Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article reimagines the quantified self within the context of Black feminist technologies. Bringing computation and autoethnographic methods together using a methodology I call computational digital autoethnography, I harvest my social media data to create a corpus for analysis. I apply topic modeling to these data to uncover themes that are connected with broader societal issues affecting African American women. Applying a computational autoethnographic approach to a researcher’s own digitized data allows for yet another dimension of mixed-methods research. This radical intervention has the potential to transform the social sciences by bringing together two seemingly divergent methodological approaches in service to Black feminist ways of knowing.

Keywords

Black feminism computation autoethnography topic modeling

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ananny

(2011, April). The curious connection between apps for gay men and sex offenders. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/04/the-curious-connection-between-apps-for-gay-men-and-sex-offenders/237340/

Anderson

(2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 373-395.

Back

Stopfer

Vazire

Gaddis

Schmukle

Egloff

Gosling

(2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372-374.

Bailey

(2015). #transform(ing) DH writing and research: An autoethnography of digital humanities and feminist ethics. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/2/000209/000209.html

Balsamo

(1996). Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Beer

(2016.). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1-13.

Berg

(2014). Participatory trouble: Towards an understanding of algorithmic structures on Facebook. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(3), Article 2.

Blei

(2012a). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77-84.

Blei

(2012b). Topic modeling and digital humanities. Journal of Digital Humanities, 2(1). Retrieved from http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-1/topic-modeling-and-digital-humanities-by-david-m-blei/

10.

Bonilla-Silva

(2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

11.

Bovens

Hartmann

(2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

12.

Boylorn

Orbe

(2014). Critical autoethnography: Intersecting cultural identities in everyday life. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

13.

Brown

N. M.

Mendenhall

Black

Van Moer

Lourentzou

Zeria

Flynn

(2016). Mechanized Margin to Digitized Center: Black Feminism’s Contributions to Combatting Erasure within the Digital Humanities. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 10, 110-125.

14.

Brown

(2013). Hear our truths: The creative potential of black girlhood. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

15.

Brown

Carducci

Kuby

(2014). Disrupting qualitative inquiry: Possibilities and tensions in educational research. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

16.

Bucher

(2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14, 1164-1180.

17.

Chang

Gerrish

Wang

Boyd-Graber

Blei

(2009). Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. In Bengio

Schuurmans

Lafferty

J. D.

Williams

C. K. I.

Culotta

(Eds.), Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 288-296). New York, USA: Curran Associates Inc.

18.

Coenen

(2011). Data mining: Past, present and future. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(1), 25-29.

19.

Collins

(1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

20.

Cooper

(2015). Love no limit: Towards a black feminist future (In theory). The Black Scholar, 45, 7-21.

21.

Crystal

(2004). The language revolution. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

22.

Daniels

(2009). Rethinking Cyberfeminism(s): Race, Gender, and Embodiment. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37, 101-124.

23.

Deleuze

(1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. October, 59(1), 3-7.

24.

Denzin

(1997). Performance texts. In Tierney

Lincoln

(Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-Framing the Narrative Voice (pp. 179-218). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

25.

Dixon-Romàn

(2016). Algo-Ritmo: More-than-human performative acts and the racializing assemblages of algorithmic architectures. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16, 482-490.

26.

Dodge

(2010). Code/space. Urbis Research Forum Review, 1(2), 15-25.

27.

Eckert

(2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 12(4), 453-476.

28.

Ellis

Adams

(2014). The purposes, practices, and principles of autoethnographic research. Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199811755-e-004

29.

Ellis

Bochner

(2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Fernandez

Wilding

(2003). Situating cyberfeminisms. In Fernandez

Wilding

Wright

(Eds.), Domain errors! Cyberfeminist practices (pp. 17-28). Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.

31.

Geertz

(1991). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

32.

Gillespie

(2014). The relevance of algorithms. In Gillespie

Boczkowski

Foot

(Eds.), Media Technologies (pp. 167-194). Cambridge: MIT Press.

33.

Gosling

Vazire

Srivastava

John

(2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93-104.

34.

Hall

(1997). The work of representation. In Hall

(Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 13-74). London, England: Sage.

35.

Haraway

(1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Haraway

(Ed.), Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149-181). New York, NY: Routledge

36.

Harris-Perry

(2011). Sister citizen. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

37.

hooks

(2000). All about love. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

38.

Houston

Kramarae

(1991). Speaking from silence: Methods of silencing and of resistance. Discourse & Society, 2, 387-399.

39.

Johnson

E. P.

(2009). “Quare” studies, or (almost) everything i know about queer studies i learned from my grandmother. In Giffney

O’Rourke

(Eds.), The Ashgate research Companion to Queer Theory (pp. 451-469). Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

40.

Kendall

(1998). Meaning and identity in “cyberspace”: The performance of gender, class, and race online. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 129-153.

41.

Knowles

J. G.

Cole

(2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

42.

Kosinski

Matz

Gosling

Popov

Stillwell

(2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. The American Psychologist, 70, 543-556.

43.

Kruschke

(2011). Bayesian data analysis. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

44.

Lazer

Pentland

Adamic

Aral

Barabasi

Brewer

Alstyne

(2009). Computational Social Science. Science, 323, 721-723.

45.

Lenhart

Purcell

Smith

Zickuhr

(2010, February). Social media and young adults. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/social-media-and-young-adults/

46.

Lorde

(1984). Sister outsider. Berkeley, CA: The Crossing Press.

47.

Marciniek

(2016). Computational text analysis: Thoughts on the contingencies of an evolving method. Big Data & Society, 3, 1-5. doi:10.1177/2053951716670190

48.

McCallum

(2002). MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. Retrieved from http://mallet.cs.umass.edu

49.

McClain

(2015, July). Why 100 black intellectuals rallied behind this professor. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/why-100-black-intellectuals-rallied-behind-this-professor/

50.

McKelvey

(2014). Algorithmic media need democratic methods: Why publics matter. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39, 597-613.

51.

Mehl

Gosling

Pennebaker

(2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 862-877.

52.

Mehra

Merkel

Peterson

(2004). The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, 6, 781-802.

53.

Miller

(2011). Social scientists wade into the tweet stream. Science, 333, 1814-1815.

54.

Mohr

Bogdanov

(Eds.). (2013). Topic models and the cultural sciences. Poetics, 41, 545-770.

55.

Montangero

Maurice-Naville

(1997). Piaget or the advance of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

56.

Morozov

(2013, October). The real privacy problem. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/

57.

Noble

(2013, October). Google search: Hypervisibility as a means of rendering black women and girls invisible. InVisible Culture: An Electronic Journal for Visual Culture. Retrieved from http://ivc.lib.rochester.edu/google-search-hyper-visibility-as-a-means-of-rendering-black-women-and-girls-invisible/

58.

Pace

(2012, April). Writing the self into research: Using grounded theory analytic strategies in autoethnography. Text. Retrieved from http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue13/Pace.pdf

59.

Papacharissi

(2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

60.

Pennebaker

King

(1999). Linguistic styles: Language usage as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312.

61.

Sandvig

Hamilton

Karahalios

Langbort

(2014, May 22). Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and Discrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry, 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Seattle, WA. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~csandvig/research/Auditing%20Algorithms%20–%20Sandvig%20–%20ICA%202014%20Data%20and%20Discrimination%20Preconference.pdf

62.

Schwartz

H. A.

Eichstaedt

Kern

Dziurzynski

Ramones

Agrawal

Ungar

(2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73791.

63.

Semaan

Faucett

Robertson

Maruyama

Douglas

(2015, March 14-18). Navigating imagined audiences: Motivations for participating in the online public sphere. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

64.

Sweeney

(2013). Discrimination in online ad delivery. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2208240

65.

Tausczik

Pennebaker

(2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24-54.

66.

Tierney

Lincoln

(1997). Representation and the Text: Re-framing the Narrative Voice. Albany: SUNY Press.

67.

Weinberger

(2011). Web of war: Can computational social science help to prevent or win wars? The pentagon is betting millions of dollars on the hope that it will. Nature, 471, 566-568.

Methodological Cyborg as Black Feminist Technology: Constructing the Social Self Using Computational Digital Autoethnography and Social Media

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References