Who’s at stake? The (non)performativity of “stakeholders” in UK tech policy

I’ve written far more than I should have had to on the performative inclusion of “stakeholders” in post-2016 tech policymaking. This meant being invited into meetings with government and decision-makers, being told to “assume positive intent” as all manipulative types like to insist, only to find that your presence was strictly performative. You were either there so that they could tick the box of saying they had engaged with you, before proceeding to do what they were going to do anyway, or you were there so that they could spin your presence as an endorsement of what they were going to do anyway.

Turns out it wasn’t just me – the behaviour was so widespread that some academics have now done a study into how UKGov wields “stakeholder” engagement.

They conclude:

These findings show that the use of stakeholder tends to performatively entrench the existing power of “industry stakeholders” or nameless but clearly already engaged and empowered “key stakeholders”. Meanwhile, they also construct a false sense of inclusion through the non-performative use of generic or “other stakeholders”. This creates significant risk of a veil of accountability, and raises significant questions over established processes such as consultation. When it is unclear who is influencing policy, whose voices and interests are being represented, then the indicators from specific uses suggest that the stakeholder becomes a foil for amplifying historical power and privilege, often on political and/or economic lines, and in doing so excludes the needs of those most affected by technologies who already suffer a lack of agency in how data, AI, platforms and other areas are used to shape their lives.

No shit Sherlock.