From Statistics to Stories: Indices and Indicators as Communication Tools for Social Change

Abstract

The terms ‘indices’ and ‘indicators’ may immediately cause eyelids to droop. How, then, might they serve to impassion publics and, ultimately, promote social change? This paper examines the extent to which indices and indicators can be considered communication tools for social movements and social change. The analysis is based on a 2018 evaluation of one index based in the United States – the Ranking Digital Rights Index, which assesses privacy and freedom of expression in the ICT space – and incorporates interviews with civil society stakeholders. Bringing theory from the fields of journalism and social movements together with the data from the evaluation, the findings suggest indices can serve as useful communication resources for social movements under certain circumstances. In particular, the analysis suggests three communication resources – legitimate information, newsworthy information, and flexible information – that human rights indices are most likely to provide.

Keywords

communication journalism freedom of expression indicators social movements

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

K. T.

Caren

. 2010. “Making the News: Movement Organizations, media Attention, and the Public Agenda.” American Sociological Review 75 (6): 841–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410386689.

Baack

2015. “Datafication and Empowerment: How the Open Data Movement re-Articulates Notions of Democracy, Participation, and Journalism.” Big Data & Society 2 (2): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2053951715594634.

Billard

T. J.

2021. “Movement-media Relations in the Hybrid media System: A Case Study from the U.S. Transgender Rights Movement.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 26 (2): 341–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220968525.

boyd

Crawford

. 2012. “Critical Questions for big Data.” Information, Communication & Society 15 (5): 662–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.

Bradley

E. H.

Curry

L. A.

Devers

K. J.

. 2007. “Qualitative Data Analysis for Health Services Research: Developing Taxonomy, Themes, and Theory.” Health Services Research 42 (4): 1758–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x.

Briscoe

Gupta

. 2016. “Social Activism in and Around Organizations.” The Academy of Management Annals 10 (1): 671–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1153261.

Brunner

2017. “Wild Public Networks and Affective Movements in China: Environmental Activism, Social media, and Protest in Maoming.” Journal of Communication 67 (5): 665–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12323.

Bruno

Didier

Vitale

. 2014. “Statactivism: Forms of Action Between Disclosure and Affirmation.” Partecipazione e Conflitto: The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies 7 (2): 198–220. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v7i2p198.

Carroll

W. K.

Hackett

R. A.

. 2006. ““Democratic media Activism Through the lens of Social Movement Theory.” Media, Culture, & Society 28 (1): 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443706059289.

10.

Carson

Farhall

. 2018. “Understanding Collaborative Investigative Journalism in a ‘Post-Truth’ age.” Journalism Studies 19 (13): 1899–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1494515.

11.

Castells

2010. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

12.

Crooks

Currie

. 2021. “Numbers Will not Save us: Agonistic Data Practices.” The Information Society 37 (4): 201–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2021.1920081.

13.

Dayen

2017. “New think tank emails show ‘how Google wields its power’ in Washington.” Theintercept.com.

14.

European Commission. n.d. Ten step guide. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/composite-indicators/10-step-guide/step-10-visualisation_en.

15.

European Commission. 2019. Composite indicators. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/composite-indicators.

16.

Fernback

Papacharissi

. 2007. “Online Privacy as Legal Safeguard: The Relationship among Consumer, Online Portal, and Privacy Policies.” New Media & Society 9 (5): 715–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080336.

17.

Fioramonti

2013. Gross Domestic Problem: The Politics Behind the World’s Most Powerful Number. New York: Zed Books.

18.

Galtung

Ruge

M. H.

. 1965. “The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norweigan Newspapers.” Journal of Peace Research 2: 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200104.

19.

Gamson

W. A.

Wolfsfeld

. 1993. “Movements and media as Interacting Systems.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528: 114–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716293528001009.

20.

Garrett

K. R.

2006. “Protest in an Information Society: A Review of Literature on Social Movements and new ICTs.” Information, Communication & Society 9 (2): 202–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180600630773.

21.

George

2018. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Social media Corporations: Incorporating Human Rights Through Rankings, Self-Regulation and Shareholder Resolutions.” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 28 (3): 521–38. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djcil/vol28/iss3/9

22.

Global Network Initiative. 2017. GNI principles on freedom of expression and privacy. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GNI-Principles-on-Freedom-of-Expression-and-Privacy.pdf .

23.

Green

2001. “What we Talk About When we Talk About Indicators: Current Approaches to Human Rights Measurement.” Human Rights Quarterly 23 (4): 1062–97. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2001.0054.

24.

Hawken

Munck

G. L.

. 2013. “Cross-national Indices with Gender-Differentiated Data: What do They Measure? How Valid are They?” Social Indicators Research 111: 801–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0035-7.

25.

Jackson

1982. “Tactics of Confrontation.” In The Public Affairs Handbook, ed. Nagelschmidt

J. S.

, 211–20. New York: American Management Association.

26.

Jenkins

J. C.

1983. “Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 9 (1): 527–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.002523.

27.

Jiménez-Martínez

2021. “The Instrumental Mediated Visibility of Violence: The 2013 Protests in Brazil and the Limitations of the Protest Paradigm.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 26 (3): 525–46. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1940161220923984.

28.

Joffe

2012. “Thematic Analysis.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners, eds. Harber

Thompson

A. R.

, 209–23. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

29.

Keck

M. E.

Sikkink

. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

30.

Kelly

2019. “Evaluating the News: (Mis)Perceptions of Objectivity and Credibility.” Political Behavior 41 (2): 445–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9458-4.

31.

Kogen

2015. “For the Public Good or Just Good Publicity? Celebrities and Humanitarianism.” Mass Communication and Society 18 (1): 37–57. http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.851699.

32.

Kogen

2019. “News you can use or News That Moves? Journalists’ Rationales for Coverage of Distant Suffering.” Journalism Practice 13 (1): 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1400395.

33.

Langer

A. I.

Gruber

J. B.

. 2021. “Political Agenda Setting in the Hybrid media System: Why Legacy media Still Matter a Great Deal.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 26 (2): 313–40. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1940161220925023.

34.

Lemert

J. B.

1981. Does Mass Communication Change Public Opinion After all? Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

35.

Loukissas

Y. A.

2019. All Data are Local: Thinking Critically in a Data-Driven Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

36.

Maréchal

2015. “Ranking Digital Rights: Human Rights, the Internet and the Fifth Estate.” International Journal of Communication 9 (10): 3440–3449. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3330

37.

Márquez-Ramirez

Mellado

Humanes

M. L.

Amado

Beck

Davydov

Mick

, et al. 2020. “Detached or Interventionist? Comparing the Performance of Watchdog Journalism in Transitional, Advanced and non-Democratic Countries.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 25 (1): 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219872155.

38.

Mattoni

Treré

. 2014. “Media Practices, Mediation Processes, and Mediatization in the Study of Social Movements.” Communication Theory 24 (3): 252–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12038.

39.

Merry

S. E.

2011. “Measuring the World: Indicators, Human Rights, and Global Governance.” Current Anthropology 52 (S3): S83–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/657241.

40.

Merry

S. E.

2016. The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence, and sex Trafficking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

41.

Obregón

Tufte

. 2017. “Communication, Social Movements, and Collective Action: Toward a new Research Agenda in Communication for Development and Social Change.” Journal of Communication 67 (5): 635–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12332.

42.

Porter

T. M.

1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

43.

Stiglitz

J. E.

Sen

Fitoussi

. 2009. Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. https://rlms-hse.cpc.unc.edu/publications/bib/1921/.

44.

United Nations. 1948. Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights .

45.

Waisbord

2009. “Advocacy Journalism in a Global Context.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, eds. Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

, 371–85. New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Waisbord

2015. “Three Challenges for Communication and Global Social Change.” Communication Theory 25 (2): 144–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12068.

47.

Whitten-Woodring

Kleinberg

M. S.

Thawnghmung

Thitsar

M. T.

. 2020. “Poison if you Don’t Know how to use it: Facebook, Democracy, and Human Rights in Myanmar.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 25 (3): 407–25. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1940161220919666.

48.

Wichgers

Jacobs

Spanje

J. V.

. 2021. “The Battle of Frame Building: The Reciprocal Relationship Between Journalists and Frame Sponsors.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 26 (3): 674–98. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1940161220942760.

49.

Wong

Brackley

Petroy

. 2019. Rate the raters 2019: Expert views on ESG ratings. SustainAbility. https://www.sustainability.com/globalassets/sustainability.com/thinking/pdfs/sa-ratetheraters-2019-1.pdf.