This article explores the growing role of traces and footprints in social science, giving an outline of the main concepts and empirical questions discussed in this special issue. Remarkably, the study of traces (unobtrusive, necessarily interpretative, theory-driven and data-fueled at the same time) considers them as unwillingly insightful and strategic materials. However, the difference between information “intentionally transmitted” and information “accidentally leaked” gets fuzzy especially in online communication and social network. In this sense, by interpreting the “digital data deluge” as a social trace deluge, issues of algorithmic environments, users’ participation, datafied biases, and transparency are addressed. Finally, it is argued that traces, data exhaust, and residual information help overcoming standard dichotomies in social science (e.g., human vs. non-human realms, quantitative vs. qualitative, online vs. offline activities), both methodologically and theoretically.
AiroldiM.Machine habitus: Toward a sociology of algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, (2021).
2.
AnannyM.CrawfordK. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989.
3.
ArnoldJ.H. (1998). The historian as inquisitor: The ethics of interrogating subaltern voices. Rethinking History, 2(3), 379–386.
4.
BaanP.HomburgR. (2013). Information productivity: An introduction to enterprise information management. In BaanP. (Ed.), Enterprise information management. When information becomes inspiration (pp. 1–42). Springer.
BenjaminW. (1969). Theses on the philosophy of history. In ArendtH. (Ed.),Illuminations (pp. 253–267). Schocken.
7.
BourdieuP. (1990). In other words. Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford University Press.
8.
BucherT. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information Communication and Society, 20(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016
9.
BucherT. (2018). If. . . then. Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
10.
ChristinA. (2020). The ethnographer and the algorithm: Beyond the black box. Theory and Society, 49(5–6): 897–918.
11.
ChuC. H.NyrupR.LeslieK.ShiJ.BianchiA.LynA.McNichollM.KhanS.RahimiS.GrenierA. (2022). Digital ageism: Challenges and opportunities in artificial intelligence for older adults. The Gerontologist, 62(7), 947–955.
12.
ComunelloF.MartireF.SabettaL. (2022a). What people leave behind: Marks, traces, footprints and their relevance to knowledge society. Springer.
13.
ComunelloF.MartireF.SabettaL. (2022b). Toward a sociology of traces. In ComunelloF.MartireF.SabettaL. (Eds.), What people leave behind marks, traces, footprints and their relevance to knowledge society (pp. 1–18). Springer.
14.
ComunelloF.MulargiaS.ParisiL. (2016). The ‘proper’ way to spread ideas through social media: Exploring the affordances and constraints of different social media platforms as perceived by Italian activists. The Sociological Review, 64(3), 515–532.
15.
CourrierC.de OliveiraJ. C. M. (2021). Ancient history from below: Subaltern experiences and actions in context. Routledge.
16.
CrawfordK. (2016). Can an algorithm be agonistic? Ten scenes from life in calculated publics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(1), 77–92.
17.
CrawfordK. (2021). The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
18.
de FreitasE. (2017). The temporal fabric of research methods: Posthuman social science and the digital data deluge. Research in Education, 98(1), 27–43.
DogruelL. (2021). Folk theories of algorithmic operations during Internet use: A mixed methods study. The Information Society, 37(5), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2021.1949768
21.
DourishP.BellottiV. (1992, December). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto, pp. 107–114.
22.
Espinoza-RojasJ.SilesI.CastelainT. (2022). How using various platforms shapes awareness of algorithms. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(9), 1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2078224
23.
EubanksV. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s.
24.
FisherM. (2018). K-punk. The collected and unpublished writings of mark fisher (2004-2016). Repeater Books.
25.
FourcadeM.JohnsF. (2020). Loops, ladders and links: The recursivity of social and machine learning. Theory and Society, 49(5–6), 803–832.
26.
FreudS. (1916–1917). Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. Penguin.
27.
GillespieT. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In GillespieT.BoczkowskiP. J.FootK. A. (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
28.
GillespieT. (2018). Custodians of the Internet. Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
29.
GinzburgC. (1999). The judge and the historian. Marginal notes on a late-twentieth-century miscarriage of justice. Verso.
30.
GinzburgC. (2017). Unintentional revelations: Reading history against the grain. In Exploring the boundaries of microhistory, “The Fu Ssu-nien Memorial Lectures 2015” (pp. 41–81). Academia Sinica.
31.
GranA. B.BoothP.BucherT. (2021). To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide?Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1779–1796.
32.
GritsenkoD.MarkhamA.PötzschH.WijermarsM. (2022). Algorithms, contexts, governance: An introduction to the special issue. New Media & Society, 24(4), 835–844.
33.
GrossR.AcquistiA. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, Alexandria, Virginia, USA, pp. 71–80.
34.
HallS. (1991 [1973]) Encoding, decoding. In DuringS. (Ed.), The cultural studies reader (pp. 90–103). Routledge.
HargittaiE.GruberJ.DjukaricT.FuchsJ.BrombachL. (2020). Black box measures? How to study people’s algorithm skills. Information, Communication & Society, 23(5), 764–775.
37.
HargittaiE.MarwickA. E. (2016). “What can i really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737–3757.
38.
HirschD. D. (2014). The glass house effect: Big data, the new oil, and the power of analogy. Maine Law Review, 66(2), 373–396.
39.
KayM.MatuszekC.MunsonS. A. (2015). Unequal representation and gender stereotypes in image search results for occupations [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, 18–23 April, pp. 3819–3828.
40.
KitchinR. (2021). Data lives. How data are made and shape our world. Bristol University Press.
41.
KlineR.PinchT. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37(4), 763–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/3107097
42.
KlingerU.SvenssonJ. (2015). The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522952
43.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
44.
LöwyM. (1996). “Against the grain”: The dialectical conception of culture. In SteinbergM. P. (Ed.), Walter Benjamin and the demands of history (pp. 206–213). Cornell University Press.
45.
LuptonD. (2016). The quantified self. John Wiley & Sons.
46.
MacKenzieD. (2019). How algorithms interact: Goffman’s ‘interaction order’ in automated trading. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(2), 39–59.
47.
Mayer-SchoenbergerV.CukierK. (2013). Big data. A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
48.
MicheliM.LutzC.BüchiM. (2018). Digital footprints: An emerging dimension of digital inequality. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(3), 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2018-0014
49.
MilanS.TreréE. (2021). Big data from the south(s): An analytical matrix to investigate data at the margins. In RohlingerD.SobierajS. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of sociology and digital media (pp. 1–21). Oxford University Press.
50.
NobleS. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
51.
OudshoornN.PinchT. (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (inside technology). MIT Press.
52.
PantanoE.WillemsK. (2022). Retail in a new world. Recovering from the pandemic that changed the world. Emerald.
53.
PasqualeF. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
54.
RobinsonL.CottenS. R.OnoH.Quan-HaaseA.MeschG.ChenW.SchulzJ.HaleT. M.SternM. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582.
55.
RyanP. (2019). Trust and distrust in digital economies. Routledge.
56.
SabettaL. (2020). Ethnography (and social research) between words and deeds. Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 2020/3, 483–495.
57.
SeaverN. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society4, 1–12.
58.
ShawA. (2017). Encoding and decoding affordances: Stuart hall and interactive media technologies. Media, Culture & Society, 39(4), 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717692741
59.
SilvaD. E.ChenC.ZhuY. (2022). Facets of algorithmic literacy: Information, experience, and individual factors predict attitudes toward algorithmic systems. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221098042
60.
StypińskaJ. (2021). Ageism in AI: New forms of age discrimination in the era of algorithms and artificial intelligence [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on AI for People: Towards Sustainable AI, CAIP 2021, 20–24 November 2021, Bologna, Italy.
61.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R.BalzJ. P. (2012). Choice architecture. In ShafirE. (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 428–439). Princeton University Press.
62.
TozziA.CoppolaG. (2020). Digital footprint awareness. A European survey to analyse EU citizens’ understanding of digital footprint. European Digital Learning Network.
63.
Van DijckJ.PoellT.De WaalM. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
