[DATAGOV Core] Feedback to CPDP paper

[Giulia Campaioli]

Dear Stefi,

Thank you for taking the time, I really appreciate your comments!

I'll take today to work on the paper.

Regarding the case studies, I agree that we need to reframe them as 
conceptual. If you can suggest some language or references to fix, 
please do! I took note of the references you suggested, particularly to 
justify the cross-country comparison, which is the most difficult part 
for me.


Jonas, is it okay if I send it this afternoon?

Best,
Giulia

On 1/2/26 22:29, Stefania Milan via Core wrote:
> 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/20260202/ace9dc10/attachment.htm>