‘Personal data literacies’: A critical literacies approach to enhancing understandings of personal digital data

Abstract

The capacity to understand and control one’s personal data is now a crucial part of living in contemporary society. In this sense, traditional concerns over supporting the development of ‘digital literacy’ are now being usurped by concerns over citizens’ ‘data literacies’. In contrast to recent data safety and data science approaches, this article argues for a more critical form of ‘personal data literacies’ where digital data are understood as socially situated and context dependent. Drawing on the critical literacies tradition, the article outlines a range of salient socio-technical understandings of personal data generation and processing. Specifically, the article proposes a framework of ‘Personal Data Literacies’ that distinguishes five significant domains: (1) Data Identification, (2) Data Understandings, (3) Data Reflexivity, (4) Data Uses, and (5) Data Tactics. The article concludes by outlining the implications of this framework for future education and research around the area of individuals’ understandings of personal data.

Keywords

Critical literacies digital platforms personal data Personal Data Literacies personal data literacies framework

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrejevic

(2014) The big data divide. International Journal of Communication 8: 1673–1689.

Beer

Burrows

(2013) Popular culture, digital archives and the new social life of data. Theory, Culture & Society 30(4): 47–71.

Bodle

(2016) A critical theory of advertising as surveillance. In: Hamilton

Bodle

Korin

(eds) Explorations in Critical Studies of Advertising. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 138–152.

Bowker

(2013) Data flakes: an afterword to ‘raw data’ is an oxymoron. In: Gitelman

(ed.) ‘Raw Data’ is an Oxymoron. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 167–173.

Boyd

(2017) Hacking the attention economy. In: Data and Society: Points. Available at: https://points.datasociety.net/hacking-the-attention-economy-9fa1daca7a37

Boyd

Crawford

(2012) Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 662–679.

Brunton

Nissenbaum

(2015) Obfuscation: A User’s Guide for Privacy and Protest. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Buckingham

(2003) Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge, MA; Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Calzada-Prado

Marzal

(2013) Incorporating data literacy into information literacy programs: core competencies and contents. Libri: International Journal of Libraries and Information Services 63(2): 123–134.

10.

Carlson

Michael

FCC

Miller

et al . (2011) Determining data information literacy needs: a study of students and research faculty. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 11(2): 629.

11.

Couldry

(2014) A necessary disenchantment: myth, agency and injustice in a digital world. The Sociological Review 62: 880–897.

12.

Data-Pop Alliance and Internews (2015) Beyond data literacy: reinventing community engagement and empowerment in the age of data (Data-Pop alliance white paper series). Working paper, Data-Pop Alliance and Internews, New York, September.

13.

Deahl

(2014) Better the data you know. MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

14.

Dhar

(2013) Data science and prediction. Communications of the ACM 56(12): 64–73.

15.

Education Development Centre Inc (2016) Building global interest in data literacy. Workshop report. Waltham, MA: Oceans of Data Institute. Available at: http://oceansofdata.org/our-work/building-global-interest-data-literacy-dialogue-workshop-report

16.

Office of the eSafety Commissioner (2017) Protecting personal information. Report. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government. Available at: https://www.esafety.gov.au/esafety-information/esafety-issues/protecting-personal-information

17.

Freebody

Luke

(1990) Literacies programs: debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL 5(3): 7–16.

18.

Galloway

(2014) The cybernetic hypothesis. Differences 25(1): 107–131.

19.

Garcia

Lovink

(1997) The ABC of tactical media. Nettime. Available at: http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9705/msg00096.html

20.

Gee

(2000) The new literacy studies: from ‘socially situated’ to the work of the social. In: Barton

(ed.) Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. London: Routledge, pp. 180–197.

21.

Gee

(2015) The New Literacy Studies. In: Rowsell

Pahl

The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 35–48.

22.

Gerlitz

(2016) What counts? Reflections on the multivalence of social media data. Digital Culture & Society 2(2): 19–38.

23.

Golumbia

(2018) We don’t know what ‘personal data’ means. Available at: https://www.uncomputing.org/?p=1983

24.

Green

(1988) Subject-specific literacy and school learning: a focus on writing. Australian Journal of Education 32(2): 156–179.

25.

Green

Beavis

(2012) Literacy in 3D: An Integrated Perspective in Theory and Practice. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: ACER Press.

26.

Halford

Pope

Weal

(2013) Digital futures? Sociological challenges and opportunities in the emergent semantic web. Sociology 47(1): 173–189.

27.

Hearn

(2010) Structuring feeling: web 2.0, online ranking and rating, and the digital ‘reputation’ economy. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 10(3–4): 412–438.

28.

Heath

(1982) What no bedtime story means: narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society 11(1): 49–76.

29.

Jones

Chik

Hafner

(2015) Introduction. In: Jones

Chik

Hafner

(eds) Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–17.

30.

Kitchin

(2014) The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences. London: SAGE.

31.

Kruger

(2012) Hackathons aren’t just for hacking. Wired, 6 June. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2012/06/hackathons-arent-just-for-hacking/

32.

Langlois

Elmer

McKelvey

et al . (2009) Networked publics: the double articulation of code and politics on Facebook. Canadian Journal of Communication 34(3): 415–434.

33.

Langlois

Redden

Elmer

(2015) Introduction: Compromised data. In: Langlois

Redden

Elmer

(eds) Compromised Data: From Social Media to Big Data. New York; London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–24.

34.

Luke

(2000) Critical literacy in Australia: a matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 43(5): 448–461.

35.

Luke

(2013) Regrounding critical literacy. In: Hawkins

(ed.) Framing Languages and Literacies: Socially Situated Views and Perspectives. New York; London: Routledge, pp. 136–148.

36.

Luke

Freebody

(1999) Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a916/0ce3d5e75744de3d0ddacfaf6861fe928b9e.pdf

37.

Lupton

(2017) Personal data practices in the age of lively data. In: Daniels

Gregory

McMillan Cottom

(eds) Digital Sociologies. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 339–354.

38.

McCosker

(2017) Data literacies for the postdemographic social media self. First Monday 22(10). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7307/6550 (accessed 2 October 2017).

39.

Manovich

(2011) Trending: the promises and the challenges of big social data. In: Gold

(ed.) Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 460–475.

40.

Marwick

Boyd

(2014) Networked privacy: how teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society 16(7): 1051–1067.

41.

Mathieu

(2016) Users’ encounter with normative discourses on Facebook: a three-pronged analysis of user agency as power structure, nexus, and reception. Social Media + Society 2(4): 1–11.

42.

Mathieu

Pavlíčková

(2017) Cross-media within the Facebook newsfeed: the role of the reader in cross-media uses. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 23(4): 425–438.

43.

Nissenbaum

(2009) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

44.

Pangrazio

(2016) Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 37(2): 163–174.

45.

Pangrazio

Selwyn

(2018) ‘It’s not like it’s life or death or whatever’: young people’s understandings of social media data. Social Media + Society 4(3): 1–9.

46.

Pardo

Siemens

(2014) Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology 45(3): 438–450.

47.

Peacock

(2014) How web tracking changes user agency in the age of big data: the used user. Big Data & Society 1(2): 1–11.

48.

Pybus

Coté

Blanke

(2015) Hacking the social life of big data. Big Data & Society 2(2): 1–12.

49.

Renzi

Langlois

(2015) Data activism. In: Langlois

Redden

Elmer

(eds) Compromised Data: From Social Media to Big Data. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 202–225.

50.

Roberts

Howell

Seaman

et al . (2016) Student attitudes toward learning analytics in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology 7(1959). DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01959.

51.

Roddel

(2006) Internet Safety Parents’ Guide. Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press.

52.

Rogers

(2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

53.

Ruppert

(2011) Population objects: interpassive subjects. Sociology 45: 218–233.

54.

Ruppert

(2013) Rethinking empirical social sciences. Dialogues in Human Geography 3(3): 268–273.

55.

Selwyn

Pangrazio

(2018) Doing data differently? Developing personal data tactics and strategies amongst young mobile media users Big Data & Society 5(1). DOI: 10.1177/2053951718765021.

56.

Skeggs

Yuill

(2016) The methodology of a multi-model project examining how Facebook infrastructures social relations. Information, Communication & Society 19(10): 1356–1372.

57.

Street

(1994) The new literacy studies: implications for education and pedagogy. Changing English 1(1): 113–126.

58.

Van Dijck

Poell

(2013) Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication 1(1): 2–14.

59.

Wark

(2004) A Hacker Manifesto. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

60.

Yan

(2005) Age differences in children’s understanding of the complexity of the internet. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 26: 385–396.