Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Special issue: Visual Politics

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2024): Special issue on methods in visual politics and protest: Deconstruction, reflexivity & femmix

Get the hammer out! Breaking computational tools for feminist, intersectional “small data” research

DOI
https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v6i2.193
Submitted
April 15, 2023
Published
2024-05-24

Abstract

This paper focuses on revealing how the interplay between algorithmic interactions and the intuitive ways humans navigate digital environments can be researched through a multi-method approach to collecting and critically examining data from online platforms. We use a case study that looks at the role that social media engagement by transnational activists, local activists and celebrities played in amplifying an offline protest by group of women in India. Grounded in a critical feminist perspective, this paper uses multiple methods to demonstrate how the amplification of local protesters work through an interplay of human action and platform algorithmics. We conduct an algorithmic ethnography involving the examination of computational systems shaping online interactions. We examine the digital emergence and recognition of the women of Shaheen Bagh as subaltern political agents/subjects. Understanding of the interplay between online and offline visibility and strategic planning is highlighted. We conduct close readings of small data clusters that emerge within big data networks. We challenge the overreliance on big data methodologies and the fetishization of in-person ethnography (Bishop 2018) over digital ethnography.

References

  1. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Bhatia, K. V. (2022). Hindu nationalism online: Twitter as discourse and interface. Religions, 13(8), 739.
  3. Bishop, S. (2018). Fetishisation of the “offline” in feminist media research. Feminist Media Studies, 18(1), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1407120
  4. Boellstorff, T. (2015). Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. United States: Princeton University Press.
  5. Brock, A., Jr. (2020). Distributed Blackness. NYU Press.
  6. Burgess, J., & Bruns, A. (2015). Easy Data, Hard Data: The Politics and Pragmatics of Twitter Research After the Computational Turn. In G. Langlois, J. Redden, & G. Elmer (Eds.), Compromised data: From social media to big data (pp. 93–111). Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  7. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
  8. Christin, A. (2020). Algorithmic ethnography, during and after COVID-19. Communication and the Public, 5(3-4), 108-111.
  9. Colman, F., Bühlmann, V., O’Donnell, A., & van der Tuin, I. (2018). Ethics of coding: A report on the algorithmic condition [EOC]. European Commission. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/396432
  10. D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data Feminism. MIT Press.
  11. Dey, A., (2020). Sites of exception: Gender violence, digital activism and Nirbhaya’s zone of anomie in India. Violence Against Women 26(11), 1423–44
  12. Edwards, E. L. (2023). Digital Islamophobia: Tracking a Far-Right Crisis. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
  13. Edwards, E., Ford, S., Gajjala, R., & Bhatia, K. V. (2024). Shaheen Bagh: Making sense of (re)emerging “Subaltern” feminist political subjectivities in hashtag publics through critical, feminist interventions. New Media & Society, 26(1), 473-494. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bgsu.edu/10.1177/14614448211059121
  14. Elish, M. C., & boyd, danah. (2018). Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1375130
  15. Elmer, G., Langlois, G., & Redden, J. (2015). Compromised data: From social media to big data. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  16. Faniyi, O. (2023). A herstory of #EndSars: Nuances of intersectionality in Nigeria’s movement against police brutality [Master's thesis, Bowling Green State University]. Ohio Link Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.
  17. Florini, S. (2019). Beyond hashtags: Racial politics and Black digital networks. NYU Press.
  18. Gajjala R (2011) Snapshots from sari trails: Cyborgs old and new, Social Identities, 17(3), 393- 408, DOI: 10.1080/13504630.2011.570977
  19. Gajjala R, Edwards EL, Rahut D, et al. Transnationalising Dadis as Feminist Political/Activist Subjects. Feminist Encounters: A Journal of Critical Studies in Culture and Politics. 2023;7(1), 08. https://doi.org/10.20897/femenc/12886,
  20. Gajjala, R., DeGalan, A., Rahut, D., Akbar, S. Z., & Jain, J. (2023b). Women activists imaged through social media publics: The “Fiesty Dadis of Shaheen Bagh” as political subjects. In M. Lunenborg & B. Rottger-Rossler (Eds.), Affective formation of Publics: Places, networks, and media (pp. 105–128). Routledge.
  21. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in Feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
  22. Howard, P.N., & Hussain, M.M. (2013). Democracy’s fourth wave?: Digital media and the Arab spring. Oxford University Press.
  23. Hui, Y. (2015). A contribution to the political economy of personal archives. In G. Langlois, J. Redden, & G. Elmer (Eds.), Compromised data: From social media to big data (pp. 226–246). Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  24. Jackson, S.J., Bailey, M. & Welles, B. F. (2020). #HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. MIT Press.
  25. Kadiwal, L. (2021). Feminists against Fascism: The Indian female Muslim protest in India. Education Science, 11(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120793
  26. Kermani, H. (2023). #MahsaAmini: Iranian twitter activism in times of computational propaganda. Social Movement Studies, 0(0), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2023.2180354
  27. Latzko-Toth, G., Bonneau, C., & Millette, M. (2017). Small data, thick data: Thickening strategies for trace-based social media research. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media research methods (pp. 199–214). SAGE.
  28. Luki?, J., & Espinosa, A. S. (2011). Feminist perspectives on close reading. In R. Buikema, G. Griffin, & N. Lykke (Eds.), Theories and methodologies in postgraduate feminist research (pp. 105-118). Routledge.
  29. MacKinnon, R. (2012). Consent of the networked: The worldwide struggle for internet freedom. Basic Books.
  30. Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. SAGE.
  31. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114-133.
  32. Mishra, D., Akbar, S. Z., Arya, A., Dash, S., Grover, R., & Pal, J. (2021). Rihanna versus Bollywood: Twitter influencers and the Indian farmers’ protest (arXiv:2102.04031). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.04031
  33. Murthy, D. (2017). The ontology of Tweets: Mixed-method approaches to the study of Twitter. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media research methods (pp. 559-572). SAGE.
  34. Mustafa, S. (ed.) (2020). Shaheen Bagh and the idea of India: Writings on a movement for justice, liberty and equality. Speaking Tiger Books.
  35. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
  36. Pedwell, C. (2019). Digital tendencies: Intuition, algorithmic thought and new social movements. Culture, Theory and Critique, 60(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2019.1579658
  37. Pedwell, C. (2022). Speculative machines and us: More-than-human intuition and the algorithmic condition. Cultural Studies, 0(0), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2022.2142805
  38. Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2015). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. SAGE.
  39. Pink, S., Sumartojo, S., Lupton, D., & Heyes LaBond, C. (2017). Empathetic technologies: digital materiality and video ethnography, Visual Studies, 32(4), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2017.1396192
  40. Poirier, L. (2021). Reading datasets: Strategies for interpreting the politics of data signification. Big Data & Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211029322https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211029322
  41. Renzi, A., & Langlois, G. (2015). Data activism. In G. Langlois, J. Redden, & G. Elmer (Eds.), Compromised data: From social media to big data (pp. 202–225). Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  42. Rettberg, J. W. (2020). Situated data analysis: A new method for analysing encoded power relationships in social media platforms and apps. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–13.
  43. Risam, R. (2018). New digital worlds: Postcolonial digital humanities in theory, praxis, and pedagogy. Northwestern University Press.
  44. Rogers, R. (2019). Doing digital methods. SAGE.
  45. Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., Pirolli, P., & Glaisyer, T. (2011). From slacktivism to activism: participatory culture in the age of social media. In CHI ’11 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 819-822). https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979543
  46. Rouvroy, A., & Stiegler, B. (2016). The digital regime of truth: From the algorithmic governmentality to a new rule of law. La Deleuziana, (3), 6–29.
  47. Salam, Z.U. (2020). Shaheen Bagh: From a protest to a movement. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  48. Seigworth, G. J., & Pedwell, C. (Eds.). (2023). The affect theory reader 2: Worldings, tensions, futures. Duke University Press.
  49. Shahin, S. (2016). A critical axiology for big data studies. Palabra Clave, 19(4), 972–996. https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2016.19.4.2
  50. Sinha, K., Jhalani, P., Khan, A. & Mukherjee, P.C. (2023). Influencers as institutions: Impact of digital politics in the Global South. Global Policy, 14(5), 912-924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13188
  51. Sobande, F., Fearfull, A., & Brownlie, D. (2020). Resisting media marginalisation: Black women’s digital content and collectivity. Consumption Markets & Culture, 23(5), 413-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2019.1571491
  52. Srinivasan, R., (2013). Bridges between cultural and digital worlds in revolutionary Egypt. The Information Society, 29(1), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2012.739594
  53. Strom, D. (2012, August 3). Big data makes things better. Dice Insights. https://www.dice.com/career-advice/big-data-makes-things-better
  54. Tseng, Y. S. (2022). Algorithmic empowerment: A comparative ethnography of two open-source algorithmic platforms–Decide Madrid and vTaiwan. Big Data & Society, 9(2), 20539517221123505. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221123505
  55. Thylstrup, N. B., Agostinho, D., Ring, A., D’Ignazio, C., & Veel, K. (2021). Uncertain archives: Critical keywords for big data. MIT Press.