Despite the growing influence of data-based technologies on our lives – often described as the ‘datafication’ of society (Hepp et al. 2022) – citizens’ knowledge of how digital and data technologies function and affect their lives has remained limited (Miller et al. 2020; Akman 2022). Yet, studies show that this “major understanding gap” (Doteveryone 2018, p.5) is neither due to a lack of interest, nor to notions of having ‘nothing to hide’. Instead, many people were found to be highly concerned about the use of their data and wish for more control (Kennedy et al. 2021; Ada Lovelace Institute 2022). It is also due to such findings that there have been rising calls for more or better education about data(fication). Scholars have argued that educational responses have emerged as the “most plausible and successful strategy to combat the challenges of datafication” and that critical data literacy can be seen as a prerequisite of legal and tactical responses to challenges of datafication (Pangrazio and Sefton-Green 2020, pp.212, 218). However, despite many new conceptual suggestions for data literacies, both a “more complete theorisation” of critical data literacy as well as practical models for educators have remained largely absent (ibid., p.208, 215). This study offers a fruitful contribution to the field by taking a holistic approach to developing a theoretically and empirically grounded framework for critical datafication literacy, and in doing so through a collaborative approach. More specifically, the study investigated – together with the NGO Privacy International – one of the earliest forms of critically educating about data(fication): online educational resources. The goal was to learn from the experiences of practitioners by analysing existing online critical data literacy resources, conducting expert interviews with creators of such resources and a qualitative survey with educators who apply such resources in their teaching. Knowledge exchange between the researcher and the NGO took place throughout the entire study and the NGO’s decade-long experience in educating about digital technologies informed all methodological decisions. Moreover, the study’s findings as well as the NGO’s practical experiences in educating about datafication were mobilised in a final, collaborative knowledge mobilisation project. The presentation will present the outcome of this collaborative knowledge mobilisation – an online learning resource for educators who are interested in teaching about data(fication) – and provide insights on the interconnection of critical data literacy theory and practice in the study.

Ada Lovelace Institute 2022. Who cares what the public think? London: Ada Lovelace Institute. Available at: https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/evidence-review/public-attitudes-data-regulation/. Akman, P. 2022. A Web Of Paradoxes: Empirical Evidence On Online Platform Users And Implications For Competition And Regulation In Digital Markets. Virginia Law & Business Review 16(2), pp. 217-292. Doteveryone 2018. People, Power and Technology: The 2018 Digital Attitudes Report. London: Doteveryone. Available at: https://attitudes.doteveryone.org.uk. Hepp, A., Jarke, J. and Kramp, L. 2022. New Perspectives in Critical Data Studies: The Ambivalences of Data Power - An Introduction. In: Hepp, A., Jarke, J., and Kramp, L. eds. New Perspectives in Critical Data Studies: The Ambivalences of Data Power. Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 1–23. Kennedy, H., Steedman, R. and Jones, R. 2021. Approaching public perceptions of datafication through the lens of inequality: a case study in public service media. Information, Communication & Society 24(12), pp. 1745–1761. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736122. Miller, C., Kitcher, H., Perera, K. and Abiola, A. 2020. People, Power and Technology: The 2020 Digital Attitudes Report. London: Doteveryone. Available at: https://doteveryone.org.uk/report/peoplepowertech2020. Pangrazio, L. and Sefton-Green, J. 2020. The social utility of ‘data literacy’. Learning, Media and Technology 45(2), pp. 208–220. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2020.1707223.