CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,203Ethics and Social Impacts of AICultural Studies and PostmodernismPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology

Open access
Van Dijck, Jose·2014·Surveillance & Society
DOI 10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Metadata and data have become a regular currency for citizens to pay for their communication services and security—a trade-off that has nestled into the comfort zone of most people. This article deconstructs the ideological grounds of datafication. Datafication is rooted in problematic ontological and epistemological claims. As part of a larger social media logic, it shows characteristics of a widespread secular belief. Dataism, as this conviction is called, is so successful because masses of people — naively or unwittingly — trust their personal information to corporate platforms. The notion of trust becomes more problematic because people’s faith is extended to other public institutions (e.g. academic research and law enforcement) that handle their (meta)data. The interlocking of government, business, and academia in the adaptation of this ideology makes us want to look more critically at the entire ecosystem of connective media.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The rapid acceleration of surveillance capitalism has been enabled by exploitative agreements between data subjects and controllers in which data subjects cannot negotiate the terms and often lack knowledge of the full extent or legalities of personal data collection and use.

    “The rapid acceleration of surveillance capitalism has been enabled by exploitative agreements between data subjects and controllers-what Peacock (2014) has called 'unconscionable contracts'-in which the data subjects have no ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement and often insufficient knowledge of the full extent or legalities of personal data collection and use”

    From Social Injustice in Surveillance Capitalism (2017) · cites this paper as van Dijck 2014

  • Data-centric approaches in surveillance studies often overlook the nuance of quotidian operations under dataveillance afforded by masking and relegating responsibilities within surveillants' digitized chains of command.

    “While immensely important, these data-centric approaches often overlook the nuance of quotidian operations under dataveillance afforded by the masking and relegating of responsibilities within the surveillants' digitized chains of command.”

    From Mapping Interfacial Regimes of Control: A Qualitative Analysis of America’s Post-9/11 Security Technology Infrastructure (2020) · cites this paper as Van Dijck 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Dijck, J.
Venue
Surveillance & Society
Publisher
Queen's University Library
Published
2014-05-09
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
197-208
ISSN
1477-7487 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
OpenAlex
W1779680771
Cited by
2,203
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 196 · 2025: 226 · 2024: 208 · 2023: 337 · 2022: 313 · 2021: 235 · 2020: 246 · 2019: 155 · 2018: 116 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 4
FWCI
159.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Surveillance & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
datafication, dataism, dataveillance, big data, ideology, trust in data, personal data, surveillance, social media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review