Data care and its politics (original) (raw)
Related papers
Data Care and Its Politics: Designing for Local Collective Data Management as a Neglected Thing
PDC '18: Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference - Volume 1, August 20-24, 2018, Hasselt and Genk, Belgium, 2018
In this paper, we think with Puig de la Bellacasa’s ‘matters of care’ about how to support data care and its politics. We use the notion to reflect on participatory design activities in two recent case studies of local collective data management in ecological research. We ask “How to design for data care?” and “How to account for the politics of data care in design?” Articulation of data care together with ethically and politically significant data issues in design, reveals in these cases the invisible labors of care by local data advocates and a ‘partnering designer’. With digital data work in the sciences increasing and data infrastructures for research under development at a variety of large scales, the local level is often considered merely a recipient of services rather than an active participant in design of data practices and infrastructures. We identify local collective data management as a ‘neglected thing’ in infrastructure planning and speculate on how things could be different in the data landscape.
Pushback: Critical data designers and pollution politics
Big Data & Society, 2016
In this paper, we describe how critical data designers have created projects that ‘push back’ against the eclipse of environmental problems by dominant orders: the pioneering pollution database Scorecard, released by the US NGO Environmental Defense Fund in 1997; the US Environmental Protection Agency’s EnviroAtlas that brings together numerous data sets and provides tools for valuing ecosystem services; and the Houston Clean Air Network’s maps of real-time ozone levels in Houston. Drawing on ethnographic observations and interviews, we analyse how critical data designers turn scientific data and findings into claims and visualisations that are meaningful in contemporary political terms. The skills of critical data designers cross scales and domains; they must identify problems calling for public consideration, and then locate, access, link, and create visualisations of data relevant to the problem. We conclude by describing hazards ahead in work to leverage Big Data to understand a...
Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2022
Conservationists, governments, and corporations see promise in digital technologies to provide holistic, rapid, and objective information to inform policy, shape investments, and monitor ecosystems. But it is increasingly clear that environmental data does more than simply offer a better view of the planet. This special issue makes a single overarching argument: that we cannot fully understand the current conjuncture in global environmental governance without understanding the platforms, devices, and institutions that comprise environmental data infrastructures. The papers draw together scholarship from political ecology and science and technology studies to demonstrate how data has become a significant site in which contemporary environmental politics are waged and socionatures are materialized. We address: (1) the contested practices of utilizing and maintaining data infrastructures; (2) the ways they are governed and the territorial statecraft they enable; (3) the socionatural materiality they arise within but also produce. The papers in this special issue show that, against its dominant representation, data is material, governed, practiced, and requires praxis. Political ecologists could adopt such an approach to make sense of the emerging ways in which data technologies shape environments and their politics.
The social imaginaries of data activism
Big Data & Society, 2019
Data activism, promoting new forms of civic and political engagement, has emerged as a response to problematic aspects of datafication that include tensions between data openness and data ownership, and asymmetries in terms of data usage and distribution. In this article, we discuss MyData, a data activism initiative originating in Finland, which aims to shape a more sustainable citizen-centric data economy by means of increasing individuals’ control of their personal data. Using data gathered during long-term participant-observation in collaborative projects with data activists, we explore the internal tensions of data activism by first outlining two different social imaginaries – technological and socio-critical – within MyData, and then merging them to open practical and analytical space for engaging with the socio-technical futures currently in the making. While the technological imaginary favours data infrastructures as corrective measures, the socio-critical imaginary questions the effectiveness of technological correction. Unpacking them clarifies the kinds of political and social alternatives that different social imaginaries ascribe to the notions underlying data activism, and highlights the need to consider the social structures in play. The more far-reaching goal of our exercise is to provide practical and analytical resources for critical engagement in the context of data activism. By merging technological and socio-critical imaginaries in the work of reimagining governing structures and knowledge practices alongside infrastruc- tural arrangements, scholars can depart from the most obvious forms of critique, influence data activism practice, and formulate data ethics and data futures.
From data politics to the contentious politics of data
Big Data & Society
This article approaches the paradigm shift of datafication from the perspective of civil society. Looking at how individuals and groups engage with datafication, it complements the notion of "data politics" by exploring what we call the "contentious politics of data". By contentious politics of data we indicate the bottom-up, transformative initiatives interfering with and/or hijacking dominant processes of datafication, contesting existing power relations or reappropriating data practices and infrastructure for purposes distinct from the intended. Said contentious politics of data is articulated in an array of practices of data activism taking a critical stance towards datafication. In data activism, data as mediators take a central role, both as part of an action repertoire or as objects of struggle in their own right. Leveraging social movement studies and science and technology studies, this theoretical essay argues that data activism can be mapped along two analytical dimensions: "data as stakes" (as issues and/or objects of political struggle in their own right) vs. "data as repertoires" (or modular tools for political struggle), and "individual practice vs. collective action". Mapping action repertoires and tactics along these axes allows us to chart the potential emergence of a political (contentious) data subject at the intersection of these two dimensions. This furthers our understanding of people's engagement with data in relation to other forms of activism and existing work in social movement studies. It also helps us interpreting potential trajectories of contemporary social movements, as they increasingly interface with data, devices and platforms.
2023
Data-driven domains such as public administration, health or mobility have adopted a so-called 'data ecosystem' perspective to unify the socio-technical aspects fostering data-driven collaboration. While a data ecosystem is technically able to collect and merge their different datasets, it is yet relatively unable to facilitate meaningful forms of collaboration between actors. Based on previous research on value creation in data ecosystems, we hypothesize that this inability is mainly due to ecosystems not reflecting actor values, i.e. aspects which are important and imply a desirable behavior, often related to goals, objectives, motivations and decision making. This paper therefore proposes a reflective approach to reveal the values in data-driven collaboration by answering the following research questions: What role do values play in the process of developing a data ecosystem? And how can value-led participatory design support data-driven collaboration? We attempt to answer these questions through an exploratory study based on 5 interviews with consortium members of a garden data ecosystem currently in development around a citizen science initiative in Flanders, Belgium. We discovered that the explicit use of values and frictions has the potential to augment the collaboration between actors. This approach can thus be useful to future practitioners who aim to expand the societal impact of their work.
Section 12. Designing with Data, Democratisation Through Data (editorial).
While keeping a critical eye on these emerging issues, data can also be considered a resource, which comes with a set of already configured practices, particularly if we refer to the technical procedures that allow any user to exploit it. It opens a promising role for design enabling social innovation through more participatory and bottom up approaches. These design practices could empower a community of users not limited to public authorities, large corporations or data experts. Indeed, there are few examples that demonstrate the use of data as a new resource for empowering citizens. Designing, however, means to enable citizens to harness opportunities coming from the use of this new resource, and offers a substantial promise for social innovation and democracy. While analysing the reasons behind the current challenges faced by data, Kalampokis and colleagues pointed out that “gaining access to raw data, placing it into a meaningful context, and extracting valuable information is extremely difficult” (Kalampokis, 2013, p. 99). In this DRS track 7 papers will explore from different perspectives challenges and opportunities offered by data in a design process.
What Comes After Nature? Reconfiguring Natures as Enacted Through Digital Data Practices
In this paper I argue that we should rethink natures as existing in ontological multiplicities that are enacted by our everyday practices. In the first section I trace the shift in analytic focus in anthropology, and the social sciences more generally, from discourse to practice. This praxiographic approach is concerned with analysing how everyday practices (say in Medicine, or Accounting) materially and semiotically enact ontologies, in this case of the “natural” world. On this view, natures are ontological consequences of digital data practices, rather than antecedent to them. In the second section, I utilize Kim Fortun’s (2004) study of the Environmental Defense Scorecard Website to rethink environmental data as fundamentally relational, situated, and technologically mediated. Leonelli’s (2015) application of a relational framework to scientific data will be useful in this regard: data should not be conceptualised as discrete “things” that once accumulated in bulk and pieced together will offer a total view of reality, but rather as fundamentally contingent on the processes of inquiry that generate them.
What difference does data make? Data management and social change
Online Information Review
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to expand on emergent data activism literature to draw distinctions between different types of data management practices undertaken by groups of data activists. Design/methodology/approach The authors offer three case studies that illuminate the data management strategies of these groups. Each group discussed in the case studies is devoted to representing a contentious political issue through data, but their data management practices differ in meaningful ways. The project Making Sense produces their own data on pollution in Kosovo. Fatal Encounters collects “missing data” on police homicides in the USA. The Environmental Data Governance Initiative hopes to keep vulnerable US data on climate change and environmental injustices in the public domain. Findings In analysing the three case studies, the authors surface how temporal dimensions, geographic scale and sociotechnical politics influence their differing data management strategies. Originality/...
Data arenas: The relational dynamics of data activism
Big Data and Society, 2023
The article proposes the theoretical category of data arenas as a relational field for strategic actors in diverse areas of the contentious politics of data (Beraldo and Milan, 2019). The paper argues that the conceptualization of data activism needs to be related to the immediate data arena in which the action takes place, in order to select the interactive opportunities and threats for emerging data-driven repertoires of action. To fully work through the relational dynamics of data activism, it is necessary to move from a conceptualization of data infrastructure to the notion of data arenas as an 'open-ended bundle of rules and resources that allows certain kinds of interaction to proceed' (Jasper, 2006: 141). Using the case of environmental data activism, I highlight four key dimensions to study: (a) strategic use of data as capital that differentiates and positions actors, as well as influences their further choices; (b) practices of defining the boundaries of the problem on which the arena focuses and outlining the pool of actors who participate in the process of solving it; (3) sets of relationships among the outlined pool of actors which represent opportunities and threats for the actors, related to the position they occupy within an arena; and (4) power as the ability to control and shape an arena. Data arena approach shed new light on data activism as a relational practice, combining the latest developments in research on data contexts and the political situatedness of data with the emerging field of research on data activism.