Participação num ambiente datificado: questões sobre literacia de dados

Miren Gutiérrez

doi:10.17231/comsoc.36(2019).2342

Authors

Miren Gutiérrez Department of Communication Studies, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Deusto, Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1527-3434

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.36(2019).2342

Keywords:

activism, datafication, data activism, ordinary people, participation, technopolitics

Abstract

In politics, participation can be understood as citizen involvement in decision making, including mechanisms for people to intervene in political and social choices, among other areas of action. Those mechanisms are crucial since democracy hinges on civic participation in political life. However, in the big data era, participation is not possible without people’s access to and control of data; that is, civil rights become digital rights. This article deals with data literacy as a filter for participation in a datafied environment and the role of ordinary people in data processes. Because participation in a datafied world depends of people’s ability to enter the fray, questions about where lines can be drawn to separate experts from non-experts (i.e. ordinary citizens) and whether intervention in the data infrastructure requires a degree of data literacy for effective participation constitute a relevant discussion for the practice and theory of activism as a form of political or civic engagement. Political engagement is understood here as coordinated action aimed at problem-solving, campaigning and assisting others. Namely, to rescue political participation in a datafied domain, a degree of skill is necessary. Drawing from a taxonomy of data mining involvement (Kennedy, 2016) and empirical cases of crisis mapping (Gutierrez, 2018a; 2018b), this theoretical article offers conceptualisations to think about what participation entails today.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adelson, R. (2014, 29 de agosto). Nervous about numbers. Retirado de www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/nervous-about-numbers

Alvarez, R. M. & Hall, T. E. (2008). Electronic elections: the perils and promises of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.

Association for Computing Machinery (2006). Data mining curriculum: a proposal. Retirado de www.kdd.org/curriculum/index.html

Baack, S. (2015). Datafication and empowerment: how the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation, and journalism. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715594634

Bacon, J. (2009). The art of community: building the new age of participation (theory in practice). Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Baum, H. S. (2015). Citizen participation. In J. D. Wright, Elsevier international encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 625-630). Londres: Elsevier.

Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985-1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809336551

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven e Londres: Yale University Press.

Carlson, A. (2018, 8 de junho). Good data: challenging the colonial politics of knowledge. Retirado de https://data-activism.net/2018/06/bigdatasur-blog-33-good-data-challenging-the-colonial-politics-of-knowledge/

Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conselho da Europa. (2017, 27 de setembro). Guidelines for civil participation in political decision making. Retirado de https://rm.coe.int/guidelines-for-civil-participation-in-political-decision-making-en/16807626cf

Conselho de Direitos Humanos. (2014). Factors that impede equal political participation and steps to overcome those challenges. Retirado de https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A_HRC_27_29_ENG.doc

Couldry, N. (2013). A necessary disenchantment: myth, agency and injustice in a digital world. Retirado de http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/documents/MPP/Nick-Couldrys-LSE-INAUGURAL-SCRIPT.pdf

Couldry, N. & Powell, A. (2014). Big Data from the bottom up. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714539277

Cukier, K. & Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2013). The rise of Big Data: how it’s changing the way we think about the world. Foreign Affairs, 92(3), 28-40.

Dahlberg, L. & Siapera, E. (2007). Radical democracy and the internet: interrogating theory and practice. Nova Iorque: Palgrave Macmillan.

de Soto, P. (2014). Los mapas del #15M: el arte de la cartografía multitud conectada. Retirado de https://tecnopolitica.net/sites/default/files/pablodesoto.pdf

Dodge, M. & Kitchin, R. (2008). Software, objects and home space. Retirado de https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/Software_objects_and_home_space.pdf

Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. Londres e Nova Iorque: Routledge.

Fernández-Martínez, J. L., García-Espín, P. & Jiménez-Sánchez, M. (2019). Participatory frustration: the unintended cultural effect of local democratic innovations. Administration & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719833628

Fischer, C. S. (1994). America calling: a social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fox, S. (2015). Apathy, alienation and young people: the political engagement of British millennials. Retirado de http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/30532/1/Final%20Corrected%20Version%20-%20Apathy,%20Alienation%20and%20Young%20People%20The%20Political%20Engagement%20of%20British%20Millennials.pdf

Fuchs, C. (2011). Web 2.0, prosumption, and surveillance. Surveillance and Society, 8(3), 288-309. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v8i3.4165

Garcia Rey, M. & Garrido, H. (2016). Datos sepultados bajo la ceniza (metodologia). Retirado de http://espanaenllamas.es/datos-sepultados-bajo-la-ceniza-metodologia/

Gray, J., Bounegru, L., Milan, S. & Ciuccarelli, P. (2016). Ways of seeing data: towards a critical literacy for data visualizations as research objects and research devices. In S. Kubitschko & A. Kaun (Eds.), Innovative methods in Media and Communication Research (pp. 290-325). Londres: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gutierrez, M. (2018a). Data activism and social change. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gutierrez, M. (2018b). Maputopias: cartographies of knowledge, communication and action in the big data society – the cases of Ushahidi and InfoAmazonia. GeoJournal, 84(1), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9853-8

Gutierrez, M. (2018c). The public sphere in light of data activism. Krisis, 1.

Gutierrez, M. (2019a). Cartographic emotions: how interactive maps mobilize people in geoactivism. In N. M. Engebretsen & H. Kennedy (Eds.), Data Visualization in Society. Amesterdão: Universidade de Amesterdão.

Gutierrez, M. (2019b). The good, the bad and the beauty of “Good enough data”. In A. Daly, K. Devitt & M. Mann (Eds.), Good data: theory on demand, 29 (pp. 54-76). Amesterdão: Institute of Network Cultures. Retirado de http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/An%20Energy%20Data%20Manifesto%20-%20Chapter.pdf

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Hearn, A. (2008). “Meat, Mask, Burden”: probing the contours of the branded “self”. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540508090086

Hintz, A., Dencik, L. & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2017). Digital citizenship and surveillance society. International Journal of Communication, 11, 731-739.

Kekic, L. (2007). The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index of democracy. Retirado de http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

Kennedy, H. (2016). Post, mine, repeat: social media data mining becomes ordinary. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kennedy, H. & Hill, R. (2017). The feeling of numbers: emotions in everyday engagements with data and their visualisation. Sociology, 52(4), 830-848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516674675

Kurban, C., Peña-Lopez, I. & Haberer, M. (2016). What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age. In Atas da 12ª Conferência Internacional Internet, Law & Politics, Barcelona. Retirado de http://ictlogy.net/presentations/20160707_can_kurban_ismael_pena-lopez_maria_haberer_-_what_is_technopolitics_conceptual_scheme.pdf

Lash, S. (2007). Power after hegemony: Cultural Studies in mutation? Theory, Culture & Society, 24(55), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407075956

McCarthy, A. (2008). From the ordinary to the concrete: Cultural Studies and the politics of scale. In M. White & J. Schwoch (Eds.), Questions of method in Cultural Studies (pp. 21-53). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Milan, S. (2013). Social movements and their technologies: wiring social change. Hampshire e Nova Iorque: Palgrave Macmillan.

Milan, S. (2015). Liberated technology: inside emancipatory communication activism. In E. Gordon & P. Mihailidis (Eds.), Civic media: technology, design, practice (pp. 107-124). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Milan, S. & Gutierrez, M. (2015). Citizens’ media meets Big Data: the emergence of data activism. Mediaciones, 14, 120-130.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J. & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: the internet, society, and participation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Naik, R. (2017, 3 de outubro). Let’s take back control of our data – it’s too precious to leave to the tech giants. Retirado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/03/data-tech-giants-trail-digital-age

Papacharissi, Z. (2019). The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. In M. Stempfhuber & E. Wagner (Eds.), Praktiken der Überwachten (pp. 43-60). Würzburg: Springer VS. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-658-11719-1

Puschmann, C. & Burgess, J. (2013). The politics of Twitter data. HIIG Discussion Paper Series, 2013-01. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2206225

Pybus, J., Cote, M. & Blanke, T. (2015). Hacking the social life of Big Data. Big Data & Society, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715616649

Quintanilha, T. (2018). A contribution to the debate on the redefinition of the networked public sphere based on Portuguese public participation in cyberspace. Comunicação e Sociedade, 34, 287-304. https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.34(2018).2950

Radjawali, I. & Pye, O. (2015). Counter-mapping land grabs with community drones in Indonesia – land grabbing, conflict and agrarian-environmental transformations: perspectives from East and Southeast Asia. Comunicação apresentada na International Academic Conference, Chiang. Retirado de http://www.iss.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/iss/Research_and_projects/Research_networks/LDPI/CMCP_80-Radjawali_and_Pye.pdf

Ruppert, E., Isin, E. & Bigo, D. (2017). Data politics. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717717749

Sampedro, V. (2011). Públicos y recursos tecnopolíticos: minorías insatisfechas y diques a la participación. In V. Blanco (Ed.), Cibercampaña: cauces y diques para la participación (pp. 11-39). Madrid: UCM Editorial Complutense.

Sampedro, V. (2014). El cuarto poder en red. Barcelona: Icaria.

Sampedro, V. (2018). Dietética digital: para adelgazar al gran hermano. Madrid: Icaria.

Sanborn, H. (2017). Broken back? Efficacy and participation in Asia’s democracies. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 3(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057891117699091

Schudson, M. (1998). Changing concepts of democracy. Comunicação apresentada na Conferência “Democracy and Digital Media”, Massachusetts. Retirado de http://web.mit.edu/m-i-t/articles/schudson.html

Simonite, T. (2018, 17 de agosto). AI is the future – but where are the women? Retirado de https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-researchers-gender-imbalance/

Striphas, T. (2015). Algorithmic culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4-5), 395-412.

Thomas, S. (2018). Democratic deficits and digital compensation: the digital promises revisited. In T. Joseph & S. Joseph (Eds.), Deliberative democracy. Understanding the Indian experience (pp. 142-159). Londres: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429486340

Tufekci, Z. (2014). Engineering the public: internet, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, 19(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.4901

Turkoglu, N. (2011). Mediated public voices need theory to be heard. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 141-158.

Uldam, J. & Vestergaard (Eds.) (2015). Civic engagement and social media: political participation beyond protest. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208.

Wachter-Boettcher, S. (2017). Technically wrong: sexist apps, biased algorithms and other threats of toxic tech. Nova Iorque: Norton & Company.

Wissenbach, K. (2019). Accounting for power in transnational civic tech activism: A communication-based analytical framework for media practice. The International Communication Gazette, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519832779

Whittaker, M. et al. (2018). AI now report 2018. Retirado de https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2018_Report.pdf

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K. & delli Carpini, M. X. (2006). A new engagement?: political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.