As research into identity in the information society gets into its stride, with contributions from many scholarly disciplines such as technology, social sciences, the humanities and the law, a moment of intellectual stocktaking seems appropriate. This article seeks to provide a roadmap of research currently undertaken in the field of identity and identity management showing how the area is developing and how disparate contributions relate to each other. Five different perspectives are proposed through which work in the identity field can (...) be seen: tensions, themes, application areas, research focus and disciplinary approaches and taken together they provide a comprehensive overview of the intellectual territory currently being tilled by academia on this subject. This attempt at a coherent overview is offered in the spirit of debate and discussion, and the authors invite criticism, development and improvement. Another purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to the range and type of research that the new journal Identity in the Information Society will publish, giving researchers working in the field a clearer idea of the scope of multidisciplinary study that is envisaged. (shrink)

While organizations today make extensive use of complex algorithms, the notion of algorithmic accountability remains an elusive ideal due to the opacity and fluidity of algorithms. In this article, we develop a framework for managing algorithmic accountability that highlights three interrelated dimensions: reputational concerns, engagement strategies, and discourse principles. The framework clarifies that accountability processes for algorithms are driven by reputational concerns about the epistemic setup, opacity, and outcomes of algorithms; that the way in which organizations practically engage with emergent (...) expectations about algorithms may be manipulative, adaptive, or moral; and that when accountability relationships are heavily burdened by the opacity and fluidity of complex algorithmic systems, the emphasis of engagement should shift to a rational communication process through which a continuous and tentative assessment of the development, workings, and consequences of algorithms can be achieved over time. The degree to which such engagement is, in fact, rational can be assessed based on four discourse-ethical principles of participation, comprehension, multivocality, and responsiveness. We conclude that the framework may help organizations and their environments to jointly work toward greater accountability for complex algorithms. It may further help organizations in reputational positioning surrounding accountability issues. The discourse-ethical principles introduced in this article are meant to elevate these positioning contests to extend beyond mere adaption or compliance and help guide organizations to find moral and forward-looking solutions to accountability issues. (shrink)