Hostname: page-component-66d9dcfd78-4fl2k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-09T17:27:39.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital Footprints and Data-Security Risks for Political Scientists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2022

Colin Henry Open the ORCID record for Colin Henry [Opens in a new window] ,
Anita Gohdes Open the ORCID record for Anita Gohdes [Opens in a new window]  and
Cassy Dorff
Colin Henry
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, USA
Anita Gohdes
Affiliation:
Hertie School, Germany
Cassy Dorff
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As greater shares of research and data are digitized, political scientists are increasingly confronted with questions pertaining to data security. Yet, data-management plans rarely evaluate the risks pertaining to a researcher’s data across all project phases. This article highlights distinct risks related to key phases of the research process that deserve more attention by scholars. We emphasize risks during a project’s inception and pre-data-collection phases, as well as risks associated with data publication and its afterlife. We discuss how shifts in political context and (re)newed politicization of topics can present new security risks for both the researcher and the researched communities long after a project has been completed. We provide a framework for recognizing and mitigating data risks, thereby contributing to the growing interest in data-security best practices.

Information

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 804 - 808
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

BBC. 2019. “Assam NRC: What Next for 1.9 Million ‘Stateless’ Indians?” BBC News, August 31. www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49520593.Google Scholar
Cronin-Furman, Kate, and Lake, Milli. 2018. “Ethics Abroad: Fieldwork in Fragile and Violent Contexts.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 607–14.Google Scholar
Glaser, April. 2019. “Palantir Said It Had Nothing to Do with ICE Deportations. New Documents Seem to Tell a Different Story.” Slate, May 2. https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/documents-reveal-palantir-software-is-used-for-ice-deportations.html.Google Scholar
Glasius, Marlies, De Lange, Meta, Bartman, Jos, Dalmasso, Emanuela, Lv, Aofei, Del Sordi, Adele, Michaelsen, Marcus, and Ruijgrok, Kris. 2018. Research, Ethics, and Risk in the Authoritarian Field. Berlin, Germany: Springer Nature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Eleanor. 2021. “The Researcher and the Researched: Navigating the Challenges of Research in Conflict-Affected Environments.” International Studies Review 23 (1): 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jannis, Koehler, Kevin, Lust, Ellen M., Saliba, Ilyas, and Schierenbeck, Isabell. 2020. Safer Field Research in the Social Sciences: A Guide to Human and Digital Security in Hostile Environments. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jannis, and Saliba, Ilyas. 2017. “Free Research in Fearful Times: Conceptualizing an Index to Monitor Academic Freedom.” Interdisciplinary Political Studies 3 (1): 41–75.Google Scholar
Kakkar, Jhalak M. 2020. “India’s New Citizenship Law and Its Anti-Secular Implications.” Lawfare Blog, January 16. www.lawfareblog.com/indias-new-citizenship-law-and-its-anti-secular-implications.Google Scholar
Knott, Eleanor. 2019. “Beyond the Field: Ethics after Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts.” Perspectives on Politics 17 (1): 140–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miljanovic, Morana, Ververis, Vasilis, and Wissenbach, Kersti Ruth. 2020. “Tools and Tactics for Data Protection Before, During, and After Fieldwork.” In Safer Field Research in the Social Sciences: A Guide to Human and Digital Security in Hostile Environments, ed. Grimm, Jannis, Koehler, Kevin, Lust, Ellen M., Saliba, Ilyas, and Schierenbeck, Isabell, 108–25. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Morgenbesser, Lee, and Weiss, Meredith L.. 2018. “Survive and Thrive: Field Research in Authoritarian Southeast Asia.” Asian Studies Review 42 (3): 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murgia, Madhumita. 2019. “Who’s Using Your Face? The Ugly Truth About Facial Recognition.” Financial Times, September 18. www.ft.com/content/cf19b956-60a2-11e9-b285-3acd5d43599e.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Sarah Elizabeth, and Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2015. “Transparency in Intensive Research on Violence: Ethical Dilemmas and Unforeseen Consequences.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 22–27.Google Scholar
Wackenhut, Arne F. 2018. “Ethical Considerations and Dilemmas Before, During, and After Fieldwork in Less-Democratic Contexts: Some Reflections from Post-Uprising Egypt.” The American Sociologist 49 (2): 242–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed