[DATAGOV Core] Feedback to CPDP paper

[Stefania Milan]

Dear all, this is a great starting point for a paper. I mean: it is ALMOST “good enough” for a conference paper, but needs substantive work for consideration by a journal. In any case, it is impressive how quickly you managed to put this together, so: my congrats! It bonds well for our group <3

Now, I was not feeling very well today, and I only managed to get to page 13 (until but excluding the Findings). I will resume tomorrow early morning.
In the meantime:

Fundamental points needing amendment:

  *
Nature of the case studies and of the paper more in general. This is not an empirical paper, but conceptual; case studies are (it seems to be) illustrative rather than full-fledged empirical accounts (although there is some empirical analysis). I think this needs to be clarified in the abstract and in the introduction of the paper. No need to be defensive here, but to pre-empt reviewer concerns without overpromising. More importantly, from a social science perspective, you need to explain "what is a case a case of".. and why you can compare across tech families and across "country" case (with one being a supranational entity, actually). I can suggest some language here as a quick fix…
  *
CDS and interdisciplinarity. I don’t think you only draw on critical data studies. You take from many more fields. Rephrase. This is a quick fix
  *   Definition of infrastructural inequality. What do you mean by “infrastructure”? See my comments on page 3 and page 9. Is infrastructure … only “within” data infrastructure or also within institutional arrangements? I think the second” please specify and if you can clarify the relation between the two “levels”.

  *
Section “Infrastructure inequalities”: I propose a slightly adjusted definition, and a restricting of the section to give more prominence to your contribution. See whether you like it.

More general points that can be fixed for a subsequent iteration of the paper:

  *
[structural] In general, it is good to signal the structure in a section: e.g., instead of a list of “problems” associated with regulatory data infrastructure, which risks coming across as a “soup”, enumerate the problems you are subsequently describing. It helps following the argument.

  *
There is a potential tension in the “geography” of the case studies and literature. E.g. India and Europe, but then you rely on/evoke EU legislation (e.g., GDPR) and largely US literature (see Eubanks). If you want to know what I mean, read this<https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419837739>.

More tomorrow. We can make it happen!
Stefi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/core/attachments/20260201/0a158a2d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: revSM_CPDP Fifith draft(1-2-26)[17].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 142555 bytes
Desc: revSM_CPDP Fifith draft(1-2-26)[17].docx
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/core/attachments/20260201/0a158a2d/attachment-0001.docx>