Why Inclusiveness Matters

  • Accessible by design: Ensures people can access, understand, and use the system regardless of language, ability, or connectivity constraints.
  • Representative participation: Brings diverse stakeholders into discovery, requirements, and testing so needs are captured before launch.
  • Broader reach and equity: Reduces exclusion and drop-off for underserved groups, improving service coverage and user outcomes.
  • Operational resilience: Surfaces edge cases early, lowering support burden and preventing costly rework after deployment.

When Inclusiveness Is Missed

A 2020 study found major speech-to-text systems had far higher error rates for Black speakers than for white speakers. Insufficiently inclusive data and evaluation meant everyday tasks like voice search or dictation failed more often for one group, limiting accessibility and trust. Inclusive design—diverse data, targeted testing, and usability checks—would have identified and reduced these gaps before deployment.

Inclusiveness Inter-Driver Relationship List

The following table summarizes the 14 inclusiveness related, inter-driver relationships. The full 105 relationships can be viewed here:

Note: The convention when displaying drivers Ds vs. Dt, is to display the first driver alphabetically as Ds.

Drivers Relationship Explanation Example
Inter-Pillar Relationships
Pillar: Ethical Safeguards
Fairness vs. Inclusiveness ■ Reinforcing Inclusiveness enhances fairness by broadening AI’s scope to reflect diverse societal elements equitably (Shams et al., 2023 ) Inclusive AI hiring prevents gender disparity by reflecting diversity through fair data representation (Shams et al., 2023 )
Bias Mitigation vs. Inclusiveness ■ Reinforcing Bias mitigation supports inclusiveness by actively addressing representation gaps, enhancing fairness across AI applications (Ferrara, 2024 ) Implementing bias audits ensures diverse datasets in educational AI models, promoting inclusiveness (Ferrara, 2024 )
Accountability vs. Inclusiveness ■ Reinforcing Accountability ensures inclusiveness by requiring equitable representation and consideration of diverse perspectives in AI system governance (Leslie, 2019 ) A company implements inclusive decision-making practices, reinforcing accountability by reducing disparities in AI outcomes (Bullock et al., 2024 )
Inclusiveness vs. Privacy ■ Tensioned Privacy-preserving techniques can limit data diversity, compromising inclusiveness (d’Aliberti et al., 2024 ) Differential privacy in healthcare AI might obscure patterns relevant to minority groups (d’Aliberti et al., 2024 )
Cross-Pillar Relationships
Pillar: Ethical Safeguards vs. Operational Integrity
Governance vs. Inclusiveness ■ Reinforcing Governance frameworks establish inclusive participation, ensuring representation of various groups in AI decision-making (Bullock et al., 2024 ) Governance mandates diverse stakeholder involvement to ensure inclusiveness in AI policy development (Zowghi & Da Rimini, 2024 )
Inclusiveness vs. Robustness ■ Tensioned Inclusiveness may compromise robustness by prioritizing accessibility over resilience in challenging scenarios (Leslie, 2019 ) AI built for varied groups might underperform in rigorous environments, highlighting tension (Leslie, 2019 )
Inclusiveness vs. Interpretability ■ Reinforcing Interpretability enriches inclusiveness by ensuring AI systems are understandable, fostering wide accessibility and equitable application (Shams et al., 2023 ) Interpretable AI frameworks enable diverse communities’ meaningful engagement by clarifying system decisions, supporting inclusive practices (Cheong, 2024 )
Explainability vs. Inclusiveness ■ Reinforcing Explainability promotes inclusiveness by making AI decisions understandable, encouraging equitable stakeholder participation (Shams et al., 2023 ) Explainable AI models help identify underrepresented groups’ needs, ensuring inclusive design in public policy (Shams et al., 2023 )
Inclusiveness vs. Security ■ Tensioned Inclusiveness in AI can expose it to vulnerabilities, challenging security measures (Fosch-Villaronga & Poulsen, 2022 ; Zowghi & Da Rimini, 2024 ) Inclusive AI systems might prioritize accessibility but compromise security, as noted when addressing diverse infrastructures (Microsoft, 2022 )
Inclusiveness vs. Safety ■ Reinforcing Inclusiveness motivates safety by ensuring diverse needs are considered, enhancing overall safety standards (Fosch-Villaronga & Poulsen, 2022 ) Inclusive AI health tools accommodate diverse groups, improving overall safety and personalized healthcare (World Health Organization, 2021 )
Pillar: Ethical Safeguards vs. Societal Empowerment
Inclusiveness vs. Sustainability ■ Reinforcing Inclusive AI development inherently supports sustainable goals by considering diverse needs and reducing inequalities (van Wynsberghe, 2021 ) AI initiatives promoting inclusivity often align with sustainability, as seen in projects that address accessibility in green technologies (van Wynsberghe, 2021 )
Human Oversight vs. Inclusiveness ■ Reinforcing Human oversight promotes inclusiveness by ensuring diverse perspectives shape AI ethics and implementation (Dubber et al., 2020 ) Human oversight in AI enhances inclusiveness by involving diverse stakeholder consultations during system development (Zowghi & Da Rimini, 2024 )
Inclusiveness vs. Transparency ■ Reinforcing Both inclusiveness and transparency promote equitable access and understanding in AI, enhancing collaborative growth (Buijsman, 2024 ) Diverse teams enhance transparency tools in AI systems, ensuring fair representation and increased public understanding (Buijsman, 2024 )
Inclusiveness vs. Trustworthiness ■ Tensioned Trust-building measures, like rigorous security checks, can marginalize less-privileged stakeholders (Bullock et al., 2024 ) Expensive trust audits in AI systems may exclude smaller organizations from participation (Dubber et al., 2020 )

© 2025, Richard R. Khan. All rights reserved. Design: HTML5 UP.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Cookie Policy