This paper addresses data reflexivity in terms of critical consciousness-raising by linking people’s everyday encounters with data to their speculative visions about datafied futures. We suggest everyday encounters with data about oneself might play an important role in facilitating both personal and collective imagination about data and devising future paths towards legitimate and meaningful datafied living. Lending inspiration from the figure of the researcher as critical companion and from speculative design, we posit that critical consciousness-raising is not something generated purely by way of informing people about datafication, but built from below, through people’s everyday experiences with datafying themselves and being datafied by others. Furthermore, it is deeply intertwined with datafication research itself, and the way we seek to establish links between individual and collective experiences and evaluations of data practices. Based on this, the paper offers three methodological entry points for exploring how critical consciousness can be cultivated and collectivized: longitudinal fieldwork with repeated interviews, data visualization derived from people’s own phones, and speculative workshops on future data practices.
Andelsman AlvarezVMeleschkoSK (2023) Going above and beyond? How parent–daycare mobile communication reconfigures the time and space dimensions of parenting. Mobile Media & Communication12(1): 20501579231203533.
2.
BroomfieldHReutterL (2022) In search of the citizen in the datafication of public administration. Big Data & Society9(1): 205395172210893.
3.
BucherT (2017) The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20(1): 30–44. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086.
4.
CouldryNPowellA (2014) Big data from the bottom up. Big Data & Society1(2): 205395171453927.
5.
DasRWongYNJonesR, et al. (2024) How do we speak about algorithms and algorithmic media futures? Using vignettes and scenarios in a citizen council on data-driven media personalisation. New Media & Society14614448241232589. doi: 10.1177/14614448241232589
6.
DencikL (2019) Situating practices in datafication – from above and below. In: StéphansenHCTréréE (eds). Citizen Media and Practice. Currents, Connections, Challenges. London & New York: Routledge.
7.
DencikLCableJ (2017) The advent of surveillance realism: public opinion and activist responses to the Snowden leaks. International Journal of Communication11: 763–781.
8.
DogruelLFacciorussoDStarkB (2022) ‘I’m still the master of the machine.’ Internet users’ awareness of algorithmic decision-making and their perception of its effect on their autonomy. Information, Communication & Society25(9): 1311–1332.
9.
DraperNATurowJ (2019) The corporate cultivation of digital resignation. New Media & Society21(8): 1824–1839.
10.
DunneARabyF (2013) Speculative Everything. Cambridge: MIT Press.
11.
EngebretsenMKennedyH (2020) Data Visualization in Society. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
12.
EngholmI (2023) Design for the New World: From Human Design to Planet Design. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books.
FariasPGBendorRVan EekelenBF (2022) Social dreaming together: a critical exploration of participatory speculative design. In: Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, New York, USA, pp. 147–154, New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
16.
FlensburgSLaiSS (2023) Follow the data! A strategy for tracing infrastructural power. Media and Communication11(2): 319–329.
17.
FlensburgSLomborgS (2023) Datafication research: Mapping the field for a future agenda. New Media & Society25(6): 1451–1469. doi: 10.1177/14614448211046616.
18.
FreireP (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
19.
FreireP (1973) Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Continuum.
20.
GranABBoothPBucherT (2021) To be or not to be algorithm aware: a question of a new digital divide?Information, Communication & Society24(12): 1779–1796.
21.
GummerESMandinachEB (2015) Building a conceptual framework for data literacy. Teachers College Record117(4): 1–22.
22.
HellesRLomborgSLaiSS (2020) Infrastructures of tracking: mapping the ecology of third-party services across top sites in the EU. New Media & Society22(11): 1957–1975.
23.
JarkeJ (2021) Co-creating Digital Public Services for an Ageing Society. Cham: Switzerland: Springer.
24.
JørgensenRF (2023) It all depends on context: Danes attitudes towards surveillance. In: CocqCEnbomJGelfgrenS, et al. (eds) Everyday Life in the Culture of Surveillance. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg: Nordicom.
25.
KaurJDevgonRChaudharyD (2022) Work of fiction: using speculative design to deliberate on the future of hiring. In: Companion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW'22 Companion), New York, USA, pp. 23–26. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
KazanskyBMilanS (2021) “Bodies not templates”: contesting dominant algorithmic imaginaries. New Media & Society23(2): 363–381.
27.
KennedyHHillRL (2018) The feeling of numbers: emotions in everyday engagements with data and their visualisation. Sociology, 52(4)3: 830-848.
28.
KennedyHOmanSTaylorM, et al. (2020) Public understanding and perceptions of data practices: a review of existing research. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Available at:https://livingwithdata.org/resources/(Accessed 9 October 2023).
29.
LaiSSFlensburgS (2020) Appscapes in everyday life: studying mobile datafication from an infrastructural user perspective. MedieKultur: Journal of Media & Communication Research36(69): 029–051.
30.
LawsonSKirmanBLinehanC, et al. (2015) Problematising upstream technology through speculative design: the case of quantified cats and dogs. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), New York, USA, pp. 2663–2672. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
31.
LivingstoneS (2004) What is media literacy?InterMedia32(3): 18–20.
32.
LomborgS (2023) On meaning and exploitation: everyday AI and employee productivity tracking in Denmark. In: ParksLVelkovaJde RidderS (eds). Media Backends: Digital Infrastructures and Sociotechnical Relations. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
MagerAKatzenbachC (2021) Future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology: multiple, contested, commodified. New Media & Society23(2): 223–236.
35.
MarwickAHargittaiE (2018) Nothing to hide, nothing to lose? Incentives and disincentives to sharing information with institutions online. Information, Communication & Society22(12): 1697–1713. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1450432.
36.
Mayer-SchönbergerVCukierK (2013) Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Hardback Publishing.
37.
PangrazioLSelwynN (2019) ‘Personal data literacies’: A critical literacies approach to enhancing understandings of personal digital data. New Media & Society21(2): 419–437. doi: 10.1177/1461444818799523.
38.
Peña GangadharanSNiklasJ (2019) Decentering technology in discourse on discrimination. Information, Communication & Society22(7): 882–899. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1593484.
PowellABUstek-SpildaFLehuedéS, et al. (2022) Addressing ethical gaps in ‘Technology for Good’: foregrounding care and capabilities. Big Data & Society9(2): 205395172211137.
41.
PronzatoRMarkhamAN (2023) Returning to critical pedagogy in a world of datafication. Convergence29(1): 97–115.
42.
RuckensteinM (2023) The Feel of Algorithms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
SanderI (2024) Critical datafication literacy - a framework for educating about datafication.Information and Learning Sciences125(3/4): 270–292. doi: 10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0064.
44.
SoloveDJ (2007) ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review44: 745.
45.
SteedmanRKennedyHJonesR (2020) Complex ecologies of trust in data practices and data-driven systems. Information, Communication & Society23(6): 817–832.
46.
TaylorMKennedyHOmanS (2023) Challenging assumptions about the relationship between awareness of and attitudes to data uses amongst the UK public. The Information Society40(1): 32–53. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2023.2283729.
47.
van DijckJ (2014) Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society12: 197–208.
48.
WattsRJDiemerMAVoightAM (2011) Critical consciousness: current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development2011(134): 43–57.
49.
WiddicksK (2020) When the good turns ugly: speculating next steps for digital wellbeing tools. In: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (NordiCHI '20), New York, USA, pp. 1–6. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
50.
WycheS (2022) Reimagining the mobile phone: investigating speculative approaches to design in human-computer interaction for development (HCI4D). In: Proceedings of the ACM Human-Computer Interaction, New York, USA, pp. 1-27. New York: Association for Computing Machinery
51.
ZaroualiBBoermanSCde VreeseCH (2021) Is this recommended by an algorithm? The development and validation of the algorithmic media content awareness scale (AMCA-scale). Telematics and Informatics62: 101607.
52.
ZiewitzMSinghR (2021) Critical companionship: some sensibilities for studying the lived experience of data subjects. Big Data & Society8(2): 205395172110611.
53.
ZuboffS (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
