This article reports on community perspectives about the regulation of municipality-led Big Data initiatives developed through an exploratory, deliberative democracy-informed approach. While analytics hold great promise for policy design and service delivery improvements, their mythologized nature may elicit a blind faith in empirical outcomes, leading to misrepresentation or omission of marginalized populations. Scholars have begun pointing to public consultation as a means of avoiding these challenges, suggesting that a truly “smart city” should vet potential Big Data polices through the community in order to identify locally relevant concerns. The Big Data in Cities: Barriers and Benefits symposium, held in May of 2017, took a deliberative democracy approach designed to contribute toward a midsized southern Ontario city’s regulatory framework for data aggregation and mobilization. Approximately 100 self-selected participants (primarily public advocates) attended a 2-day symposium that featured a series of presentations designed to introduce critiques to and strategies for the implementation of Big Data initiatives. Participants also engaged in several facilitated roundtable discussions during the symposium, and their transcribed conversations served as the data for this study. Thematic analysis identified three recurrent concerns: publicly vetted data ethics, consultation and literacy practices, and regulatory frameworks. The public consultation process employed by this study produced results that reflect critiques raised in other academic papers.
AbelsonJ.ForestP. G.EylesJ.SmithP.MartinE. & GauvinF. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 239–251.
2.
AndrejevicM. (2014). The Big Data divide. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1673–1689.
3.
BarryE.BannisterF. (2014). Barriers to open data release: A view from the top. Information Polity, 19, 129–152.
4.
BombardY.AbelsonJ.SimeonovD.GauvinF. P. (2011). Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 135–144.
5.
BoydD.CrawfordK. (2012). Critical questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 662–679.
6.
CavoukianA. (2013). Personal data ecosystem (PDE)—A ‘privacy by design’ approach to an individual’s pursuit of radical control. In HildebrandtMireilleO’HaraKieronWaidnerMichael (Eds.), Digital enlightenment yearbook 2013: The value of personal data (pp. 89–101). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
7.
ChanJ.MosesL. B. (2017). Making sense of Big Data for security. British Journal of Criminology, 57, 299–319.
8.
CharltonJ. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
CukierK.Mayer-SchöenbergerV. (2013). The rise of Big Data: How it’s changing the way we think about the world. Foreign Affairs, 92, 28–40.
10.
CurrieL. J. (2013). The role of Canadian municipal open data initiatives: A multi-city evaluation(Unpublished master’s thesis).Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
11.
DegelingC.CarterS. M. & RychetnikL. (2015). Which public and why deliberate?—A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Social Science & Medicine, 131, 114–121.
12.
DriscollK.WalkerS. (2014). Big Data, big questions working within a black box: Transparency in the collection and production of big twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1746–1764.
13.
ElishM. C.BoydD. (2018). Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI. Communication Monographs, 85, 57–80.
14.
Gil de ZúñigaH.DiehlT. (2017). Citizenship, social media, and Big Data: Current and future research in the social sciences. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 3–9.
15.
HalsethG.MarkeyS.MansonD.RyserL. (2016). Doing community-based research: Perspectives from the field. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
16.
HoffmanR.HirdesJ.BrownG. P.DubinJ. A.BarbareeH. (2016). The use of a brief mental health screener to enhance the ability of police officers to identify persons with serious mental disorders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 28–35.
17.
HoldenB.MuhajarineN. (2016). Quality of life research in Saskatoon, Canada: Fifteen years of co-creating knowledge and action in the community. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning, 1, 189–196.
18.
HoweD.CostanzoM.FeyP.GojoboriT.HannickL.HideW.…Yon RheeS. (2008). Big Data: The future of biocuration. Nature, 455, 47–50.
19.
KatapallyT. R.AbonyiS.EpiskenewJ. A.RamsdenV.KarunanayakeC.KirychukS.…PahwaP. (2017). Catalyzing action on first nations respiratory health using community-based participatory research: Integrated knowledge translation through strategic symposia. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning, 2, 57–70.
20.
KerrA.Cunningham-BurleyS.AmosA. (1998). The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 41–60.
21.
KirkP.ShutteA. M. (2004). Community leadership development. Community Development Journal, 39, 234–251.
22.
KitchinR. (2014a). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1, 1–12.
23.
KitchinR. (2014b). The real-time city? Big Data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79, 1–14.
24.
LepriB.StaianoJ.SangokoyaD.LetouzéE.OliverN. (2017). The tyranny of data? The bright and dark sides of data-driven decision-making for social good. In CerquitelliT.QuerciaD.PasqualeF. (Eds.), Transparent data mining for big and small data (pp. 3–24). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
25.
LongoJ.KurasE.SmithH.HondulaD. M.JohnstonE. (2017). Technology use, exposure to natural hazards, and being digitally invisible: Implications for policy analytics. Policy & Internet, 9, 76–108.
26.
Macqueen-SmithF.MuhajarineN.DelanoyS. (2015). Knowledge translation strategies in community-based research: Our decision-maker-based approach. In JefferyB.FindlayI. M.MartzD.ClarkL. (Eds.), Journeys in community-based research (pp. 149–161). Regina, SK: University of Regina Press.
27.
MargolisR.DerrL.DunnM.HuertaM.LarkinJ.SheehanJ.…GreenE. D. (2014). The national institutes of health’s Big Data to knowledge (BD2K) initiative: Capitalizing on biomedical Big Data. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21, 957–958.
28.
McDermottY. (2017). Conceptualizing the right to data protection in an era of Big Data. Big Data & Society, 4, 1–7.
29.
McWhirterR. E.CritchleyC. R.NicolD.ChalmersD.WhittonT.OtlowskiM.…DickinsonJ. L. (2014). Community engagement for big epidemiology: Deliberative democracy as a tool. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 4, 459–474.
30.
MichaelM. (2006). Technoscience and everyday life: The complex simplicities of the mundane. London, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
31.
MichaelM.LuptonD. (2016). Toward a manifesto for the ‘public understanding of Big Data.’Public Understanding of Science, 25, 104–116.
32.
OchockaJ.JanzenR. (2014). Breathing life into theory: Illustrations of community-based research—Hallmarks, functions and phases. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 7, 18–33.
33.
O’HaraK. (2012, June). Transparency, open data and trust in government: Shaping the infosphere. In ContractorN.UzziB. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (pp. 223–232). New York, NY: ACM.
34.
O’NeilC. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How Big Data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Portland, OR: Broadway Books.
35.
PieczkaM.EscobarO. (2012). Dialogue and science: Innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 40, 113–126.
36.
PielstickC. D. (2000). Formal vs. informal leading: A comparative analysis. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 99–114.
37.
RichardsN. M.KingJ. H. (2014). Big Data ethics. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 393–432.
38.
RobinsonL.CottenS. R.OnoH.Quan-HaaseA.MeschG.ChenW.SternM. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 569–582.
39.
RubinsteinI. S. (2013). Big Data: The end of privacy or a new beginning?International Data Privacy Law, 3, 74–87.
40.
SaldañaJ. (2014). Coding and analysis strategies. In LeavyP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 581–605). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
SaleclR. (2017). Big Data—Big ignorance. In ZavršnikA. (Ed.), Big Data, crime and social control (pp. 58–74). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
SandersC.B.SheptyckiJ. (2017). Policing, crime and ‘Big Data’ towards a critique of the moral economy of stochastic governance. Crime Law Social Change, 68, 1–15.
43.
SchintlerL. A.KulkarniR. (2014). Big Data for policy analysis: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Review of Policy Research, 31, 343–348.
44.
ShearmurR. (2015). Dazzeld by data: Big Data, the census and urban geography. Urban Geography, 36, 965–968.
45.
SloanL.Quan-HaaseA. (2018). A retrospective on state of the art social media research methods: Ethical decisions, big-small data rivalries and the spectre of the 6Vs. In SloanL.Quan-HaaseA. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media research methods (pp. 663–672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
SmithG. J. D.O’MalleyP. (2017). Driving politics: Data-driven governance and resistance. British Journal of Criminology, 57, 275–298.
47.
SokolovaM.MatwinS. (2016). Personal privacy protection in time of Big Data. In MatwinS.MielniczukJ. (Eds.), Challenges in computational statistics and data mining (pp. 365–380). Cham, CH: Springer.
48.
TownsendA. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big Data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York, NY: WW Norton.
49.
TrosowS. E.TaylorL.HanamA. (2017). The internet of things: Implications for consumer privacy under Canadian law. Unpublished manuscript, Faulty of Law, University of Western Ontario.
50.
TufekciZ. (2014). Engeineering the public: Bit data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, 19(7).
51.
UrbanoskiK. A.MulsantB. H.WillettP.EhteshamS.RushB. (2012). Real-world evaluation of the resident assessment instrument-mental health assessment system. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57, 687–695.
52.
WilliamsM. L.BurnapP.SloanL. (2017). Crime sensing with Big Data: The affordances and limitations of using open-source communications to estimate crime patterns. British Journal of Criminology, 57, 320–340.
53.
WilsdonJ.WillisR. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London, England: Demos.
54.
WilsonB. (2014). Learning city-regions revisited: A new way forward. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 20, 77–87.
55.
ZhangJ.Puron-CidG.Gil-GarciaJ. R. (2015). Creating public value through open government: Perspectives, experiences and applications. Information Polity, 20, 97–101.
56.
ZwitterA. (2014). Big Data ethics. Big Data & Society, 1, 1–6.
