Problematizing the role of artificial intelligence in hiring and organizational inequalities: A multidisciplinary review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are the implications of the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in recruitment and hiring for organizational inequalities? While advocates suggest that AI is a groundbreaking tool that can enhance hiring precision, efficiency, diversity and fit, critics raise serious concerns around bias, fairness, and privacy. This review article critically advances this debate by drawing on diverse scholarship across computing and data sciences; human resource, management, and organization studies; social sciences; and law. Using a hybrid review approach that combines scoping and problematizing review methods, we examine the implications of algorithmic hiring for organizational inequalities. Our review identifies a multidisciplinary discussion marked by asymmetries in how key concerns are conceptualized; a clear and heightened potential for AI to conceal inequalities in hiring processes; and contestation over the regulation of algorithmic hiring. Building on Acker’s (2006) framework of ‘inequality regimes’, we propose the concept of algorithmically-mediated inequality regimes to highlight AI’s capacity for concealing and reproducing inequalities in hiring through enhanced algorithmic invisibility and the growing legitimacy of AI solutions. We propose an agenda for future research, policy, and practice, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary ‘chain of knowledge’ and a multi-stakeholder ‘chain of responsibility’ in AI application and regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".