Artificial Intelligence and Workplace Inclusion
A Theoretical Agenda on Neurodiversity, Disability, and Fairness in Recruitment Processes
Keywords:
inclusion, neurodiversity, disability, algorithmic recruitment, organizational justiceAbstract
Automated recruitment systems promise efficiency and standardization, but they can reproduce narrow conceptions of competence, communication, and appropriate behavior. This article proposes a theoretical agenda on justice, disability, and neurodiversity in artificial-intelligence-mediated selection processes, articulating the social model of disability, digital accessibility, organizational justice, and algorithmic governance. As a result, four conditions for inclusive recruitment are structured: accessibility by design, evaluation restricted to job-necessary competencies, reasonable adaptations paired with human-mediated appeal channels, and the participation of people with disabilities in system governance. The analysis indicates that statistical fairness metrics are insufficient when the process retains communicational, sensory, or cognitive barriers. It concludes that the legitimacy of a recruitment system should be assessed by its capacity to recognize different, equally legitimate ways of demonstrating professional competence.
Academic Metrics
- Downloads 0
- Views 56
This article does not yet have a registered DOI; some metrics are unavailable.
Downloads
References
Armstrong, T. (2012). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Building strength-based success in the regular classroom. ASCD.
Bogen, M., & Rieke, A. (2018). Help wanted: An examination of hiring algorithms, equity, and bias. Upturn.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People - An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707.
Kuzior, A., Kettler, K., & Rąb, Ł. (2020). Digitalization of work and human resources processes: Challenges for responsible management. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 53.
Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024-1026.
O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. Proceedings of FAT* 2020, 469-481.
Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., et al. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap. Proceedings of FAT* 2020, 33-44.
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.
Singer, J. (2017). NeuroDiversity: The birth of an idea. CreateSpace.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404-428.
Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505-523.
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published by Noemica Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Sharing and adapting the content is permitted for any purpose, provided appropriate credit is given to the authors and the original publication.
