Doing Good with Data: Alternative Practices, Elephants in Rooms

  • Helen Kennedy
Chapter

Abstract

Kennedy considers whether social media (and other) data mining can be used in ways that make a positive contribution to social life by focusing on two fields in which actors might think of themselves as ‘doing good with data’: (1) academic social media data mining and (2) data activism, such as open data initiatives, data art and data visualisation, campaigns for better data legislation and movements which seek to evade dataveillance. These groups seek to implement data-related arrangements which enable citizens and publics. Kennedy outlines some of the criticisms that have been levelled at academic and activist data initiatives and argues that, while there are ways in which they can both be considered problematic, they are not only problematic: they also serve to open up spaces for alternative and better uses of (social media) data mining.

References

  1. AOIR (2012). Ethical guidelines. Available at: http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.
  2. Arvidsson, A. (2011). General sentiment: How value and affect converge in the information economy. Social Science Research Network. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1815031. Accessed 4 May 2011.
  3. Attewell, P., & Monaghan, D. (2015). Data mining for the social sciences: An introduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baack, S. (2015). Datafication and empowerment: How the open data movement re-articulates notions of democracy, participation and journalism, Big Data and Society, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Banks, M. (2007). The politics of cultural work. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, J. (2013). Information policy and the crises of neoliberalism: The case of Open Government Data in the UK, Proceedings of the IAMCR 2013 Conference, 25-29 June 2013. Available at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/77655/7/WRR0_77655.pdf. Accessed 29 Sept 2014.
  7. Blanke, T., Coté, M., & Pybus, J. (2015). Hacking the social life of big data: A data literacy framework, Big Data and Society, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  8. Boellstorff, T. (2013). Making big data, in theory. First Monday. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4869. Accessed 11 Feb 2014.
  9. Bounegru, L., de Gaetano, C., & Gray, J. (2015). Open data in mainstream media, part of DMI data sprint ‘Mapping the open data revolution’, Digital Methods Initiative Winter School, University of Amsterdam, 16 Jan 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Braman, S. (2006). Change of state: Information, policy and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. E. (2011a). New methodologies for researching news discussion on Twitter, The Future of Journalism conference, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, September 2011.Google Scholar
  12. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J.E., (2011b). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics, 6th European Consortium for Politics Research conference, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, August 2011.Google Scholar
  13. Bruns, A., & Burgess, J.E., (2012). Notes towards the scientific study of public communication on Twitter. Conference on Science and the Internet, Düsseldorf, Germany, August 2012.Google Scholar
  14. Brunton, F., & Nissenbaum, H. (2011). Vernacular resistance to data collection and analysis: A political theory of obfuscation. First Monday, 16(5). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3493/0. Accessed 21 July 2015.
  15. Driscoll, K., & Walker, S. (2014). Working within a black box? Transparency in the collection and production of big Twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1745–1764.Google Scholar
  16. Gerlitz, C. (2015). A critique of social media metrics: The production, circulation and performativity of social media metrics. Digital Methods Initiative Winter School, University of Amsterdam, Keynote Speech.Google Scholar
  17. Gerlitz, C., & Rieder, B. (2013). Mining One Percent of Twitter: Collections, Baselines, Sampling. M/C Journal, 16(2). Available at: http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/620. Accessed 27 July 2015.
  18. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gitelman, L., & Jackson, V. (2013). Introduction. In L. Gitleman (Ed.), ‘Raw data’ is an oxymoron. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gleibs, I. (2014). Turning virtual public spaces into laboratories: Thoughts on conducting online field studies using social network sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14(1), 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregg, M. (2011). Work’s intimacy. Stafford, BC, Australia: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gregg, M. (2015). Hack for good: Speculative labor, app development and the burden of austerity. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/8728551/Hack_for_good_Speculative_labor_app_development_and_the_burden_of_austerity. Accessed 28 Apr 2015.
  23. Grosser, B. (2014). What do metrics want? How quantification prescribes social interaction on Facebook. Computational Culture: A Journal of Software Studies, 4. Available at: http://computationalculture.net/article/what-do-metrics-want. Accessed 10 Jan 2015.
  24. Gurstein, M. B. (2011). Open data: Empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone? First Monday, 16, 2–7. Available at: http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3316/2764. Accessed 28th Apr 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey, P., Reeves, M., & Ruppert, E. (2013). Anticipating failure: Transparency devices and their effects. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(6), 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Havalais, A. (2013). Home made big data? Challenges and opportunities for participatory social research. First Monday. 10 Feb 2014. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4876.. Accessed 11 Feb 2014.
  27. Hintz (2014). Policy hacking: Hackathons and policy code. Communication for Empowerment: Citizens, Markets, Innovations, ECREA Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 14 November 2014.Google Scholar
  28. Howard, A. (2011). Making open government data visualizations that matter. govfresh, Retrieved 13 March 2011, from http://gov20.govfresh.com/making-open-government-data-visualizations-that-matter/. Accessed 27 Apr 2015.
  29. Irani, L. (2015b). Hackathons and the making of entrepreneurial citizenship. Science, Technology and Human Values. Available at: http://sth.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/07/0162243915578486.abstract. Accessed 23rd July 2014.
  30. Jayson, S. (2014). Social media research raises privacy and ethics issues. USA Today. Retrieved 12 March 2014, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/08/data-online-behavior-research/5781447/. Accessed 28 Apr 2015.
  31. Kawash, J. (2015). Online social media analysis and visualisation (Lecture notes in social networks). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Marres, N. (2012). The redistribution of methods: On intervention in digital social research, broadly conceived. Live Methods: Sociological Review Monographs, 60, 139–165.Google Scholar
  33. Marres, N. (2015). Are we mapping society or technology? Analysing “privacy” issues with Twitter. University of Sheffield. Retrieved 23 April 2015, from http://blogs.cim.warwick.ac.uk/complexity/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2014/11/Marres_society_technology.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015.
  34. Marres, N., & Gerlitz, C. (2015). Interface methods: Renegotiating relations between digital social research, STS and sociology. Sociological Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  35. McKelvey, F., Tiessen, M., & Simcoe, L. (2015). A consensual hallucination no more? The Internet as simulation machine. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4-5), 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McQuillan, D. (2015). Algorithmic states of exception. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4-5), 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Milan, S. (2014). Data activism: The politics of “big data” in the throes of civil society. Communication for Empowerment: Citizens, Markets, Innovations, ECREA Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 13 Nov 2014.Google Scholar
  38. Nesbitt, H. (2012). Deterritorial support group. Dazed. Available at: http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/10260/1/deterritorial-support-group. Accessed 27thJuly 2015.
  39. Neurath, O. (1973). Empiricism and sociology. In M. Neurath & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), Vienna circle collection. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  40. Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rae, A. (2014). Open data visualization: The dawn of understanding?, StatsLife Blog, Royal Statistical Society. Retrieved 16 September 2014, from http://www.statslife.org.uk/opinion/1815-open-data-visualisation-the-dawn-of-understanding. Accessed 29 Sept 2014.
  42. Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ross, A. (2003). No-Collar: The humane workplace and its hidden costs. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Russell, M.A. (2013). Mining the Social Web: Data mining Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, google+, GitHub and more, O’Reilly MediaGoogle Scholar
  45. Serres, M. (2007). The parasite. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stengers, I., & Zournazi, M. (2003). A “Cosmo-Politics”—Risk, hope, change. In M. Zournazi (Ed.), Hope: New philosophies for change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Szabo, G., & Boykin, O. (2015). Social Media Data Mining and Analytics, John Wiley Media.Google Scholar
  48. Twitter (2014). Twitter.com – Privacy Policy. Available at: www.docracy.com/pdf/0pes0jdczo3/1. Accessed 18th march 2015.
  49. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society, 12(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  50. Vis, F. (2013). A critical reflection on Big Data: Considering APIs, researchers and tools as data makers. First Monday, 18(10). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4878. Accessed 11 Feb 2014.
  51. Vis, F., & Thelwall, M. (2016, forthcoming) Researching Social Media, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2013). Twitter and society: An introduction. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zafarani, R., Ali Abbasi, A., & Liu, H. (2014). Social media mining: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zambrano, R.N., & Engelhardt, Y. (2008). Diagrams for the masses: Raising public awareness – from Neurath to Gapminder and Google Earth. Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) 5223: 282-292, New York: Springer. Available at: 10.1007/978-3-540-87730-1_26.

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Kennedy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociological StudiesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations