Lessons in co-creation: the inconvenient truths of inclusive sign language technology development

In the era of AI-driven language technologies, there is a growing demand for the participation and leadership of deaf communities in sign language technology development, often framed as co-creation. This paper, developed through collaborative and iterative dialogue between the authors with data from informal participant observations, examines the involvement of the European Union of the Deaf in two EU Horizon 2020 projects, EASIER and SignON. These projects aimed to develop mobile translation applications between signed and spoken languages, bringing together predominantly hearing, non-signing technology experts with predominantly hearing sign language academics and organizations representing deaf end users in large multi-partner consortia. While co-creation is sometimes presented as the best or required way to do research or even as emancipatory, it frequently masks systemic issues of power imbalances and tokenism. Drawing from EUD's experiences of these projects, we highlight several inconvenient truths of co-creation, and propose seven lessons for future initiatives: recognizing deaf partners' invisible labour as work, managing expectations about technologies, cripping co-creation processes, exploring alternative methods to mitigate co-creation fatigue, seeking intersectional feedback, ensuring co-creation is not just virtue signalling, and fostering deaf leadership in AI sign language research. We argue for co-creation as a transformative activity that fundamentally alters the status quo and levels the playing field. This necessitates increasing the number of deaf researchers and enhancing AI literacy among deaf communities. Without these critical transformative actions, co-creation risks merely paying lip service to deaf communities.

Systemic Biases in Sign Language AI Research: A Deaf-Led Call to Reevaluate Research Agendas

Growing research in sign language recognition, generation, and translation AI has been accompanied by calls for ethical development of such technologies. While these works are crucial to helping individual researchers do better, there is a notable lack of discussion of systemic biases or analysis of rhetoric that shape the research questions and methods in the field, especially as it remains dominated by hearing non-signing researchers. Therefore, we conduct a systematic review of 101 recent papers in sign language AI. Our analysis identifies significant biases in the current state of sign language AI research, including an overfocus on addressing perceived communication barriers, a lack of use of representative datasets, use of annotations lacking linguistic foundations, and development of methods that build on flawed models. We take the position that the field lacks meaningful input from Deaf stakeholders, and is instead driven by what decisions are the most convenient or perceived as important to hearing researchers. We end with a call to action: the field must make space for Deaf researchers to lead the conversation in sign language AI.