Discriminação por dados: uma análise a partir da literatura de ciência da informação

José Augusto Bagatini; Suellen Oliveira Milani; José Augusto Bagatini Lopes Guimarães

doi:10.62758/re.v2i4.162

Authors

José Augusto Bagatini Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8830-2075
Suellen Oliveira Milani Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7183-6030
José Augusto Bagatini Lopes Guimarães Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0310-2331

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62758/re.v2i4.162

Keywords:

Knowledge organization, Data protection, Personal data, Data discrimination, Bias in representation

Abstract

Representations used to organize the world go beyond the organization of the knowledge produced, and, daily, involve classifying people. This research problem stems from the act of naming people according to a capitalist logic in which what matters is how this individual can consume and collaborate for the accumulation of capital. In this way and considering the actuality and the scientific and social relevance of data discrimination, the goal is to identify how Information Science literature understand this theme, especially about its approaches, emphases, and ramifications. For that, searches were carried out in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) and Reference Database for Journal Articles in Information Science (BRAPCI) databases, covering both the international and Brazilian contexts. The corpus obtained was submitted to the domain analysis method, which aims to identify and categorize a universe of content from its production contexts. The topic is new and demands collaborative and interdisciplinary work. It is concluded that the discussions are predominantly published in journals that address professional practices, including archival discussions and discussions about information ethics. The concern of the literature in characterizing distinctive features of this theme in an aggregating way reveals that it can act as an investigative inter-topic in different areas.

References

Bauman, Z. & Lyon, D. (2012). Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation. Polity.

Black, E. (2001). IBM and the holocaust: The strategic alliance between nazi germany and Americ’s most powerful corporation. Elsevier.

Ciampaglia, G. L., Mantzarlis, A., Maus, G. & Menczer, F. (2018). Research Challenges of Digital Misinformation: Toward a Trustworthy Web. AI Magazine, 39(1), Art. 1. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v39i1.2783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v39i1.2783

Clark, K., Duckham, M., Guillemin, M., Hunter, A., McVernon, J., O’Keefe, C., Pitkin, C., Prawer, S., Sinnott, R., Warr, D. & Waycott, J. (2019). Advancing the ethical use of digital data in human research: Challenges and strategies to promote ethical practice. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9490-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9490-4

Cruz, B. S. (2021). Efeito de algoritmos racistas pode ser mais devastador do que você imagina. https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/reportagens-especiais/como-os-algoritmos-espalham-racismo/.

Englezos, E. (2020). Forget Consent? Answering the Challenges of Digital Space (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3791056). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3791056.

Guimarães, J. A. C. (2008). A dimensão teórica do tratamento temático da informação e suas interlocuções com o universo científico da International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO). Revista Ibero-Americana de Ciência da Informação, 1, 77–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26512/rici.v1.n1.2008.940

Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches—Traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422–462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410210431136

Hjørland, B. (2017). Domain analysis. Knowledge Organization, 44(6), 436–464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2017-6-436

Hjørland, B. & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400–425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199507)46:6<400::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Y

Holtzhausen, D. (2016). Datafication: Threat or opportunity for communication in the public sphere? Journal of Communication Management, 20(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2014-0082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-12-2014-0082

IBGE (2012). O censo tem história. https://cnae.ibge.gov.br/en/component/content/article/290-teen/censo/censo-2000/1703-o-censo-tem-historia.html.

Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. (2016). Sistema de algoritmo que determina pena de condenados cria polêmica nos EUA. http://www.ihu.unisinos.br/78-noticias/561869-sistema-de-algoritmo-que-determina-pena-de-condenados-cria-polemica-nos-eua.

Ma, L. (2020). Rethinking democratizing potential of digital technology: A review of technology and communication studies. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 18(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2019-0022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2019-0022

Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2011). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Em The demise of forgetting—And its drivers (4o ed). Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400838455

Milani, S. O. & Guimarães, J. A. C. (2017). Problemas relacionados a biases em Sistemas de Organização do Conhecimento: Perspectivas para a representação de assunto. Em F. A. Pinho & J. A. C. Guimarães (Orgs.), Memória, tecnologia e cultura na Organização do Conhecimento (p. 399–407). Ed. UFPE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51359/2318-4183.2017.236189

Olson, H. A. (2002). The power to name: Locating the limits of subject representation in libraries. Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3435-6

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.

Pombo, O. (1998). Da classificação dos seres à classificação dos saberes. Leituras, Revista da Biblioteca Nacional de Lisbora, 2, 19–33.

Regan, P. M. & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 167–179.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2

San Segundo, R. (1996). Sistemas de Organización del Conocimiento. Madrid: Bolentin Oficial del Estado; Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.

Saulles, M. de. (2015). Information 2.0: New models of information production, distribution and consuption (Vol. 2). Facet.

Thiarai, M. Chotvijit, S., & Jarvis, S. (2019). Balancing information governance obligations when accessing social care data for collaborative research. Records Management Journal, 29. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-09-2018-0029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-09-2018-0029

Tumelero, T. (2019). Crédito Social: A realidade experimentada da China. NSC total. https://www.nsctotal.com.br/noticias/credito-social-a-realidade-experimentada-da-china.