Data reflectivity and user reflexivity: New conceptual pathways for connecting structural approaches with user perspectives

Abstract

Ongoing societal datafication and, most recently, the widely noticed launch of ChatGPT, continue to raise the “user question”: what role(s) does the user play in datafied, artificial, and automated environments? Recent technological advancements have begun to challenge fundamental assumptions in media and communication theory and, thus, urge scholars to (re-)visit and (re-)examine the interrelations, dynamics, and entanglements of (human) users with datafied environments. Two rapidly expanding but still largely distinct bodies of research are addressing these topics: critical data and platform studies, primarily focusing on structural approaches, and user-centered perspectives anchored in the tradition of audience research. Situated at the intersection of studying platform power and user agency, the aim of this special issue is to connect structural approaches with studies of lived user experiences through the lenses of reflectivity and reflexivity. We believe that linking platform and data perspectives dealing with questions of power, accountability, and governance on a societal level to users’ engagement with digital technologies and automated systems in an everyday context is a fruitful path when aiming for a comprehensive understanding of the societal implications of the widespread adoption and integration of digital platforms and intelligent technologies. The concepts of reflectivity and reflexivity provide a valuable conceptual starting point for a more integrated and holistic discussion of the complex user-data relations emerging in and from datafied environments. While the individual contributions in this special issue present their own take on the proposed concepts, the purpose of this introduction is to establish a broader theoretical foundation by outlining some overarching considerations on how these concepts can be understood and integrated.

Keywords

reflexivity reflectivity user research audience studies data and platform studies user-data relations agency

Introduction to the special issue

Ongoing societal datafication and, most recently, the widely noticed launch of ChatGPT, continue to raise the ‘user question’: what role(s) does the user play in datafied, artificial, and automated environments? Especially the recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have begun to challenge fundamental assumptions in media and communication theory (Guzman and Lewis, 2020) and, thus, urge scholars to (re-)visit and (re-)examine the interrelations, dynamics, and entanglements of (human) users with datafied environments. Two rapidly expanding but still largely distinct bodies of research are addressing these topics: critical data and platform studies, primarily focussing on structural approaches, and user-centred perspectives anchored in the tradition of audience research. While the latter examines the lived experience of datafication in the context of everyday life, the former focuses on structural issues in datafied societies such as inequality, justice, fairness, etc. To fully grasp the far-reaching societal implications of the ongoing, rapidly evolving processes of datafication and related technological developments, we argue that it is crucial to bring structural approaches closer together with research on the fine-grained uses and experiences of these technologies. In this special issue, we have therefore invited scholars to think along, reflect on, and explore the notions of reflectivity and reflexivity in the context of datafied environments. We believe that unfolding these concepts offer fruitful conceptual pathways for examining the inextricable link between data structures and human use. Emphasising this link is important because users do not operate in isolation but in relation to and with data. Ultimately, they are situated within data structures.

Digital media platforms continuously collect data, both on an individual level and in aggregated forms, providing a constant reflection of user behaviour and their preferences. As such, data circulates in feedback loops between media use and media production (Mathieu and Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, 2020), creating what we refer to as a ‘data mirror’. A mirror involves both a reflection and an enhancement of awareness. It is commonly assumed that the reflection in the mirror does not provide a truthful, objective, or complete representation of the original. Data reflections are not truthful but shaped through various aspects. An example of such distortion can be found in the categories that are used to classify users’ interests based on their interactions with digital platforms. These categories are not only a blunt reflection of a user’s identity but may first and foremost represent the interests of advertisers. They also often exclude certain categories that are deemed too sensitive, such as political views, race, or sexual orientation. This shows that data reflections are conducted with commercial interests in mind that are often difficult to see through, although users may generally be aware of them (Mathieu and Møller Hartly, 2021). Employing the metaphor of a data mirror allows us to draw attention to the ambiguity and nuances that are involved in reflection processes and, furthermore, the consequences these may have. Studies in this special issue show that users do not simply passively relate to data reflections, whether they are distorted or not. Instead, they actively interpret them based on their experiences, public discourse, and their conceptualisation based on their experiential, discursive, and imaginative capabilities. As such, the data mirror does not only provide a reflection to users but also invites a reflexive response from them.

This interplay between reflectivity and reflexivity is particularly important to consider because research in the field of critical data studies has shown that the data mirror introduces biases or distortions, which may, in turn, affect how users engage in reflexive encounters with the data mirror. Situated at the intersection of studying platform power and user agency, the aim of this special issue is therefore to highlight the link between data structures and lived user experiences, particularly via the interlinked concepts of data reflectivity and user reflexivity. Linking structural perspectives dealing with questions of power, accountability, and governance with users’ everyday experiences offers a valuable approach for comprehensively understanding the societal implications of the widespread adoption of digital platforms and intelligent technologies. Here the concepts of reflectivity and reflexivity provide fruitful conceptual pathways for a more integrated and holistic discussion of the complex user-data relations emerging in, through, and from datafied environments.

In this special issue, we have put special emphasis on the user perspective, which currently remains understudied. Yet, by situating user reflexivity as a response to data reflectivity, we wish to position user studies in prolongation of critical data and platform studies, showing that these are not opposing perspectives but rather complementary approaches to understanding the complex dynamics between users and platforms. While the individual contributions in this special issue present their own perspectives on the proposed concepts, the purpose of this introduction is to establish a broader theoretical foundation by outlining some overarching considerations on how these concepts can be understood and implemented. In the following, we start by briefly outlining the focus points of structural perspectives and user-centred approaches before introducing and elaborating on the concepts of data reflectivity and user reflexivity.

Linking platform power to user agency

A decade of research into the structural properties of platforms has shown the extent to which users are subject to technological dominance and capitalistic structure through the work of complex data infrastructures and platform power (Poell et al., 2023). Research in this field has extensively examined potential bias, exploitation and manipulation, and other forms of harm that result from data collection (see, amongst others, Eubanks, 2018; O’Neil, 2016; Zuboff, 2019). It has further highlighted the important role of platform governance in this equation and questioned the agency that is left to ordinary users (Bucher and Helmond, 2018; Hepp and Görland, 2024). At the same time, user and audience studies have looked deeply into platform use, exploring how users engage with and relate to datafication, algorithms and platforms. Several studies in this realm have challenged the narrative of platforms and smart technologies as being all-powerful (Burgess et al., 2022). On the contrary, studies have shown that users are not solely passive subjects of technological control (Mathieu, 2023b); rather, they use various strategies and tactics to decode (Lomborg and Kapsch, 2020), make sense of (Schwartz and Mahnke, 2021; Swart, 2021), and resist and/or avoid digital platforms (Milan and Treré, 2019; Velkova and Kaun, 2021). While user and audience researchers are well aware that it may not be possible for individual users to provoke changes on a macro level, their research has shown that collective action can potentially initiate change or, at least, raise public awareness (Mahnke, 2018). In this context, user and audience research has not only done a great deal to make the role of the user visible and significant but also to map out the complex feedback processes that lie in users’ engagements with datafied platforms (Mathieu and Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, 2020).

Linking critical data and platform studies to user and audience studies is not only essential for gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the role of digital platforms in contemporary society but also to further highlight the complex user-data relations that constitute datafied environments. While critical data and platform studies offer important insights into the structural power and limitations exerted by platforms, user and audience research highlights the active role(s) users play when adopting, negotiating, or resisting digital technologies. Linking knowledge from structural approaches to user perspectives allows the development of new and original approaches to study questions at the nexus of platform power and user agency. While there is still a long way to go until equality and inclusivity become integral to automated systems (Crawford, 2021), paying equal attention to the structural power of platforms and users’ responses is essential when aiming to comprehend processes of datafication.

Data reflectivity and user reflexivity

We propose data reflectivity and user reflexivity as synthesising concepts that signal the dualism inherent in user-data relations. On the one hand, data reflect human users in specific datafied ways, aiming to strategically structure and guide user experiences. On the other hand, the presented reflections are distorted as they only capture certain aspects of online behaviour. By employing reflexive strategies to manipulate data for their own purposes, users have found their own ways of engaging in, circumventing, or even rebelling against these data reflections. We understand user appropriation of the data mirror as reflexive by virtue of the reflective capacity of the data mirror. If platforms and datafied environments provide users with data reflections about themselves, engaging in the data mirror involves then a form of knowing and gaining awareness of these reflections. Conceptualising this dualism brings not only Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory to mind, as we will elaborate on below, but it also becomes evident when reviewing historical developments in media research and transferring it onto data-related questions. As mentioned above, critical research has called the reflective power of data into question, arguing that data practices introduce a variety of biases, interests, and assumptions. Previously, this has led to questions regarding the consequences of data reflectivity, in other words, what the data mirror ‘does’ to people. This has quickly been countered by audience researchers asking what people ‘do’ with the data mirror. Building on this, we position our conceptual model on the premise that technological structure and human agency are inextricably linked in datafied environments and, furthermore, evolve over time. When aiming to advance our understanding of the role and implications of digital platforms in datafied societies, we argue that it is crucial to put more emphasis on the user-data relation. Data is thus not solely performed by platforms through processes of governance, design, and algorithmic performance (Van Dijck, 2013), but also by the data that users produce and reproduce.

The notion of users as producers and reproducers of data follows the extensive research on self-monitoring, identity formation, and data doubles (see, amongst others, Lomborg et al., 2023; Lupton, 2016). In this context, users’ engagements in and with digital platforms are not only an attempt to monitor and optimise oneself in relation to shaping (or confirming) one’s (digital) identity, but it also prompts users to think about and make sense of the data they are actively creating, the data that is passively created on their behalf, and the data that is fed into their profile based on which new experiences are created. Based on this, users become inevitably entangled and, at times, caught up in the data loop (Mathieu and Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, 2020). Thus, data reflections of users do not only raise socio-cultural questions regarding the (re)production of inequalities through data but, first and foremost, questions of agency. Are data reflections a new form of control designed to capture and monetise human attention? Or does this (new) reflective capability of platforms offer an opportunity to clarify and unravel users’ relationships with digital platforms as they start to resist attempts of control and commodification through reflexive practices, which allow them to maintain control over their platform use and, thus, ultimately, their lives?

Data reflectivity and user reflexivity: Evolvement over time

Already in 1998, Abercombie and Longhurst (1998) proposed a new audience paradigm called spectacle and narcissism. Interestingly, their proposition preceded the omnipresence of social media and how the boundary between audiences and producers would become more blurred. The core idea of their spectacle/performance paradigm was linked to the idea of a diffused audience living in a world where media is impossible to avoid, where the whole society is performative, and where media has become a resource for everyday life; a complex process exacerbated by datafication and platform technologies that has become known as ‘deep mediatization’ (Hepp, 2020). They linked their approach with Giddens’ (1990) proposition of reflexive modernity, arguing that their concept of narcissism is closely related to the idea of reflexivity. Giddens (1990: 38) argues that: ‘The reflexivity of the modern social life consists in the fact that social practices are constantly examined and reformed in the light of incoming information about those very practices, thus constitutively altering their character’. Applying this to datafied environments, user reflexivity then refers to self-reflexive efforts that draw on the data collected by digital devices, used as part of the continuous processes of self-assessment and personalisation. However, in addition to people presenting themselves to others via digital platforms and continuously imagining how others see them, in datafied societies, the ‘other’ also includes intelligent systems or feedback provided by the data mirror. Abercombie and Longhurst (1998) theorise performances first and foremost as events for those watching and gazing. In their understanding, people perform for the diffused audience through their involvement in a richly symbolic world of spectacle. The performance demands feedback, and as such, media consumption practices are becoming performances that get recorded and become part of a greater data spectacle. Data reflections then become part of the gazing of the (data) performances of the world. Today, users are not simply attending to this spectacle but may lose themselves in the process, or even try to shape this spectacle to their own interests and preferences. Their consumption of media is a constant reminder of their own presence in and engagement towards the media: they constantly must take a stance on whether recommended and personalised content aligns or not with their own understanding of themselves, as they repeatedly look into the data mirror that drives media production and consumption.

Understanding the user-data relation as performative moves away from the understanding of media use as primarily routinised and habitual. As media consumption is encouraged and sustained by platforms, and turned into a performance by the data mirror, users are becoming more reflexive. And yet, paradoxically, the automated work of data and algorithms contribute to keeping users in the dark, encouraging them to keep scrolling, or to be dependent or simply fascinated by that performance. It is precisely this ambivalence in the relation between data reflectivity and user reflexivity that makes this special issue both valuable and timely.

While some media practices may still be less reflexive, individuals are generally capable of critical self-reflection when prompted. Therefore, we believe it is important for user and audience scholars to carve out more actively the concept of user reflexivity in relation to platform use. Archer defines reflexivity as ‘the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their (social) contexts and vice versa’ (Archer, 2007: 25). Following Archer, reflexivity is intimately linked to feelings, which often provide the ‘shoving power’ that leads to action, and is often geared towards our inward life, our concerns, and our life projects. As such, reflexivity is an important site of autonomy and independence, in other words, an important site of defence against attempts of control provided by digital platforms (Mathieu, 2023a). Thus, as digital platforms have become a crucial part of our everyday lives, reflexivity appears as a (new) normalised condition of media and platform use. We do not argue that habitual aspects of media consumption have disappeared. On the contrary, content consumption is more and more driven by automation. Yet, we believe that the role of reflexivity in everyday practices is becoming more important, both as a user practice and as a societal stake, given that the consequences of datafication have become more pervasive. To sum up, understanding the dualism of data reflectivity and data reflexivity is crucial when aiming for a comprehensive understanding of the user-data relations constituting datafied environments. Shaped by technological structures and various (commercial) interests, data reflections structure and guide user experiences. Simultaneously, users engage in reflexive practices to navigate, manipulate, and, at times, resist these data reflections, thus exerting various forms of user agency in datafied environments. Drawing on Gidden’s structuration theory, Abercombie and Longhurst ideas on media performances, and Archer’s thoughts on reflexivity, we propose the concepts of data reflectivity and user reflexivity as ways forward to grasp the inevitable link between technological structure and human agency (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Data Reflectivity and User Reflexivity: Evolvement over time.

The illustration above shows the evolving dynamics of data reflectivity and user reflexivity over time. In this figure, we draw closely on Giddens’ illustration of structuration theory, giving equal weight to user and data. The reflectivity arrow is directed from data to the user, showing how data structure and guide user experiences. The reflexivity arrow is directed from the user towards data, illustrating the active role of users in responding to and shaping data. The illustration shows further that users and data have multiple points of connections, flowing equally. The visualisation aims to highlight the duality of data reflectivity and user reflexivity, thus showing the dynamic nature of user-data relations. It further shows that datafied environments are equally driven by technological structures imposed by platforms and the reflexive actions of users. It shows that data not only structure user experiences but also become performative through users’ practices, thereby shaping and reshaping digital platforms. Our conceptualisation contributes towards a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play.

Advancing understandings of user-data reflect/xivity

To reiterate, the primary aim of this special issue is to advance the connection between, on the one hand, platform and data studies and, on the other hand, audience and user studies by exploring the dynamic user-data relations through the lenses of reflectivity and reflexivity. The articles in this special issue help to advance this connection by contributing different perspectives on the user-data nexus in the context of digital and automated platforms and datafied environments. It is important to note that the invited contributions were asked to develop their own understanding of reflexivity and reflectivity depending on their specific research focus. Together with our conceptual thoughts presented above, the articles in this special issues offer three main research contributions for analysing the user-data nexus through the lenses of reflectivity and reflexivity: (1) as situated processes, (2) as reciprocal in nature, and (3) as prompts for novel methodologies.

Firstly, the wide variety of cultural, social, and political settings discussed in this special issue emphasise the need to conceptualise and analyse data reflectivity and user reflexivity as situated processes. Just like the encoding of the algorithms of many globally popular platforms is not culturally agnostic (Kotliar, 2020), reflective data and reflexive user practices are inherently embedded and should be understood within their specific context(s). Hence, our special issue follows the call for moving ‘beyond data universalism’ (Milan and Treré, 2019) and makes the specificities of data assemblages with individual countries, publics, and demographics visible. The contributions in our special issue show that collective sensemaking processes around datafied environments are structured around many socio-cultural factors rather than nationality alone. For example, Cotter et al. (2024, this special issue) show how users’ sensemaking processes are affected by their religious and spiritual beliefs, which may modulate their cognitive and affective epistemologies. Another illustration of the situatedness is the article by Ivask and Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt (2024, this special issue) who find that, rather than personal capacity or characteristics, it is primarily the professional context and institutional culture of the newsroom that shape Estonian journalists’ interpretation of audience metrics.

Socially, the process of data reflectivity and user reflexivity occurs in relation to known and unknown others, structured by social divisions around gender, age, education, and class (Cotter and Reisdorf, 2020; Gran et al., 2021). On the individual level, the articles in this special issue show how people’s ways of knowing digital platforms are grounded in their personal situations and affective dispositions, including levels of media trust and the habits of their everyday lives, as Ovaska (2024, this special issue) shows. In her article, she examines audience members’ tactics for making sense of and engaging with the datafied journalism to which they contribute with their data. Das (2024, this special issue), Cotter et al. (2024, this special issue) and Cole (2024, this special issue) demonstrate furthermore that data reflexivity needs to be understood as unfolding throughout people’s life journeys, which are fluid. Furthermore, attention needs to be paid to the moments of flux, change, and transition. Comparative research on reflexivity and reflectivity across users, cultures, spaces, and time, can thus deepen the understanding of users’ reflexive practices by giving insight into the contexts in which they are embedded. Huang and Miao (2024, this special issue) look in this relation at domestication practices of Chinese users on algorithmic recommendations made by RED, a popular Chinese platform.

Another important insight provided by the articles in this special issue is to show how the very process of reflexivity is embedded in the everyday life of users. Reflexivity takes its source in the everyday, ordinary practices of the users, which also provide a rich ground for opposing and resisting data, algorithmic or platform power. This can be seen in the capacity of imagining, which enables users to take a critical stance as argued by Ditchfield et al. (2024, this special issue). In their article, the authors show that imagining is not simply a resort that citizens use in lieu of better knowledge of datafication, but a powerful and creative reflexive device that helps ordinary citizens to decide what to think and feel about the ways their data are used. Meanwhile, Miao and Huang (2024, this special issue) show how users’ identities and self-perceptions provide a context from which to reflect upon, evaluate and attempt to change the data reflections provided by the platform RED. The concept of the broken algorithm suggested by Pop Stefanija and Pierson (2024, this special issue) for devising repair manuals provides another illustration of the capacity of everyday life to provide relevant contexts or metaphors to make sense of algorithms in ways that encourage agency.

Second, the contributions to our special issue emphasise the interdependency between algorithms and users. Ivask and Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt (2024, this special issue), Mahnke and Bagger, (2024, this special issue), Ben Moussa et al. (2024, this special issue), and Bengtsson and Schjøtt (2024) reflect in one way or another on how users and digital platforms engage with one another, thus highlighting the dynamic relationship between human agency and automated processes. Huang and Miao (2024, this special issue) show furthermore how the reflections provided by the data mirror can be misaligned with users’ perceptions of themselves and their own identity; a misalignment that encourages users’ various reflexive tactics to domesticate the algorithm. Primarily emphasising user agency, Cole (2024, this special issue) argues that users develop their own interpretations of the data reflections that are meant to guide platform uses, and thus lead to uses of the platform that owes to different modes of reflexivity. Bengtsson and Schjøtt (2024, this special issue) explore how fact checkers and fact checked users engage in decoding automated fact-checking systems. They point to active forms of recoding, where both user groups engage in processes to adapt or modify the algorithmic system to better fit in specific cultural and social contexts. At the same time, the mutual relation between reflectivity and reflexivity needs to be understood within the context of unequal power relations between platform structures and users, both as individuals and as a collective (Ben Moussa et al., 2024; this special issue). In extension to this, Das, (2024) proposes that we look at data reflexivity as relational, arguing for a broader perspective that includes not only the relationship between the individual and the platform but also the context of family and friendship networks in which the reflexive individual is situated (Huang and Miao, 2024).

While this special issue provides contributions to user studies with its focus on user reflexivity, all the articles do begin with an attention paid to data reflectivity, especially when the data mirror introduces distortions in the reflections it provides. In many cases, these distortions invite a reflexive engagement with the data mirror, often with the ambition to apply corrections. While several articles epitomise this argument (e.g. Cole, 2024; Miao and Huang, 2024; both this special issue), Strzelecka (2024, this special issue) invites us to consider the distortions introduced by the mirror along three metaphorical lenses – concave, kaleidoscopic and ceiling – and how they provoke reflexive engagement that influences perceptions and responsibilities within the area data waste management systems, illustrating how the concept of reflexivity is closely associated to data ethics. While platform-user relations can be characterised by a high level of dependence, this says little about how such interdependencies are experienced and whether the relationship and its outcomes are perceived as mutually beneficial. Mahnke and Bagger (2024, this special issue) explore in their article how the results from working with platformised generative AI invite users to reflect on the nature of automated communication processes and, further, the expectations with what the use is initiated. Both digital platforms and users take part in reflexive actions operating on the basis of ‘imagining’ the other. Digital platforms make assumptions about users based on the partial picture of their online behaviours (Groot Kormelink and Costera Meijer, 2017) and users come to know digital platforms via the distorted reflections they receive, a process that is prone to misunderstandings and conflicting expectations. We believe that further work is necessary to develop vocabularies and concepts that capture and analyse the conditions, properties, and quality of these user-platform relationships, also in relation to the ethical responsibilities of platforms and users in maintaining and improving these interconnections.

Third and finally, advancing our understandings of how users come to know, reflect on, and engage with digital platforms involves further development of novel methodological approaches that have the ability to encompass both users’ cognitive as well as their tacit, situated, and affective forms of knowledge (Cotter et al., 2024, this special issue). These tend to be strongly grounded in users’ daily routines and thus may easily blend into the background of everyday life. Reflexive methodologies move users from ‘time in’ to ‘time out’ (Jensen, 1995), allowing such knowledge to become visible. Lomborg, (Lomborg et al., 2024) link data reflexivity with the idea of critical consciousness-raising, where the information about data, and data use is built bottom-up from the experiences of the research participants, employing methods like data visualisations from the participants’ phones and speculative workshops. Researchers’ role, in this case, is to offer critical companionship where relationality and contextuality are also an acknowledged part of the research process. Pierce-Grove and Watkins (2024, this special issue) suggest integrating trace data as a context for interview research, arguing that the dual movement of considering data and talk brings more reflexivity, also in research. As they argue, considering data allows to contextualise talk as much as talk allows to contextualise data. By asking users to devise repair manuals, Pop Stefanija and Pierson, (2024, this special issue) develop a participatory method that explicitly encourages reflexivity and therefore recognises its value as a site of user agency that empowers ordinary users to respond to the challenge of thinking critically about algorithmic systems.

Conclusive remarks

The original idea of this special issue was to bridge the gap between critical data and platform studies and user and audience studies. However, throughout the process of working with contributions in this special issue, we realised the need to strengthen the user perspective within structural approaches. While we acknowledge the significant power of platforms, in our observation, the overemphasis of structural power also leads to one-sided propositions and claims. While we see it as crucial to restrain the power of platforms, this can only be done based on a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of how users respond and engage in these systems. As big data analysis aims to mirror users, it is important to understand them as co-creators and not as subjects to all-powerful systems. By equally shedding light on the user perspective, we believe it is possible to gain a holistic understanding of complex dynamics at play. We encourage media and communication researchers to better highlight the interplay between structural approaches on data analysis and user agency, building further on the works collected in this special issue or on the dual concepts of data reflectivity and user reflexivity. Ultimately, this special issue aims to encourage a more inclusive dialogue that recognises the role of users in shaping the landscape of data and platforms; a project that can also benefit other topics of research than those found in this special issue.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the authors for their valuable contributions to this special issue, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Martina Skrubbeltrang Mahnke

David Mathieu

Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt

References

Abercrombie

Longhurst

(1998) Audiences: A Sociological Theory of Performance and Imagination. London: Sage Publications. Available at: https://sk.sagepub.com/books/audiences (accessed 15 October 2024).

Archer

(2007) Making Our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ben Moussa

Khalil

Zaid

(2024) Algorithmic experiences of Netflix’s users in the Arab world: Implications for agency and social practice. Convergence 0(0). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241301125.

Bengtsson

Anja

(2024) De- and recoding algorithmic systems: the case of fact checkers and fact checked users. In: Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd.

Bucher

Helmond

(2018) The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess

Marwick

Poell

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media. 55 City Road. Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 233–253. Available at: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-handbook-of-social-media/i1867.xml (accessed 7 June 2023).

Burgess

Albury

McCosker

Wilken

(2022) Everyday data cultures. John Wiley & Sons.

Cole

(2024) Exploring users’ algorithmic knowledge and reflexivity in a music streaming context: a critical realist approach. In: Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd. 13548565241277379.

Cotter

Reisdorf

(2020) Algorithmic knowledge gaps: a new horizon of (digital) inequality. International Journal of Communication 14(0). 0: 21.

Cotter

Ritchart

, et al. (2024) If you’re reading this, it’s meant for you: the reflexive ambivalence of algorithmic conspirituality. In: Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd. 13548565241258949.

10.

Crawford

(2021) Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: Yale University Press.

11.

Das

(2024) Data reflexivity as work-in-progress: a relational, life-course approach to people’s encounters with datafication. In: Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd. 13548565241270889.

12.

Ditchfield

Oman

Kennedy

, et al. (2024). What ifs: the role of imagining in people’s reflections on data uses. Convergence, online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241300898

13.

Eubanks

(2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

14.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society, Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Policy Press.

15.

Giddens

(1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Standford: Stanford University Press.

16.

Gran

A-B

Booth

Bucher

(2021) To be or not to be algorithm aware: a question of a new digital divide? Information, Communication & Society 24: 1779–1796.

17.

Groot Kormelink

Costera Meijer

(2017) What clicks actually mean: exploring digital news user practices. Journalism 19(5).

18.

Guzman

Lewis

(2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society 22: 70–86.

19.

Hepp

(2020) Deep Mediatization. London: Taylor & Francis Group.

20.

Hepp

Görland

(2024) Agency in a datafied society: an introduction. In: Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd.

21.

Huang

Ying

Miao

Weishan

(2024) Domesticating algorithms through data reflectivity and user reflexivity: the metaphor of Yanghao on Xiaohongshu (RED). Convergence (online first). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241301146

22.

Ivask

Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt

(2024) Mirroring journalistic work in newsroom metrics: a longitudinal study of Estonian journalists’ making sense of data. In: Convergence, Epub ahead of print 2024. DOI: 10.1177/13548565241286979.

23.

Jensen

(1995) The Social Semiotics of Mass Communication. London: Sage.

24.

Kotliar

(2020) The return of the social: algorithmic identity in an age of symbolic demise. New Media & Society 22: 1152–1167.

25.

Lomborg

Kapsch

(2020) Decoding algorithms. Media, Culture & Society 42: 745–761.

26.

Lomborg

Kaun

Scott Hansen

(2023) Automated decision-making: toward a people-centred approach. Sociology Compass 17(8): e13097.

27.

Lomborg

Reutter

Vilaza

(2024) Dreaming with data: cultivating critical consciousness in datafied living research. In: Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd. 13548565241288454.

28.

Lupton

(2016) Towards critical digital health studies: reflections on two decades of research in health and the way forward. Health 20: 49–61.

29.

Mahnke

(2018) “Please leave my news feed alone”: exploring user protest against algorithmic personalization. In: Social Media Materialities and Protest. Routledge.

30.

Mahnke

Bagger

(2024) Navigating platformized generative AI: Examining early adopters’ experiences through the lens of data reflectivity. (online first). https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241300857

31.

Mathieu

(2023a) Challenging the notion of algorithmic control of media users by recommender systems. In: Accepted/In Press Paper Presented at ARS 2023: Disrupted or Disruptive Audiences? from Reception to Participation in a Post-truth Era, Porto, Portugal.

32.

Mathieu

(2023b) Deconstructing the notion of algorithmic control over datapublics. In: Møller Hartly

Sørensen

(eds) DataPublics: The Construction of Publics in Datafied Democracies. Bristol University Press, pp. 27–48.

33.

Mathieu

Møller Hartly

(2021) Low on trust, high on use: datafied media, trust and everyday life. Big Data & Society 8(2): 1.

34.

Mathieu

Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt

(2020) The Data loop of media and audience: how audiences and media actors make datafication work. MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research 36(69): 116–138.

35.

Milan

Treré

(2019) Big Data from the South(s): beyond Data Universalism. Television & New Media 20: 319–335.

36.

Ovaska

(2024) From permissive to resistive tactics: How audience members engage with and make sense of datafied journalism. In: Convergence. DOI: 10.1177/13548565241283434.

37.

O’Neil

(2016) Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. 1st edition. New York: Crown.

38.

Pierce-Grove

Watkins

(2024) Integrating trace data into interviews: better interviews, better data. Convergence (online first). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565241300897

39.

Poell

Nieborg

Dijck

, et al. (2023) Locating and theorizing platform power. In: AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research. DOI: 10.5210/spir.v2022i0.12965.

40.

Pop Stefanija

Pierson

(2024) Repairing what’s not broken – Algorithm repair manual as reflexivity device. In: Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd. 13548565241261978.

41.

Schwartz

Mahnke

(2021) Facebook use as a communicative relation: exploring the relation between Facebook users and the algorithmic news feed. Information, Communication & Society 24: 1041–1056.

42.

Strzelecka

(2024) Critical Data Studies Meets Discard Studies: Waste Data Reflectivity in Digital Urban Waste Tracking System. Convergence. Sage Publications Ltd. 13548565241288452.

43.

Swart

(2021) Experiencing Algorithms: How Young People Understand, Feel About, and Engage With Algorithmic News Selection on Social Media. Social Media + Society 7(2): 1–11. DOI: 10.1177/20563051211008828.

44.

van Dijck

(2013) Facebook and the engineering of connectivity: A multi-layered approach to social media platforms. Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies 19(2): 141–155.

45.

Velkova

Kaun

(2021) Algorithmic resistance: media practices and the politics of repair. Information, Communication & Society 24: 523–540.

46.

Zuboff

(2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.