Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Qualitative Digital Research
- Cambridge Handbook of Qualitative Digital Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Philosophical, Epistemological and Theoretical Considerations
- Part II Methodological Considerations
- Part III Illustrative Examples and Emergent Issues
- Chapter 13 Observing Artifacts
- Chapter 14 Algorithms as Co-Researchers
- Chapter 15 Sensemaking about HRV Data of High-Performing Individuals
- Chapter 16 The Rich Facets of Digital Trace Data
- Chapter 17 Balancing the Momentum of Datafication with Qualitative Researchers as Design Thinkers
- Chapter 18 What Data Sharing in Government Tells Us about the Digitalization of Government Services
- Index
- References
Chapter 17 - Balancing the Momentum of Datafication with Qualitative Researchers as Design Thinkers
from Part III - Illustrative Examples and Emergent Issues
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 June 2023
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Qualitative Digital Research
- Cambridge Handbook of Qualitative Digital Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Philosophical, Epistemological and Theoretical Considerations
- Part II Methodological Considerations
- Part III Illustrative Examples and Emergent Issues
- Chapter 13 Observing Artifacts
- Chapter 14 Algorithms as Co-Researchers
- Chapter 15 Sensemaking about HRV Data of High-Performing Individuals
- Chapter 16 The Rich Facets of Digital Trace Data
- Chapter 17 Balancing the Momentum of Datafication with Qualitative Researchers as Design Thinkers
- Chapter 18 What Data Sharing in Government Tells Us about the Digitalization of Government Services
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter introduces the concept of ‘datafication momentum’, which is the tendency for datafication systems to receive more influence from social systems in their early stages and exert more influence on social systems in their mature stages. Due to datafication momentum, datafication systems are prone to be inscribed with the dark side of social systems in their earlier stages, and then amplify this dark side in their later stages (e.g., leading to outcomes like data-driven discrimination). The chapter calls on qualitative researchers to combat this risk with a ‘qualitative researchers as design thinkers’ mindset. In particular, it proposes ‘design forensics’ as a practice in which qualitative researchers integrate design-thinking principles with design ethnography to identify the risk of datafication and shape it to a more desirable end. The chapter introduces three design principles – empathetic datafication, datafication totality and reflective criticism – and discusses their implications for research and practice.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Qualitative Digital Research , pp. 268 - 281Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Agrawal, A., Gans, J. and Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Squire, K. and Newell, M. (2004). Critical design ethnography: Designing for change. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskerville, R. L. and Myers, M. D. (2015). Design ethnography in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 25(1), 23–46.Google Scholar
Baumer, E. P. and Silberman, M. S. (2011). When the implication is not to design (technology). Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Beckman, S. L. (2020). To frame or reframe: Where might design thinking research go next? California Management Review, 62(2), 144–162.Google Scholar
Boland, R. J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2008). Managing as designing: Lessons for organization leaders from the design practice of Frank O. Gehry. Design Issues, 24(1), 10–25.Google Scholar
Boland, R. J. and Lyytinen, K. (2004). Information systems research as design: Identity, process, and narrative. In Kaplan, B., Truex, D. P., Wastell, D., Wood-Harper, A. T. and DeGross, J. I. (eds), Information Systems Research. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 53–68.Google Scholar
Boyd, D., Levy, K. and Marwick, A. (2014). The networked nature of algorithmic discrimination. In Gangadharan, S. P. (ed.), Data and Discrimination: Collected Essays. Washington, DC: Open Technology Institute, pp. 53–57.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the making: Design, management, and the reform of organizational culture. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2001). Human dignity and human rights: Thoughts on the principles of human-centered design. Design Issues, 17(3), 35–39.Google Scholar
Cao, L. (2017). Data science: A comprehensive overview. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(3), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, S. A., Henningsson, S., Hrastinski, S. and Keller, C. (2011). Socio-technical IS design science research: Developing design theory for IS integration management. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 9(1), 109–131.Google Scholar
Carvalho, T. P., Soares, F. A., Vita, R., Francisco, R. D. P., Basto, J. P. and Alcalá, S. G. (2019). A systematic literature review of machine learning methods applied to predictive maintenance. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 137, 1–10.Google Scholar
Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. and Rhodes, C. (2007). Business ethics as practice. British Journal of Management, 18(2), 107–122.Google Scholar
Cossins, D. (2018). Discriminating algorithms: 5 times AI showed prejudice. New Scientist, www.newscientist.com/article/2166207-discriminating-algorithms-5-times-ai-showed-prejudice/.Google Scholar
Davis, D. (1992). Technological momentum, motor buses, and the persistence of Canada’s street railways to 1940. Material Culture Review, 36, 6–17.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen & Lane.Google Scholar
Friendly, M. (2008). A brief history of data visualization. In Chen, C.-H., Härdle, W. and Unwin, A. (eds), Handbook of Data Visualization. Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 15–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitelman, L. and Jackson, V. (2013). Introduction. In Gitelman, L. (ed.), Raw Data Is an Oxymoron. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Haenlein, M. and Kaplan, A. (2019). A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 5–14.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. (2019). The sexist algorithm. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(2), 145–157.Google Scholar
Harvey, L. J. and Myers, M. D. (1995). Scholarship and practice: The contribution of ethnographic research methods to bridging the gap. Information Technology & People, 8(3), 13–27.Google Scholar
Hassan, N. R. and Mingers, J. (2018). Reinterpreting the Kuhnian paradigm in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7), 568–599.Google Scholar
Hauskeller, C. (2020). Care ethics and care contexts: Contributions from feminist philosophy. East Asian Science Technology and Society – an International Journal, 14(1), 153–161.Google Scholar
Heymann, M. and Nielsen, K. H. (2013). Hybridization of electric utility regimes: The case of wind power in Denmark, 1973–1990. RCC Perspectives, 2, 69–74.Google Scholar
Hovorka, D. S. and Germonprez, M. (2010). Reflecting, tinkering, and tailoring: Implications for theories of information system design. In Isomäki, H. and Pekkola, S. (eds), Reframing Humans in Information Systems Development. London: Springer, pp. 135–149.Google Scholar
Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T. and Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out from the control room: Ethnography in system design. Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. P. (1994). Technological momentum. In Smith, M. R. and Marx, L. (eds), Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. London and Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 101–113.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. P. (1969). Technological momentum in history: Hydrogenation in Germany 1898–1933. Past & Present, 44(1), 106–132.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2015). Design anthropology is not and cannot be ethnography. Research Network for Design Anthropology, https://kadk.dk/sites/default/files/08_ingold_design_anthropology_network.doc.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. and Noonan, C. (2017). The doing of datafication (and what this doing does): Practices of edification and the enactment of new forms of sociality in the Indian public health service. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(12), 872–899.Google Scholar
Kim, P. T. (2016). Data-driven discrimination at work. William & Mary Law Review, 58(3), 857–936.Google Scholar
Kimbell, L. (2012). Rethinking design thinking: Part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchin, R. (2014). The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, A. and Tucker, C. (2019). Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of stem career ads. Management Science, 65(7), 2966–2981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledford, H. (2019). Millions of black people affected by racial bias in health-care algorithms. Nature, 574(7780), 608–610.Google Scholar
Lee, J. K. (2016). Reflections on ICT-enabled bright society research. Information Systems Research, 27(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.Google Scholar
Li, M. and Sadler, J. (2011). Power and influence in negotiations. In Benoliel, M. (ed.), Negotiation Excellence: Successful Deal Making. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liakos, K. G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S. and Bochtis, D. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), 1–29.Google Scholar
Lomborg, S. (2020). Disconnection is futile – theorizing resistance and human flourishing in an age of datafication. European Journal of Communication, 35(3), 301–305.Google Scholar
Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013). Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Mehlenbacher, B. (2010). Instruction and Technology: Designs for Everyday Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mejias, U. A. and Couldry, N. (2019). Datafication. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, S. E. (2016). The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence, and Sex Trafficking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Monteiro, E. and Parmiggiani, E. (2019). Synthetic knowing: The politics of the internet of things. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), 167–184.Google Scholar
Myers, M. D. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(23), 1–19.Google Scholar
Myers, M. D. (1997). Critical ethnography in information systems. In Lee, A. S., Liebenau, J. and DeGross, J. I. (eds), Information Systems and Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 276–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyland, R. (2017). HPE: Stay on the cutting edge with software defined OT. CFOtech Australia, https://cfotech.com.au/story/hpe-stay-cutting-edge-software-defined-ot.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things, revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
Press, G. (2013a). A very short history of big data. Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2013/05/09/a-very-short-history-of-big-data/#11cf6ff765a1.Google Scholar
Press, G. (2013b). A very short history of data science. Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2013/05/28/a-very-short-history-of-data-science/#6110a89b55cf.Google Scholar
Razzouk, R. and Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.Google Scholar
Reinsel, D., Gantz, J. and Rydning, J. (2018). Data age 2025: The digitization of the world from edge to core. IDC White Paper, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Scharre, P. (2018). Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132–136.Google Scholar
Sharda, R., Delen, D. and Turban, E. (2016). Business Intelligence, Analytics, and Data Science: A Managerial Perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. and Schonthal, D. (2020). The social psychology of design thinking. California Management Review, 62(2), 84–99.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (1989). The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 551–561.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 169–188.Google Scholar
Van der Aalst, W. M. (2014). Data scientist: The engineer of the future. In Mertins, K., Bénaben, F., Poler, R. and Bourrières, J.-P. (eds), Enterprise Interoperability VI: Interoperability for Agility, Resilience and Plasticity of Collaborations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
Verganti, R. (2017). Overcrowded: Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Viljoen, N. and Van Zyl, R. H. (2009). Design thinking – crossing disciplinary borders. Image & Text, 15, 66–78.Google Scholar
Weber, R. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), III–XII.Google Scholar
Weiss, J. C., Natarajan, S., Peissig, P. L., McCarty, C. A. and Page, D. (2012). Machine learning for personalized medicine: Predicting primary myocardial infarction from electronic health records. AI Magazine, 33(4), 33–45.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A., Brooks, C. F. and Shmargad, Y. (2018). How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: Challenges, solutions, and policy implications. Journal of Information Policy, 8(1), 78–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. and Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6), 865–899.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. J., Daugherty, P. R. and Morini-Bianzino, N. (2017). The jobs that artificial intelligence will create. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4), 14–16.Google Scholar