The social imaginaries of data activism

Abstract

Data activism, promoting new forms of civic and political engagement, has emerged as a response to problematic aspects of datafication that include tensions between data openness and data ownership, and asymmetries in terms of data usage and distribution. In this article, we discuss MyData, a data activism initiative originating in Finland, which aims to shape a more sustainable citizen-centric data economy by means of increasing individuals' control of their personal data. Using data gathered during long-term participant-observation in collaborative projects with data activists, we explore the internal tensions of data activism by first outlining two different social imaginaries-technological and socio-criticalwithin MyData, and then merging them to open practical and analytical space for engaging with the socio-technical futures currently in the making. While the technological imaginary favours data infrastructures as corrective measures, the socio-critical imaginary questions the effectiveness of technological correction. Unpacking them clarifies the kinds of political and social alternatives that different social imaginaries ascribe to the notions underlying data activism, and highlights the need to consider the social structures in play. The more far-reaching goal of our exercise is to provide practical and analytical resources for critical engagement in the context of data activism. By merging technological and socio-critical imaginaries in the work of reimagining governing structures and knowledge practices alongside infrastructural arrangements, scholars can depart from the most obvious forms of critique, influence data activism practice, and formulate data ethics and data futures.

Data agency at stake: MyData activism and alternative frames of equal participation

“…This would involve the inclusion of other kinds of value derived from data, in addition to the competitive value gained from data that others do not have. Value could be drawn from using data for the common good, or for serving the interests of specific communities (Lehtiniemi and Ruckenstein, 2019; Cinnamon, 2017). The roles offered to people could, therefore, be extended from consumers toward participants in a manner that is grounded in rights and the common good (Cardullo and Kitchin, 2018).…”

“…The QS community, however, provides contrasting evidence: it maintains ambiguous valuations and supports the commercialization of self-tracking technologies, while simultaneously preventing the co-optation of the community by commercial values (Barta and Neff, 2016). Significantly, whereas QS pursues individual and community learning, MyData’s means for social change are dependent on success in shaping an ecosystem of new, also commercial, services (see Lehtiniemi and Ruckenstein, 2019). Instigating social change by means of a gradually expanding technical and commercial ecosystem necessitates, for example, demonstrating the benefits for start-ups that aim to occupy niches in it.…”

“…The first author has closely followed MyData in Finland through participant observation in research projects since 2014 (see Lehtiniemi and Ruckenstein, 2019). Data for this research were collected in the context of participant observation at a conference called “MyData 2016” (https://mydata2016.org).…”

The Nordic data imaginary

“…It has to be noted, that parallel, but separate to the described ventures in Finland, there is a growing tendency to focus on the informational rights of the individual (Lehtim€ aki and Ruckenstein, 2019). However, the perspectives from the MyData movement (Poikola et al, 2015) or data activism (Kennedy, 2018) have not been integrated into the legislation concerning the secondary use of social and health data or the establishment of the Finnish nor the Danish Genome Centre.…”

From data politics to the contentious politics of data

“…They have stressed how nongovernmental organizations and human rights defenders, among others, encounter difficulties in making sense of widespread surveillance (Dencik and Cable, 2017;Gangadharan and Je Rdrzej, 2018), and how mechanized processing of data amplifies existing forms of discrimination (Arora, 2016;Hoffmann, 2019). They have shown how novel alliances between previously discrete realms of activism emerge (Baack, 2018;Gutierrez, 2018), and how people creatively make sense of the complexity of algorithmic processes (Bucher, 2017;Lehtiniemi and Ruckenstein, 2018).…”