Advertisement

Looking Again at Findings: Secondary Analysis

  • Sandra Braman
Chapter

Abstract

Secondary analysis of the findings of over two dozen research projects by this author addressing a variety of types of information policy and/or journalism questions over almost three dozen years yields a great deal of analytical value for those studying contemporary governance issues raised by uses of algorithms in the news, whether undertaken by public or private sector entities. Details of this case demonstrate the value of this type of secondary analysis as a research method in its own right, particularly useful when addressing what is being experienced as the “new” new technology, and particularly useful early on in such research projects.

References

  1. Balkin, J. (2017). The three laws of robotics in the age of big data. Ohio State Law Journal, 78(5), 1217–1241.Google Scholar
  2. Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. New York: SemioText(e).Google Scholar
  3. Beiser, E. (2017, December 31). Record number of journalists jailed as Turkey, China, Egypt pay scant price for repression. A Committee to Protect Journalists Special Report. https://cpj.org/reports/2017/12/journalists-prison-jail-record-number-turkey-china-egypt.php.
  4. Braman, S. (1984). The location of the Lockean consciousness in news reports from El Salvador: The public locus of The New York Times v. the individual locus of Joan Didion. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  5. Braman, S. (1985). The “facts” of El Salvador according to objective and new journalism. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13(2), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braman, S. (1986). Journalists as production equipment. Unpublished paper, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  7. Braman, S. (1988). Information policy and the United States Supreme Court, 1980–1986. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  8. Braman, S. (1989). Information and socioeconomic class in US constitutional law. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braman, S. (1990, December). The CSCE and information policy for the new Europe. Presented to the Second Conference: Europe Speaks to Europe, Moscow.Google Scholar
  10. Braman, S. (1991). The impact of confidence-building measures on information policy. In K. Nordenstreng & W. Kleinwachter (Eds.), Confidence-building in the non-military field (pp. 47–58). Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  11. Braman, S. (1995). Trigger: Law, labeling, and the hyperreal. In R. Jensen & D. Allen (Eds.), The first amendment (pp. 169–192). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Braman, S. (1998). The right to create: Cultural policy in the fourth stage of the information society. Gazette: The International Journal of Communication Studies, 60(1), 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braman, S. (2000, September). The information processing doctrine. Presented to the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Solomons Island, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Braman, S. (2002). Posthuman law: Information policy and the machinic world. First Monday.  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i12.1011.
  15. Braman, S. (2004). The meta-technologies of information. In Biotechnology and communication: The meta-technologies of information (pp. 3–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Braman, S. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Braman, S. (2007). The ideal vs. the real in media localism: Regulatory implications. Communication, Law, and Policy, 12(3), 231–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Braman, S. (2011). The framing years: Policy fundamentals in the internet design process, 1969–1979. The Information Society, 27(5), 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Braman, S. (2012). Technology and epistemology: Information policy and desire. In G. Bolin (Ed.), Cultural technologies: The shaping of culture in media and society (pp. 133–150). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Braman, S. (2014a). Cyber security ethics at the boundaries: System maintenance and the Tallinn manual. In L. Glorioso & A.-M. Osula (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st workshop on ethics of cyber conflict (pp. 49–58). Tallinn, Estonia: NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.Google Scholar
  21. Braman, S. (2014b). The geopolitical and the network political: Internet designers and governance. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 9(2), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Braman, S. (2014c). “We are Bradley Manning”: The legal subject and the WikiLeaks complex. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2603–2618.Google Scholar
  23. Braman, S. (2015). The state of cloud computing policy. In C. Yoo & J.-F. Blanchette (Eds.), Regulating the cloud: Policy for computing infrastructure (pp. 279–288). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Braman, S. (2017a). Emanations of the informational state: Cyber operations and the difficulties. First Monday, 22(5–1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i15.7870.
  25. Braman, S. (2017b). The medium as power: Information and its flows as acts of war. In C. George (Ed.), Communicating with power (pp. 3–22). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, International Communication Association Theme Book Series.Google Scholar
  26. Braman, S., & Cleveland, H. (1984, September). The costs and benefits of openness: Sunshine laws and higher education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  27. Braman, S., & Lynch, S. (2003). Advantage ISP: Terms of service as media law. New Media & Society, 5(3), 422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bucher, T. (2017). ‘Machines don’t have instincts’: Articulating the computational in journalism. New Media & Society, 19(6), 918–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Calderone, M. (2018, July 16). Trump labels media “enemy” before Putin meeting. Politico. https://www.politico.com/media/newsletters/morningmedia/2018/07/16/trump-labels-media-enemy-putin-meeting-helsinki-kavanaugh-record-001563.
  30. Carey, J. W. (1969). The communications revolution and the professional communicator. In P. Halmos (Ed.), The sociology of mass media communicators (pp. 32–38). The Sociological Review Monograph #13.Google Scholar
  31. Carroll, E. C. (2017). Making news: Balancing newsworthiness and privacy in the age of algorithms. Georgia Law Journal, 106, 69–114.Google Scholar
  32. Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Explication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Citron, D. K. (2008). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85, 1249–1313.Google Scholar
  34. Computer I, 28 FCC2d 291 (1970).Google Scholar
  35. Computer II, 77 FCC2d 384 (1984).Google Scholar
  36. Computer III, 60 RR2d 643 (1986).Google Scholar
  37. Crawford, K., & Gillespie, T. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18(3), 410–428.Google Scholar
  38. Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2014). Big data and due process: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55, 93–128.Google Scholar
  39. Crootof, R. (2014). The killer robots are here: Legal and policy implications. Cardozo Law Review, 36, 1837–1916.Google Scholar
  40. de Sola Pool, I. (1983). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  41. Desrosieres, A. (2002). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning (C. Naish, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Diakopoulos, N., & Koliska, M. (2017). Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism, 5(7), 809–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Didion, J. (1982). Salvador. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  44. Dörr, K. N., & Hollnbuchner, Katharina. (2016). Ethical challenges of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism, 5(4), 404–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2018). Why a right to an explanation is probably not the remedy you are looking for. Duke Law & Technology Review, 16, 18–84.Google Scholar
  46. Entman, R. M., & Usher, N. (2018). Framing in a fractured democracy: Impacts of digital technology on ideology, power and cascading network activation. Journal of Communication, 68, 298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. (FCC) U.S. Federal Communications Commission. (2017, December 14). Restoring Internet Freedom, 33 FCC Rcd 311 (1).Google Scholar
  48. Funke, D. (2018, July 2). A guide to misinformation actions around the world. St. Petersburg, FL: The Poynter Institute. https://www.poynter.org/news/guide-anti-misinformation-actions-around-world.
  49. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–32). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Geertz, C. (1982). The way we think now: Toward an ethnography of modern thought. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 35(5), 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grynbaum, M. M. (2017, February 17). Trump calls the news media the “enemy of the American people”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/business/trump-calls-the-news-media-the-enemy-of-the-people.html.
  52. Hookway, B. (1999). Pandemonium: The rise of predatory locales in the postwar world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kerr, O. S. (2012). The mosaic theory of the fourth amendment. Michigan Law Review, 111, 311–354.Google Scholar
  54. Locke, J. (1690/1964). An essay concerning human understanding. New York: William Collins, Sons.Google Scholar
  55. Meyer, D. J. (1984). Paine, Webber, Jackson and Curtis, Inc. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith: Methods of doing business held patentable because implemented on a computer. Computer/Law Journal, 5, 101–124.Google Scholar
  56. Nielsen, R. K., & Ganter, S. A. (2017). Dealing with digital intermediaries: A case study of the relations between publishers and patrons. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1600–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pasquale, F. (2017). Toward a fourth law of robotics: Preserving attribution, responsibility, and explainability in an algorithmic society. Ohio State Law Journal, 78, 1243–1255.Google Scholar
  58. Pasquale, F. (2018). A rule of persons, not machines: The limits of legal automation. George Washington Law Review, 87, 1–55.Google Scholar
  59. Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stone, A. R. (1996). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Svantesson, D. J., & van Caenegem, W. (2017). Is it time for an offense of ‘dishonest algorithmic manipulation for electoral gain’? Alternative Law Journal, 42(3), 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tribe, L. M. (1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84(6), 1329–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tribe, L. M. (1985). Constitutional calculus: Equal justice or economic efficiency? Harvard Law Review, 98(3), 592–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tuchman, G. (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 660–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  67. United States v Progressive, 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979).Google Scholar
  68. Vaheesan, S., & Pasquale, F. (2018). The politics of professionalism: Reappraising occupational licensure and competition policy. Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 14, 309–327.Google Scholar
  69. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wolff, J. (2018). You’ll see this message when it is too late: The legal and economic aftermath of cybersecurity breaches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Geertz, C. (1996). After the fact: Two countries, four decades, one anthropologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Heaton, J. (2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social Research, 33(3), 33–45.Google Scholar
  3. Long-Sutehall, T. (2010). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population? Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Sherif, V. (2018). Evaluating preexisting qualitative research data for secondary analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), Art. 7.  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.2.2821.
  5. Thorne, S. (2011). Secondary analysis in qualitative research: Issues and implications. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 263–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Braman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations