Considering that data are no stranger to politics and power, we argue that it may well be a site of age-based discrimination. We discuss how older people are described and, at times, disregarded in the analysis of digitisation and how those partial descriptions bring about challenges in the study of digital practices throughout life. We propose the notion of data ageism to conceptualise the production and reproduction of the disadvantaged status of old age caused by decisions concerning how to collect and deliver whose data. We exemplify this concept by examining data produced by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, which offers high-quality statistics on digitisation, but no data on individuals aged 75 years and over.
AlastaloM (2018) Eurostat: making Europe commensurate and comparable. In: HeiskalaRAroJ (eds) Policy Design in the European Union: An Empire of Shopkeepers in the Making?London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 87–110.
2.
AllinP (2021) Opportunities and challenges for official statistics in a digital society. Contemporary Social Science16(2): 156–169.
3.
AyalonLTesch-RömerC (eds) (2018) Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. New York: Springer.
4.
BergerPLLuckmannT (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
5.
BoukD (2017) The history and political economy of personal data over the last two centuries in three acts. Osiris32(1): 85–106.
6.
BowkerGCStarSL (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
BurströmBTaoW (2020) Social determinants of health and inequalities in COVID-19. European Journal of Public Health30(4): 617–618.
8.
ButlerRN (1969) Age-ism: another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist9(4): 243–246.
9.
BythewayWR (1981) Demographic statistics and old age ideology. Ageing & Society1(3): 347–364.
10.
CalasantiT (2020) Brown Slime, the Silver Tsunami, and Apocalyptic Demography: the importance of ageism and age relations. Social Currents7(3): 195–211.
11.
CalasantiTKingN (2021) Beyond successful aging 2.0: inequalities, ageism, and the case for normalizing old ages. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences76(9): 1817–1827.
12.
ChoiEYKimYChipaloE, et al. (2020) Does perceived ageism widen the digital divide? And does it vary by gender?Gerontologist60(7): 1213–1223.
13.
CouldryNHeppA (2017) The Mediated Construction of Reality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
14.
CristanchoCSanchezMBalboniM (2010) Compendium of Practices on the Implementation of ICT Questions in Households and Businesses Surveys in Latin America and the Caribbean 2010 (LC/W.340). Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.
15.
DemingWE (1944) On errors in surveys. American Sociological Review9(4): 359–369. DOI: 10.2307/2085979.
16.
DenzinNK (2017) The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 5th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 839–866.
17.
EspelandWNStevensML (2008) A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäischesarchiv für Soziologie49(3): 401–436.
18.
European Commission (2019) Better Regulation: Taking Stock and Sustaining Our Commitment. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2019) 178 Final. Brussels: European Commission.
19.
European Commission (2021) 2030 Digital Compass: The European Way for the Digital Decade. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2021) 118 Final. Brussels: European Commission.
20.
European Statistical System (2019) Quality Assurance Framework of the European Statistical System Quality V2.0. Luxembourg City: Eurostat.
21.
European Union (2020a) Joint Conclusions of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Policy Objectives and Priorities for 2020-2024 (17 December). Maastricht: European Union.
22.
European Union (2020b) Shaping Europe’s Digital Future – Factsheet (FS/20/278). Maastricht: European Union.
Eurostat (2018b) Methodological Manual for Statistics on the Information Society 2018: Part II ICT Usage in Households and by Individuals. Luxembourg City: Eurostat.
Eurostat (2021) Methodological Manual for Statistics on the Information Society 2020: Part II ICT Usage in Households and by Individuals (Survey Metadata Overview). Luxembourg City: Eurostat.
37.
FoucaultM (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 (ed. GordonC). 1st American ed. New York: Pantheon Books.
38.
FoxNJAlldredP (2015) New materialist social inquiry: designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology18(4): 399–414.
39.
FretBDe DonderLLambotteD, et al. (2019) Access to care of frail community-dwelling older adults in Belgium: a qualitative study. Primary Health Care Research & Development20: e43.
40.
FuchsM (2008) Total Survey Error (TSE). In: LavrakasPJ (ed.) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 892–906.
41.
GeertzC (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
42.
GeorgiouAV (2017) Towards a global system of monitoring the implementation of un fundamental principles in national official statistics. Statistical Journal of the IAOS33(2): 387–397.
43.
GinnJDuncan-JordanN (2019) The generation game: ending the phony information war between young and old. In: EvansJRuaneSSouthallH (eds) Data in Society: Challenging Statistics in an Age of Globalisation. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 291–302.
44.
GoldinIMuggahR (2020) COVID-19 Is Increasing Multiple Kinds of Inequality. Here’s What We Can Do about It. Cologny: World Economic Forum.
45.
GrovesRMLybergL (2010) Total survey error: past, present, and future. Public Opinion Quarterly74(5): 849–879.
46.
GrovesRMFowlerFJJrCouperMP, et al. (2009) Survey Methodology. 2nd ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
47.
GulletteMM (2004) Aged by Culture. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
48.
HackingI (1991) How should we do the history of statistics? In: BurchellGColinGMillerP (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 181–195.
49.
HakimC (1991) Cross-national comparative research on the European community: the EC Labour Force Surveys. Work, Employment & Society5(1): 101–117.
50.
HayesNIntronaLTavares SmithM (2018) Policy Brief: Pathways to Meaningful Access: Accessible Digital Services for Older Adults. Brussels: European Commission.
51.
HendricksJ (2005) Societal ageism. In: PalmoreEBBranchLHarrisD (eds) Encyclopedia of Ageism. London: Routledge, pp. 292–295.
52.
HiggsPGilleardC (2022) Is ageism an oppression?Journal of Aging Studies62: 101051.
53.
HiggsPGilleardCJ (2015) Rethinking Old Age: Theorising the Fourth Age. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
IvanL (2017) The adequacy of official national statistics for public policy on ageing (oral communication). Panel 5C: where are the older people? In: ECREA conference ‘digital culture meets data’, University of Brighton, Brighton, 7 November.
55.
JayM (1988) Scopic regimes of modernity. In: FosterH (ed.) Vision and Visuality. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Bay Press, pp. 3–23.
56.
JorgensonDWStirohKJ (1999) Information technology and growth. American Economic Review89(2): 109–115.
57.
JovanovicBRousseauPL (2005) General purpose technologies. In: AghionPDurlaufSN (eds) Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1181–1224.
58.
JoyeDWolfCSmithTW, et al. (2016) Survey methodology : challenges and principles. In: WolfCJoyeDFuY (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 3–15.
59.
KatzSCalasantiT (2015) Critical perspectives on successful aging: does it ‘appeal more than it illuminates’?Gerontologist55(1): 26–33.
60.
Koro-LjungbergMMacLureMUlmerJ (2017) D. . .a. . .t. . .a, Data++, data, and some problematics. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 5th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 462–484.
61.
KranzbergM (1986) Technology and history: ‘Kranzberg’s Laws’. Technology and Culture27(3): 544–560.
62.
LagacéMCharmarkehHZakyR, et al. (2016) From psychological to digital disengagement: exploring the link between ageism and the ‘grey digital divide’. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations18(1): 65–75.
63.
LevySRMacdonaldJL (2016) Progress on understanding ageism. Journal of Social Issues72(1): 5–25.
64.
ListortiGBasyte FerrariEAcsS, et al. (2019) The Debate on the EU Better Regulation Agenda: A Literature Review (EUR 29691 EN). Luxembourg City: Publications Office of the European Union.
65.
MassumiB (2002) Parables for the Virtual Movement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
66.
Mayer-SchönbergerVCukierK (2013) Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
67.
Office for National Statistics (2007) Guidelines for Measuring Statistical Quality. London: Office for National Statistics.
68.
PalmoreEB (1999) Ageism: Negative and Positive. 2nd ed.New York: Springer.
69.
PayneSLB (1951) The Art of Asking Questions: Studies on Public Opinion 3. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
PeineANevenL (2021) The co-constitution of ageing and technology – a model and agenda. Ageing & Society41(12): 2845–2866.
71.
PenissatERowellJ (2015) The creation of a European socio-economic classification: limits of expert-driven statistical integration. Journal of European Integration37(2): 281–297.
72.
RosalesAFernández-ArdèvolM (2019) Structural ageism in big data approaches. Nordicom Review 40(Suppl. 1): 51–64.
73.
RosalesAFernández-ArdèvolM (2020) Ageism in the era of digital platforms. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies26(5–6): 1074–1087.
74.
RoseN (1998) Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
SadowskiJ (2019) When data is capital: datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data and Society. Epub ahead of print 7 January. DOI: 10.1177/2053951718820549.
76.
SæbøHVHolmbergA (2019) Beyond code of practice: new quality challenges in official statistics. Statistical Journal of the IAOS35(2): 171–178.
77.
SaltelliAGiampietroM (2017) What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?Futures91: 62–71.
78.
SawchukKGrenierLLafontaineC (2020) ‘That’s surprising, at your age!’ The myth of digital disinterest. In: BilletteVMarierPSéguinA-M (eds) Debunking Myths about Aging. Vancouver, BC, Canada: UBC Press; Purich Books, pp. 36–43.
79.
ScannapiecoMVirgillitoAZardettoD (2013) Placing big data in official statistics: a big challenge? In: Proceedings of NTTS (new techniques and technologies for statistics), Brussels, 5–7 March.
80.
SchlauferC (2018) The narrative uses of evidence. Policy Studies Journal46(1): 90–118.
81.
ScottS (2018) Statistics as reification. Radical Statistics121: 4–25.
82.
SendykaR (2013) Scoping regimes and modernity: hypotyposis. In: BrillJ (ed.) Discussing Modernity: A Dialogue with Martin Jay. New York: Rodopi, pp. 103–114.
83.
St. PierreEA (2013) The appearance of data. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies13(4): 223–227.
84.
StarSLBowkerGC (2007) Enacting silence: residual categories as a challenge for ethics, information systems, and communication. Ethics and Information Technology9(4): 273–280.
85.
StoopIHarrisonE (2012) Classification of surveys. In: GideonL (ed.) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New York: Springer, pp. 7–21.
86.
StruijsPBraaksmaBDaasPJH (2014) Official statistics and Big Data. Big Data and Society1(1): 1–6.
87.
TracyMBAdamsP (1989) Age at which pensions are awarded under social security: patterns in ten industrial countries, 1960–1986. International Social Security Review42(4): 447–461.
88.
UNECE/European Commission (2019) 2018 Active Ageing Index: Analytical Report [Report prepared by Giovanni Lamura and Andrea Principi under contract with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (Geneva), co-funded by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (Brussels)]. Brussels: European Commission.
