profil partisipan sintetis dan 1.920 observasi skenario. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa pada keputusan berdiskresi rendah, explainability meningkatkan kepercayaan pada algoritma secara signifikan (B = 0,559; p < 0,001), sedangkan accessibility tidak memberikan pengaruh signifikan terhadap kepercayaan algoritmik. Namun, kedua dimensi transparansi secara signifikan meningkatkan persepsi akuntabilitas dan keadilan prosedural. Pada keputusan berdiskresi tinggi, accessibility (B = 0,422; p < 0,001) dan explainability (B = 0,418; p < 0,001) sama-sama meningkatkan kepercayaan pada algoritma, sedangkan explainability juga meningkatkan kepercayaan terhadap aparatur. Efek paling kuat ditemukan pada persepsi akuntabilitas. Analisis lintas konteks menunjukkan bahwa nilai tambah accessibility semakin penting ketika tingkat diskresi meningkat, sementara pengaruh explainability relatif konsisten. Keadilan prosedural juga memediasi sebagian hubungan antara transparansi dan akuntabilitas. Temuan menegaskan bahwa tata kelola algoritmik yang akuntabel membutuhkan kombinasi akses audit, penjelasan yang dapat dipahami, answerability, contestability, pengawasan manusia, koreksi data, dan mekanisme pemulihan.

References

Ananny, M., & & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989.

Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & & de Vreese, C. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35, 611–623.

Bovens, M., & & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184.

Buffat, A. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and e-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149–161.

Bullock, J. B. (2019). Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 751–761.

Bullock, J. B., Young, M. M., & & Fang, Y.-F. (2020). Artificial intelligence, bureaucratic form, and discretion in public service. Information Polity, 25(4), 491–506.

Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12.

Busuioc, M. (2020). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81, 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13293

Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126.

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.

Friedrich, G., & & Zanker, M. (2011). A taxonomy for generating explanations in recommender systems. AI Magazine, 32(3), 90–98.

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483

Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & & Pedreschi, D. (2018). A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5), 93.

Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & & Yu, H. (2016). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165, 633–705.

Lakens, D., & & Caldwell, A. R. (2021). Simulation-based power analysis for factorial analysis of variance designs. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920951503.

Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 2053951718756684.

Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 611–627.

Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959.

Meijer, A., & & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2020). Responsible and accountable algorithmization: How to generate citizen trust in governmental usage of algorithms. In M. Schuilenburg & R. Peeters (Eds.), The algorithmic society: Technology, power, and knowledge. Routledge.

Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267, 1–38.

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 205395171667967.

Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C., & & Wachter, S. (2019). Explaining explanations in AI. In In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (hal. 279–288).

Nagtegaal, R. (2021). The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public employees’ procedural justice. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101536.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.

Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.

Tyler, T. R., & & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.

Vogl, T. M., Seidelin, C., Ganesh, B., & & Bright, J. (2020). Smart technology and the emergence of algorithmic bureaucracy: Artificial intelligence in UK local authorities. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 946–961.

Young, M. M., Bullock, J. B., & & Lecy, J. D. (2019). Artificial discretion as a tool of governance: A framework for understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on public administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(4), 301–313.

Zouridis, S., van Eck, M., & & Bovens, M. (2020). Automated discretion. In T. Evans & P. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom (pp. 313–329). Palgrave Macmillan.

Transparansi Algoritmik dan Akuntabilitas Pelayanan Publik Digital: Studi Eksperimental dalam Konteks Kota Bandung

Authors

DOI:

Abstract

References

Downloads

Published

Issue

Section

License