This article introduces “data mirroring,” a methodological framework for conducting data-donation-based interviews using Data Download Packages (DDPs) from digital platforms. Since the General Data Protection Regulation took effect, DDPs have found application in research. While the literature on the value of DDPs primarily points toward scaling and validating aggregate-level data, their potential to illuminate complex user–media relationships within datafied environments at the micro-level appears underexplored. Drawing from recent conceptualizations of the “data mirror,” which captures the feedback loops between users and digital media, this article provides theoretical grounding and practical guidelines for “mirroring” DDPs to users. Based on exercises with 64 participants, we articulate through an illustrative case study how DDPs can serve as prompts, contexts, and reflections, revealing reflexive strategies users employ to curate information flows on algorithmic platforms like Instagram. In addition, we introduce an open-source web application to operationalize DDPs as data mirrors for non-technical researchers.
AraujoTAusloosJVan AtteveldtW, et al. (2022) OSD2F: an open-source data donation framework. Computational Communication Research4(2): 372–387.
2.
ArcherMS (2007) Making Our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AusloosJDewitteP (2018) Shattering one-way mirrors—data subject access rights in practice. International Data Privacy Law8(1): 4–28.
4.
AusloosJVealeM (2021) Researching with data rights. Technology and Regulation2020: 136–157.
5.
BagnascoAGhirottoLSassoL (2014) Theoretical sampling. Journal of Advanced Nursing70(11): 6–7.
6.
BartonKC (2015) Elicitation techniques: getting people to talk about ideas they don’t usually talk about. Theory & Research in Social Education43(2): 179–205.
7.
BengtssonM (2018) Think-aloud reading: selected audiences’ concurrent reaction to the implied audience in political commentary. In: KjeldsenJE (ed.) Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric: Exploring Audiences Empirically. New York: Springer, pp. 161–183.
8.
BengtssonSJohanssonS (2021) A phenomenology of news: Understanding news in digital culture. Journalism22(11): 2873-2889.
9.
BoeschotenLAusloosJMöllerJE, et al. (2022) A framework for privacy preserving digital trace data collection through data donation. Computational Communication Research4(2): 388–423.
10.
BoeschotenLde SchipperNCMendrikAM, et al. (2023) Port: a software tool for digital data donation. Journal of Open Source Software8(90): 5596.
11.
BreuerJKmettyZHaimM, et al. (2022) User-centric approaches for collecting Facebook data in the ‘post-API age’: experiences from two studies and recommendations for future research. Information Communication & Society26(14): 2649–2668.
12.
CarrièreTCBoeschotenLStruminskayaB, et al. (2024) Best practices for studies using digital data donation. Quality & Quantity59: 389–412.
13.
CouldryNMejiasUA (2019) The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
DuboisEFordH (2015) Qualitative political communication trace interviews: an actor-centered approach. International Journal of Communication9: 25.
15.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Standford: Stanford University Press.
16.
Gomez OrtegaABourgeoisJHutiriWT, et al. (2023) Beyond data transactions: a framework for meaningfully informed data donation. AI & Society40: 1–18.
17.
Groot KormelinkTHouwingFStruminskayaB, et al. (2025) Meaningful informed consent? How participants experience and understand data donation. Information Communication & Society1: 1–18.
18.
HaseVAusloosJBoeschotenL, et al. (2024) Fulfilling data access obligations: how could (and should) platforms facilitate data donation studies?Internet Policy Review13(3): 1793.
19.
JiménezTROrozcoM (2021) Prompts not questions: four techniques for crafting better interview protocols. Qualitative Sociology44(4): 507–528.
KaufmannK (2018) The smartphone as a snapshot of its use: mobile media elicitation in qualitative interviews. Mobile Media & Communication6(2): 233–246.
23.
KeuschFPankowskaPKCernatA, et al. (2024) Do you have two minutes to talk about your data? Willingness to participate and nonparticipation bias in Facebook Data donation. Field Methods36(4): 279–293.
24.
KvaleSBrinkmannS (2008) Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. New York: Sage.
25.
LazerDPentlandAAdamicL, et al. (2009) Computational social science. Science323(5915): 721–723.
26.
LuptonD (2017) Feeling your data: touch and making sense of personal digital data. new media & society19(10): 1599–1614.
27.
MahnkeMSSwartJMathieuD, et al. (2024) Data reflectivity and user reflexivity: new conceptual pathways for connecting structural approaches with user perspectives. Convergence30(6): 1859–1870.
28.
MancosuMVegettiF (2020) What you can scrape and what is right to scrape: a proposal for a tool to collect public Facebook data. Social Media + Society6(3): 1–11.
29.
ManzoorA (2017) Social media as mirror of society. In: TrivediSKDeySAnil Kumar, et al. (eds) Handbook of Research on Advanced Data Mining Techniques and Applications for Business Intelligence. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 128–141.
30.
MarresN (2017) Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
31.
MathieuD (2023) Deconstructing the notion of algorithmic control over datapublics. In: HartleyJMSørensenJKMathieuD (eds) Datapublics. Bristol: Policy Press/Bristol University Press, pp. 27–48.
32.
MathieuDPavlíčkováT (2017) Cross-media within the Facebook newsfeed: the role of the reader in cross-media uses. Convergence23(4): 425–438.
33.
MathieuDPruulmann VengerfeldtP (2020) Data loop of media and audience: how audiences and media actors make datafication work. Mediekultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research36(69): 116–138.
34.
MöllerJvan de VeldeRNMertenL, et al. (2020) Explaining online news engagement based on browsing behavior: creatures of habit?Social Science Computer Review38(5): 616–632.
OhmeJAraujoTBoeschotenL, et al. (2024) Digital trace data collection for social media effects research: APIs data donation, and (Screen) tracking. Communication Methods and Measures18(2): 124–141.
37.
PeetersSHagenS (2022) The 4CAT capture and analysis toolkit: a modular tool for transparent and traceable social media research. Computational Communication Research4(2): 571–589.
PeirceCS (1932) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Volume II Elements of Logic. 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
PfiffnerNFriemelTN (2023) Leveraging data donations for communication research: exploring drivers behind the willingness to donate. Communication Methods and Measures17(3): 227–249.
41.
PfiffnerNWitloxPFriemelTN (2024) Data donation module: a web application for collecting and enriching data donations. Computational Communication Research6(2): Article2.
42.
PiconeICourtoisCPaulussenS (2015) When news is everywhere: understanding participation, cross-mediality and mobility in journalism from a radical user perspective. Journalism Practice9(1): 35–49.
43.
Pierce-GroveRWatkinsEA (2024) Integrating trace data into interviews: better interviews, better data. Convergence30(6): 2059–2074.
44.
Pop StefanijaAPiersonJ (2024) Repairing what’s not broken—algorithm repair manual as reflexivity device. Convergence30(6): 1871–1892.
45.
Pop StefanijaAPiersonJ (2025) Seeing (like) a platform: using data rights for participatory study of platforms. Platforms & Society2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/29768624251383736
46.
PrainsackB (2019) Data donation: how to resist the iLeviathan. In: KrutzinnaJFloridiL (eds) The Ethics of Medical Data Donation, Vol. 137. New York: Springer, pp. 9–22.
47.
PreyR (2018) Nothing personal: algorithmic individuation on music streaming platforms. Media Culture & Society40(7): 1086–1100.
RussellLD (2022) Life story interviewing as a method to co-construct narratives about resilience. Qualitative Report27(2): 348–365.
51.
SchrøderKC (2016) Reception analysis. In: MazzoleniGBarnhurstKGIkedaK, et al. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–9.
52.
SkatovaAGouldingJ (2019) Psychology of personal data donation. PLoS ONE14(11): e0224240.
53.
Van DrielIIGiachanouAPouwelsJL, et al. (2022) Promises and pitfalls of social media data donations. Communication Methods and Measures16(4): 266–282.
VisSJurgDPiconeI (2025) What roles can journalists (Still) play for the self-curating news user? Exploring how young adults tailor their social media news feeds. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 27 November. DOI: 10.1177/10776990251385978.
