Understanding Change in Web Search.readings

    Courses
    May 25th, 2023

      back to Courses: understanding change in web search
      Here are the assigned readings as listed on the initial draft of the syllabus—interspersed with some assignment details.

      M1: Attending

      Re-seeing. So what? Raising questions.

      session 1: intros

      session 2: shaping

      session 3: goals (or: search results)

      session 4: user responsibility (or: literacy & queries)

      session 5: money (or: advertising)

      session 6: voids

      session 7: harms

      M2: Infrastructures, components, & interactions

      How does it work? Understanding the mechanisms and functions.

      session 8: Handoff

      session 9: infrastructures

      session 10: quality control (or: search content moderation)

      session 11: hidden workers (or: search quality raters)

      • readings:
        • Meisner et al. (2022)
        • Google (2022) [read: 2.3 Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) Topics & 4.2 Harmful to Self or Other Individuals & 4.4 Harmfully Misleading Information; search the PDF for [health] and read those items; SKIM the rest]

      session 12:

      reactivity (or: search engine optimization (SEO))

      session 13

      • in-class:
        • workshopping Module 2 assignment
        • exploring Module 3 cases and identifying teams

      session 14: alternative search tools

      • in-class: explorations

      session 15: alternative search tools

      • in-class: explorations

      M3: Case studies in web search for health, healthcare, and medicine

      How do people use search? How search do engines shape searching? How do we use search to inform or shape interventions? Who?

      Students will break into 8 teams to lead 1/2 of a class session for the these four weeks. All readings will be identified prior to Spring Break.

      Readings selected for student-facilitated classes included:

      While students mostly did group activities or group work focused on developing their projects, I did brief presentations. Specifically assigned or examined readings for this module included:

      session 22: imagining and crafting

      • read: Ruha Benjamin “Introduction: Discriminatory Design, Liberating Imagination,” in Captivating Technology: Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life, ed. Ruha Benjamin (Duke University Press, 2019), 1–14, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11sn78h (open access at https://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/PubMaterials/978-1-4780-0381-6_601.pdf)

      “Ultimately, my hope is for you, the reader, to imagine and craft the worlds you cannot live without, just as you dismantle the ones we cannot live within.” (p. 14)

      session 23: scripts & articulations

      Presented w/ excerpts from:

      session 24: counternarratives, counter stories, counter-imaginaries

      Presented w/ excerpts from:

      session 25: interpretive flexibility

      Presented w/ reference to:

      session 26: web search and sexism

      A student requested I cover this in more depth.

      Presented w/ excerpts from:

      session 27: project time

      session 28: project time

      References

      Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society (pp. 205–224). MIT Press. [akrich1992scription]

      Augustaitis, L., Merrill, L. A., Gamarel, K. E., & Haimson, O. L. (2021). Online transgender health information seeking: Facilitators, barriers, and future directions. Proceedings of the 2021 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445091 [augustaitis2021online]

      Boyle, P. (2023). Physicians learn to partner with dr. Google. Association of American Medical Colleges; AAMC News & Insights. https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/physicians-learn-partner-dr-google [boyle2023physicians]

      Cadwalladr, C. (2016). Google, democracy and the truth about internet search. The Guardian, 4(12). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-truth-internet-search-facebook [cadwalladr2016google]

      Caulfield, M. (2019). Data voids and the google this ploy: Kalergi plan. https://hapgood.us/2019/04/12/data-voids-and-the-google-this-ploy-kalergi-plan/. [caulfield2019data]

      Daly, A., & Scardamaglia, A. (2017). Profiling the australian google consumer: Implications of search engine practices for consumer law and policy. J Consum Policy, 40(3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-017-9349-9 [daly2017profiling]

      DiResta, R. (2018). The complexity of simply searching for medical advice. https://www.wired.com/story/the-complexity-of-simply-searching-for-medical-advice/ [diresta2018complexity]

      Ghezzi, P., Bannister, P. G., Casino, G., Catalani, A., Goldman, M., Morley, J., Neunez, M., Prados-Bo, A., Smeesters, P. R., Taddeo, M., Vanzolini, T., & Floridi, L. (2020). Online information of vaccines: Information quality, not only privacy, is an ethical responsibility of search engines. Front. Med., 7, 637. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.00400 [ghezzi2020online]

      Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms (T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot, Eds.; pp. 167–193). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress%2F9780262525374.003.0009 [gillespie2014relevance]

      Gillespie, T. (2017). Algorithmically recognizable: Santorum’s google problem, and google’s santorum problem. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1199721 [gillespie2017algorithmically]

      Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300261431/custodians-of-the-internet/ [gillespie2018custodians]

      Golebiewski, M., & boyd, danah. (2018). Data voids: Where missing data can easily be exploited. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/library/data-voids-where-missing-data-can-easily-be-exploited/ [golebiewski2018data]

      Golebiewski, M., & boyd, danah. (2019). Data voids: Where missing data can easily be exploited. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/library/data-voids/ [golebiewski2019data]

      Griffin, D., & Lurie, E. (2022). Search quality complaints and imaginary repair: Control in articulations of Google Search. New Media & Society, 0(0), 14614448221136505. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221136505 [griffin2022search]

      Haider, J., & Rödl, M. (2023). Google search and the creation of ignorance: The case of the climate crisis. Big Data &Amp; Society, 10(1), 205395172311589. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231158997 [haider2023google]

      Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2019). Invisible search and online search engines: The ubiquity of search in everyday life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448546 [haider2019invisible]

      Hassard, E. (2020). Digital redlining of abortion access and women on web. Women on Web; https://www.womenonweb.org/en/page/20285/digital-redlining-of-abortion-access. [hassard2020digital]

      Hendry, D. G., & Efthimiadis, E. N. (2008). Conceptual models for search engines. In A. Spink & M. Zimmer (Eds.), Web search: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 277–307). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75829-7_15 [hendry2008conceptual]

      Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16(3), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240050133634 [introna2000shaping]

      Kreines, F. M., Farr, A., Chervenak, F. A., & Grünebaum, A. (2018). Quality of web-based family-building information for lgbtq individuals. The European Journal of Contraception &Amp; Reproductive Health Care, 23(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2018.1432036 [kreines2018quality]

      Lewandowski, D. (2019). The web is missing an essential part of infrastructure: An open web index. Commun. ACM, 62(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3312479 [lewandowski2019web]

      Lewandowski, D., Sünkler, S., & Yagci, N. (2021). The influence of search engine optimization on google’s results: A multi-dimensional approach for detecting seo. 13th Acm Web Science Conference 2021, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447535.3462479 [lewandowski2021influence]

      Lurie, E., & Mulligan, D. K. (2021). Searching for representation: A sociotechnical audit of googling for members of U.S. Congress. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.07012 [lurie2021searching_facctrec]

      Meisner, C., Duffy, B. E., & Ziewitz, M. (2022). The labor of search engine evaluation: Making algorithms more human or humans more algorithmic? New Media & Society, 0(0), 14614448211063860. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063860 [meisner2022labor]

      Mulligan, D. K., & Griffin, D. (2018). Rescripting search to respect the right to truth. The Georgetown Law Technology Review, 2(2), 557–584. https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/rescripting-search-to-respect-the-right-to-truth/GLTR-07-2018/ [mulligan2018rescripting]

      Mulligan, D. K., & Nissenbaum, H. (2020). The concept of handoff as a model for ethical analysis and design. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.15 [mulligan2020concept]

      Narayanan, D., & De Cremer, D. (2022). “Google told me so!” On the bent testimony of search engine algorithms. Philos. Technol., 35(2), E4512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00521-7 [narayanan2022google]

      Nissenbaum, H. (2011). From preemption to circumvention: If technology regulates, why do we need regulation (and vice versa). Berkeley Tech. LJ, 26, 1367. [nissenbaum2011preemption]

      Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression how search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. https://nyupress.org/9781479837243/algorithms-of-oppression/ [noble2018algorithms]

      Ogilvy. (2013). UN women - the autocomplete truth. Online; YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkNlGuW-0g8 [ogilvy2013autocomplete]

      Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. [pinch1984social]

      Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598 [selbst2019fairness]

      Shah, C., & Bender, E. M. (2022, March). Situating search. ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505816 [shah2022situating]

      Simon, F. M., & Camargo, C. Q. (2021). Autopsy of a metaphor: The origins, use and blind spots of the “infodemic”. New Media & Society, 0(0), 14614448211031908. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211031908 [simon2021autopsy]

      Skrubbeltrang, M. M., Grunnet, J., & Tarp, N. T. (2017). #RIPINSTAGRAM: Examining user’s counter-narratives opposing the introduction of algorithmic personalization on instagram. First Monday, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i4.7574 [skrubbeltrang2017ripinstagram]

      Sundin, O. (2020). Where is search in information literacy? A theoretical note on infrastructure and community of practice. In Sustainable digital communities (pp. 373–379). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43687-2_29 [sundin2020where]

      Sundin, O., Lewandowski, D., & Haider, J. (2021). Whose relevance? Web search engines as multisided relevance machines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24570 [sundin2021relevance]

      Toepfl, F., Kravets, D., Ryzhova, A., & Beseler, A. (2022). Who are the plotters behind the pandemic? Comparing covid-19 conspiracy theories in google search results across five key target countries of russia’s foreign communication. Information, Communication & Society, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2022.2065213 [toepfl2022plotters]

      Tripodi, F. (2018). Searching for alternative facts: Analyzing scriptural inference in conservative news practices. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/output/searching-for-alternative-facts/ [tripodi2018searching]

      Tripodi, F. (2021). Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on wikipedia. New Media & Society, 0(0), 14614448211023772. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211023772 [tripodi2021ms]

      Upadhyay, U., Grossman, D., Ralph, L., & Roberts, S. (n.d.). Using google ads to study abortion access among pregnant people searching online for abortion. ANSIRH; https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/google-ads-abortion-access-study. [upadhyay2023using]

      Urman, A., & Makhortykh, M. (2022). “Foreign beauties want to meet you”: The sexualization of women in google’s organic and sponsored text search results. New Media & Society, 0(0), 14614448221099536. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221099536 [urman2022foreign]

      Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The googlization of everything:(And why we should worry). Univ of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520948693 [vaidhyanathan2011googlization]

      Van Couvering, E. J. (2007). Is relevance relevant? Market, science, and war: Discourses of search engine quality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00354.x [couvering2007relevance]

      Vertesi, J. (2019). From affordances to accomplishments: PowerPoint and excel at NASA. In digitalSTS (pp. 369–392). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691190600-026 [vertesi2019affordances]

      Ziewitz, M. (2019). Rethinking gaming: The ethical work of optimization in web search engines. Social Studies of Science, 49(5), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719865607 [ziewitz2019rethinking]