SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 4 Sayı: 7

Proactive Data Activism within the Framework of Communicative Action Theory: The Case of DataKind

Ilgar Seyıdov(ATILIM UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8420-1413
Pages
577–600
Publication Date
2022-10-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the theory, interactive structure, argumentation base and implementation formation of DataKind were analyzed in a detailed way.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The current age is also known as the Big Data age, which refers to the abundance of varied, complex data and information.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While the digitalization process has provided online, non-physical social identities and communication platforms for people, the datafication process has offered the use of data in different areas of humanity effectively and salutarily.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the theory, interactive structure, argumentation base and implementation formation of DataKind were analyzed in a detailed way.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:data activism · big data · communicative action theory

Abstract

The current age is also known as the Big Data age, which refers to the abundance of varied, complex data and information. While the digitalization process has provided online, non-physical social identities and communication platforms for people, the datafication process has offered the use of data in different areas of humanity effectively and salutarily. Since humanitarian issues such as famine, education, health, etc. are increasing dramatically worldwide, the activists and organizations have started to benefit from the datafication process for social changes. In the last decade, data activism has become a phenomenon in the scope of digital activism practices. The current study focuses on this new trend data activism and aims to find out how proactive data activism can be understood within communicative action theory. In this vein, case study analysis was selected as the research method to examine the data activist platform DataKind. Based on the theory, interactive structure, argumentation base and implementation formation of DataKind were analyzed in a detailed way.

Özet

İçinde yaşadığımız “Büyük Veri” olarak da bilinen çağ, karmaşık veri ve enformasyon bolluğu ve çeşitliliği ile tanımlanmaktadır. Sıkça tartışılan dijitalleşme süreç bireylere çevrimiçi ortamda fiziksel olmayan sosyal kimlikler ve iletişim platformları sunarken, verileşme süreci ise verinin çeşitli toplum bilimlerinde etkili şekilde kullanılmasını mümkün hale getirmiştir. Özellikle açlık, eğitim, sağlık gibi dünya genelinde hızla artan ve yayılan insani sorunlarla mücadele edilmesinde son yıllarda verileşme sürecinden etkili şekilde kullanılmaktadır. Bu anlamda dijital aktivizm uygulamaları arasında veri aktivizmi önemli ve popüler bir anlayış haline dönüşmüştür. Bu çalışma yeni bir aktivizm türü olarak veri aktivizmi anlayışı üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Temelde pro-aktif veri aktivizmin İletişimsel Eylem Teorisi çerçevesinde ele alınarak seçilen DataKind örneği üzerinden incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma tekniği olarak örnek olay çalışması/vaka analizi seçilmiştir. Habermas’ın İletişimsel Eylem Teorisine bağlı kalarak ilgili platform, interaktif yapı, argümantasyon süreci ve uygulama biçimi gibi alt kategoriler altında kapsamlı olarak incelenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Seyıdov, I. (2022). Proactive Data Activism within the Framework of Communicative Action Theory: The Case of DataKind. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 7, 577–600. https://ajindex.com/articles/1571540

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Beraldo, D., & Milan, S. (2019). From Data Politics to the Contentious Politics of Data. Big Data & Society, 1-11. DOI: 10.1177/2053951719885967
  2. Berg, L. B. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn-Bacon.
  3. Breiter, A., & Hepp, A. (2018). The Complexity of Datafication: Putting Digital Traces in Context. In A. Hepp, A. Breiter and U. Hasebrink (eds.), Communicative Figurations (pp. 387-407). Bremen: Palgrave Macmillan.
  4. Chenou, J., & Cepeda-Masmela, C. (2019). #NiUnamenos: Data Activism from the South. Television & New Media, 20 (4), 396-411. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1527476419828995
  5. Chriss, J. J. (1995). Habermas, Goffman, and Communicative Action: Implications for Professional Practice. American Sociological Review, 60 (4), 545-565
  6. Dahlberg, L. (2005). The Habermasian Public Sphere: Taking Difference Seriously? Theor Soc, 34, 111-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-005-0155-z
  7. DataKind Platform. (2020). Information about the Platform. Retrieved from: https://www.datakind.org/ (accessed date: 15 September 2020).
  8. DataKind Platform. (2020). DataCorps section. Retrieved from: https://www.datakind.org/datacorps (accessed date: 21 September 2020)
  9. DataKind Platform. (2020). DataKind Projects. Retrieved from: https://www.datakind.org/projects/using-time-series-forecasting-to-improve-access-to-safe-sanitation (accessed date 21 September 2020)
  10. DataKind Platform. (2020). DataKind Projects. Retrieved from: https://www.datakind.org/projects/identifying-food-bank-dependency-early (accessed date 22 September 2020)
  11. DataKind Platform. (2020). DataKind Projects. Retrieved from: https://www.datakind.org/blog/using-machine-learning-to-understand-what-drives-student-success-in-dallas-county (accessed date 23 September 2020)
  12. DataDive Projects. (2020). DataDive Section. Retrieved from: https://www.datakind.org/datadive (accessed date 21 September 2020)
  13. Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge
  14. Flecha, R., Gomez, J., & Puigvert, L. (2001). The Theory of Communicative Action. Contemporary Sociological Theory, 250, 109-127.
  15. Gilhem, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. New York: Continuum.
  16. Given, M. L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  17. Gutierrez, M. (2018). Data Activism and Social Change. Madrid: Palgrave Macmillan
  18. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and The Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
  19. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action-Volume II. Boston: Beacon Press
  20. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  21. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  22. Hancock, R. D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing Case Study Research. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
  23. Hepp, A., & Hasebrink, U. (2018). Researching Transforming Communications in Times of Deep Medialization: A Figurational Approach. In A. Hepp, A. Breiter and U. Hasebrink (eds.), Communicative Figurations (pp. 15-51). Bremen: Palgrave Macmillan.
  24. Houtlosser, P. (2001). Points of View. In H.F. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, (pp.27-51). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  25. Jezierska, K. (2019). With Habermas against Habermas. Deliberation without Consensus. Journal of Public Deliberation, 15 (1), 1-31. DOI: 10.16997/jdd.326
  26. Kannengieber, S. (2019). Reflecting and Acting on Datafication- Crypto-parties as an Example of Reactive Data Activism. Convergence, 1-14. DOI: 10.1177/1354856519893357
  27. Kennedy, H., Poell, T., & van Dijck, J. (2015). Data and Agency. Big Data & Society, 1-7. DOI: 10.1177/2053951715621569
  28. Kennedy, H. (2018). Living with Data: Aligning Data Studies and Data Activism Through a Focus on Everyday Experiences of Datafication. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, (1), 18-30. DOI: 10.1177/2053951715621569
  29. Keane, J. (1975). On Tools and Language: Habermas on Work and Interaction. New German Critique, 6, 82-100.
  30. Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, New Epistemologies and Paradigm Shift. Big Data & Society, 1-12. DOI: 10.1177/2053951714528481
  31. Lehtiniemi, T., & Ruckenstein, M. (2019). The Social Imaginaries of Data Activism. Big Data & Society, 1-12. DOI: 10.1177/2053951718821146
  32. Lewis, S. C., & Westlund, O. (2015). Big data and journalism. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 447-466. https://doi.org/10.1 080/21670811.2014.976418
  33. Lycett, M. (2013). Datafication: Making Sense of Big Data in a Complex World. European Journal of Information Systems, 22 (4), 381-386. DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2013.10
  34. Milan, S., & Gutierrez, M. (2015). Citizen’s Media Meets Big Data: The Emergence of Data Activism. Mediaciones, 14, 120-132.
  35. Milan, S., & van der Velden, L. (2016). The Alternative Epistemology of Data Activism. Digital Culture and Society, 2 (2), 57-74. DOI 10.14361/dcs-2016-0205
  36. Moffat-Hannah, K. (2019). Algorithmic Risk Governance: Big Data Analytics, Race and Information Activism in Criminal Justice Debates. Theoretical Criminology, 23 (4), 453-470. tps://doi.org/10.1177/1362480618763582
  37. Pellegrino, G., Söderberg, J., & Milan, S. (2019). Datafication from Below: Epistemology, Ambivalences, Challenges. Tecnoscienza, 10 (1), 89-113.
  38. Renzi, A., & Langlois, G. (2015). Data Activism. In G. Langlois, J. Redden and G. Elmer (eds.), Compromised Data: From Social Media to Big Data (pp.202-226). New York: Bloomsbury.
  39. Richer, B., Cinnamon, J., & Dierwechter, Y. (2020). When Open Data and Data Activism Meet: An Analysis of Civic Participation in Cape Town, South Africa. The Canadian Geography, 1-15. DOI: 10.1111/cag.12608
  40. Rochberg-Halton, E. (1989). Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Etherealization. Symbolic Interaction, 12 (2), 333-360.
  41. Salter, L. (2003). Democracies, New Social Movement and the Internet: A Habermasian Analysis. In M. M. Coughey & M. A. Ayers (eds.), Cyberactivisim (pp. 117-145). New York: Routledge.
  42. Sandberg, F. (2012). A Habermasian Analysis of a Process of Recognition of Prior Learning for Healthcare Assistants. Adult Education Quarterly, 62 (4), 351-370. DOI: 10.1177/0741713611415835
  43. Uricchio, W. (2017). Data Culture and the Ambivalence of Algorithm. In M. T. Schafer and K. van Es (eds.). The Datafied Society (pp.125-139). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  44. Van Eemeren H, F. (2001). Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  45. Yin, K. R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  46. Kennedy, H. (2018). Living with Data: Aligning Data Studies and Data Activism Through a Focus on Everyday Experiences of Datafication. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, (1), 18-30. DOI: 10.1177/2053951715621569