The 5th International Data Power Conference has just concluded, offering a thought-provoking exploration of the power dynamics behind data practices and their wide-reaching social, political, economic, and cultural impacts. This year’s conference centred on moving “beyond data universalism”, challenging us to consider how data is shaped by the power relations in specific contexts. Researchers and practitioners from various disciplines gathered to discuss critical issues such as the influence of place and time on data, the infrastructure that sustains data power and the methodologies required to study these dynamics both locally and globally. Throughout the event, conversations emphasised justice, inequality and the role of resistance in an increasingly data-driven world. The Data Stories team were involved in various sessions of this conference.
Artist Joan Somers Donnelly led one of the ‘Making & Doing’ sessions on the first afternoon of the conference, introducing some of the arts-based methods she has used to undertake collaborative research as Phase 2 of the Data Stories project. The workshop drew mostly on work she has done with a citizen-led group, the Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance, together with researcher Juliette Davret. So far, the collaborative stage of the case study has involved facilitating the group to (a) reflect on the structure of their network and how they use it to tell different stories with planning data and to (b) continue strategising on how they might re-position themselves within the ecosystem of planning and public participation in order to amplify those stories.
Two of the exercises were analogue 3D mapping exercises; one using paper, pens and objects that participants undertook from the perspective of a current project they are working on; and another using our bodies in space to map consensus / dissensus on different statements, in this case about the potential future directions of a citizen-led group at somewhat of a crossroads (scenario from the case study). The third exercise was a role-playing exercise where participants focused on inhabiting the different points of view of the people they work alongside or (want to) collaborate with. For this exercise participants again chose scenarios from their own work.
The exercises generated lively discussion, in pairs and the wider group, on the topics that emerged as well as on the methods used. Many of the participants expressed that it was refreshing to do something active and hands-on, and to think in general about the possibilities research creation / arts-based research can open up in terms of collaborating with people who are not researchers by training, particularly groups that are self-organised and might not have access to institutional resources or platforms. There was also discussion about the fact that working with tactile materials can be an interesting bridging strategy when bringing together people from different disciplines or backgrounds.
Towards the end of the session, Joan shared some of her ongoing reflections on collaborative arts-based research with stakeholders, and fostering fertile conditions and relationships for these kinds of approaches. For example, that it can be a way to feed research insights back to a group on the ground that is also generative for them, and that an artistic praxis can do a lot more than create artworks, for example creating different frames and ways of talking, thinking, making and doing. While she stressed that it takes time, patience and willingness to engage in an open-ended process to build the relationships and trust needed, she discussed how integrating collaborative art practices in particular, i.e. art that involves the participation of people without an arts background, can serve to shift attention to the relational and affective aspects and subjectivities at stake in research, activism, policy work and other fields.
There were several other presentations at the conference that dealt with the topic of participant-led research, research-creation, arts-based research, and research co-production (among the many terms used by people from different contexts to describe these related research practices) including an inspiring keynote by Kim Sawchuk and Eric Craven about drawing data ecosystems as swamps with older individuals. It was very enjoyable and productive to swap (swampy) notes with other researchers and artists, both about the challenges of implementing these kinds of practices and the different kinds of knowledge exchange that they can open up.
[Image Source: Stiefkind Fotografie Graz]
Juliette Davret had the opportunity to present a paper* on the intersection of open-access data, data capitalism and urban planning during the Situating Open Data Practices session on Friday 6th. Drawing on West’s (2017) theories of data capitalism, the paper explored how the commodification of data creates asymmetrical power relationships, particularly in the realm of open-access data. The paper examined how capitalist models transform raw data into valuable products, flipping the dynamics so that the creators of open-access data often become its buyers.
[Image Source: Stiefkind Fotografie Graz]
Findings emerged from one of our case studies in the Data Stories project, which focused on a company specialising in the commercialisation of open-access data within the Irish urban planning system. The study revealed the intricate process of consolidating disparate data systems into one unified product, a task that involved breaking down data silos, validating information and merging these data streams into a coherent whole.
The research was built on a robust set of methods, including four semi-structured interviews with key employees, two meetings to discuss their operations and three walkthroughs of their data processes. This data was further explored through three speculative fiction-based workshops designed by artist, Mel Galley, offering a creative lens into the company’s data philosophy.
One of the paper’s key insights was an understanding of data flows between Ireland and data intermediaries as far afield as South Asia, illustrating the complexities of managing multiple data systems. We highlighted how a capitalist approach to data streamlines data infrastructure, making information management more efficient and strategic, but also raising crucial questions about data ethics and the roles of intermediaries.
Finally, the paper examined how the rise of digital planning processes and the open data movement (Lund, 2017) is challenging traditional capitalist data models. As urban planning becomes more digitised, it’s essential to strike a balance between economic gain and ethical use of open-access data, ensuring that this valuable resource is managed responsibly in the public interest.
The paper presentation was followed by a lively discussion with the other panellists, focusing on the long-running debate about the role of the state in the open data movement. For years, researchers have questioned the extent to which governments should be responsible for the quality, accessibility and ethical use of open data. While many argue that the state has a duty to regulate and maintain high standards, some panellists have raised the provocative point that it may not be the government’s role to guarantee the quality of open data.
This discussion focuses on the idea that open data, by its very nature, thrives in decentralised and collaborative environments, where multiple stakeholders – private companies, researchers and civil society – can contribute to the validation, refinement and use of data. Rather than placing the responsibility solely on the state, there is a growing belief that the open data ecosystem should be self-regulating, with market forces, public control and third-party organisations playing a greater role in ensuring data quality and ethical use.
This shift in perspective challenges the traditional view of governments as the central authority for data governance. It suggests that while the state can and should facilitate access to data and define general ethical guidelines, its role may be more limited when it comes to exercising practical supervision. As open data initiatives continue to evolve, the question remains: can we trust other actors to enforce quality and ethical standards, or must the state still play an active role in safeguarding the public interest? This ongoing debate is crucial, as open data becomes an increasingly powerful tool for shaping society.
[Image Source: Stiefkind Fotografie Graz]
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the conference organisers, who did a remarkable job ensuring everything was as enjoyable as possible for us.
References:
*Davret J., Mutter S., Kayanan C. M., Kitchin R. & Galley M. (2024) Open access data, data capitalism and urban planning, Data Power 5.0, Graz, Austria. 4-6 September
West, S.M., 2019. Data Capitalism: Redefining the Logics of Surveillance and Privacy. Business & Society 58, 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317718185
Lund, A., 2017. The Open Data Movement in the Age of Big Data Capitalism. Westminster Institute for Advanced Studies (WIAS), University of Westminster.