Event Recap

Data & Society, an independent, nonprofit research institute in NYC whose mission is to “advance public understanding of the social implications of data-centric technologies and automation,” hosted their first collective reading on the Feminist Data Manifest-No on February 5th. The Feminist Data Manifest-No, in laying a groundwork for ethical research practices, seemed like a worthy addition to the PSMF’s Critical Scholarly Communication project’s online research guide, which seeks to compile and disseminate digital scholarly communication from a critical perspective, so I attended the event and wrote up a brief recap below.

The gathering felt casual and comfortable, with people lounging on sofas and chairs (see image above), rather than sitting upright in rows of plastic chairs. The event was organized into three straight-forward parts: an introduction, public reading of ten declarations from the Feminist Data Manifest-No, and Q&A Session.

I. Introduction

Presenters Marika Cifor (University of Washington – Seattle), Patricia Garcia (University of Michigan – Ann Arbor), and Anita Say Chan (Data & Society) introduced the Feminist Data Manifest-No, a product of a collaborative brainstorming session during a “Feminist Data Studies Workshop” in August 2019, which brought together ten feminist scholars across various disciplines. These co-authors include Marika Cifor, Patricia Garcia, Anita Say, TL Cowan, Jasmine Rault, Tonia Sutherland, Jennifer Rode, Anna Lauren Hoffman, Nilofar Salehi, and Lisa Nakamura.

The manifesto has at its core the centralizing theme of the “Act of Refusal,” which embodies feminist history and struggles, and presents over thirty declarations which seek to promote and create fair, equal, and safe data practices for everyone. The creators of the Feminist Data Manifest-No further define their mission on their website:

“Our refusals and commitments together demand that data be acknowledged as at once an interpretation and in need of interpretation. Data can be a check-in, a story, an experience or set of experiences, and a resource to begin and continue dialogue. It can – and should always – resist reduction. Data is a thing, a process, and a relationship we make and put to use. We can make it and use it differently.”

–https://www.manifestno.com/ 

The Feminist Data Manifest-No is licensed through Creative Commons, a platform which the organizers feel will encourage the document to be a living product and which will engender additional contributions from others. 

II. Public Reading of the Feminist Data Manifest-No

Ten declarations from the Feminist Data Manifest-No, which had been handed out to attendees before the event started, were read out loud by the three presenters, as well as by Anuli Akanegbu (PhD student in NYU’s Sociocultural Anthropology Department), Rona Akbari (writer and producer), Sareeta Amrute (Director of Research at Data & Society), Siera Dissmore (Program Manager of Reserach at Data & Society), Emily Drabinski (Associate Professor and Critical Pedagogy Librarian at The Gradaute Center, CUNY), Tracy Fenix (Artist+ Registry & Archive Associate at Visual AIDS), and Danya Glabau (Visiting Industry Assistant Professor and Interim Director of the Science and Technology Studies program at the NYU Department of Technology).

III. Q&A Session

The Question-and-Answer section made up the majority of the event, which is perhaps reflective of the Feminist Data Manifest-No’s mission to include and integrate the public, creating a set of ethical practices both by and for the people.

Below, I have paraphrased some of the questions and comments posed by the audience in response to the reading of the ten above declarations:

1. Question: Some of the language used in the Feminist Data Manifest-No, such as “imbricate” seems inaccessible to the public–if the goal of these declarations is in part to support those who are underrepresented or oppressed, then shouldn’t a more simple vocabulary be employed?
   
   Answer: We feel that we should not be making generalizations about the education level of the “general public”; the document should serve as a provocation, imploring one to ask of oneself, “What does this manifesto mean for me?”
   
   
2. Comment: In the wake of all the technological advances in our era, it is easy to ignore the reach of one’s own voice and difficult to control its potential amplification. We need to be centering this Feminist Data Manifest-No around our rights as a tangible, human body.
   
   
3. Comment: Venture capitalists would not be interested in projects like this, and therefore it would be difficult to achieve the proper funding and reach.
   
   
4. Question: Is the title “Feminist Data Manifesto-No” a little restrictive? Specifically, does the word “feminist” alienate others?
   
   
5. Comment: As a lawyer, I am shocked by the amount of private data we collect and hold onto in perpetuity. I have witnessed that this data only serves to harm the clients it is meant to protect. We should support movements like “Ban The Box.”
   
   
6. Question: Should we be concerned with the collection and saving of data that isn’t ours?

Overall, the event served to raise more questions than it answered, but it was nevertheless an important–and necessary–conversation starter. How these declarations will be translated into action remains unclear at this point in time, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the people who share and contribute to the Feminist Data Manifest-No to create tangible changes in data practices. We hope that by spreading awareness of this resource on Social Mediums, the manifesto will receive a stronger voice.

With the rapid growth of social media outlets, its users have willfully shared personal information, most often unaware that in doing so they have allowed what they considered private to become public. Researchers interested in tapping into this information may ethically consider informed consent as a critical component of their scholarly work.

My experience as a Social Media Fellow has been one of growth and discovery. I had the opportunity to learn from Jennifer Prince, my predecessor, about the multifaceted world of social media. To my surprise, I became aware of the many steps taken to provide the public with an informative and visually-pleasing experience. Once I met the team of Social Media Fellows I felt immediately welcomed. Needless to say, they all have a level of expertise and a willingness to help that I greatly appreciate. On our very first meeting, as we discussed our goals for the year, one of us mentioned the importance of making our role be understood and portrayed as “human”. Unaware of precisely what was meant, we asked for an explanation, which resonated with me once it was provided. Indeed, it seems that for those of us who manage an institution’s social media outlets there tends to be, ironically, little connection between ourselves and our audience. Meaning that while we successfully reach a general public, our audience does not get to see that every action taken on social media is made by a particular individual. Individuals who, like my predecessor, developed sites, attracted a following, and continuously developed content that would allow for growth and enthusiasm in site followers. It was at this moment when I realized that my presence, my efforts, and actions as a social media fellow, could be unacknowledged without direct contact with our audience. I, most importantly, could lose sense of my audience, unaware of their inevitably changing interests and expectations. Thus, I decided to speak directly to my audience. In our case, our public is composed of students and faculty members who belong to our corresponding academic departments. I engaged in a series of conversations with some of them to learn if there was something missing, something that had been unaccounted for, something that would make the audience’s experience more enjoyable and informative. A common suggestion arose: more communication for the purpose of sharing common interests. For example, there were many accomplishments made by the students and faculty that went unacknowledged on the academic department’s social media sites. At the same time, it became clear that the content provided by the department’s sites also slipped through the cracks of the ever-expanding feeds of our users. It was important to communicate directly with the students and faculty without, nevertheless, coming across as obnoxious and repetitive. With this in mind, I began to use pre-established sources of communication, such as group conversations in which most members of the department were already connected to. There, I was able to communicate more informally and directly, reaching my target audience immediately and amiably. A sense of community began to develop that allowed for content of interest and relevance to be exchanged in a social and friendly manner. Thus, while my presence became more apparent, our sites became more social. Our sites became more representative and thus more interesting. A true interest grew, not only within the academic department but the social media community as a whole. We began to gain followers and receive responses from unexpected yet significant sources. Our social media sites improved by becoming indeed more “human”, more social, more connected. We brought the “social” back into social media by engaging directly, in-person, with each other. In my experience, human contact showed to be the ultimate asset to develop social media sites. Behind our screens, whether those of our laptops or of our cell phones, we attempt to develop a social network. Yet, without developing a dialogue with our public, we can easily lose sight of who composes it and what they are expecting to see when visiting our sites. In return, my efforts were vocally appreciated. I felt less robotic and more connected to a community eager to share their interests, passions, and accomplishments.