Designing for Resistance: Analyzing Data Work Among Direct Service Providers

Paper Title

Designing for Resistance: Analyzing Data Work Among Direct Service Providers

Publication Info

• Topic area: Data practices and resistance in social service administration.
• Keywords: Direct service providers, data resistance, electronic health records, social service administration, case notes, discretion, privacy, power dynamics, HCI, CSCW.

Background and Problem

• Problem / challenge: Digital documentation tools like EHRs create unintended consequences for direct service providers (DSPs) and their clients, including risks of data misuse, client stigmatization, and professional liability for DSPs. There is limited research on how DSPs deliberately avoid or resist these tools.
• Significance: Understanding DSPs’ resistance practices is critical to designing systems that balance institutional requirements with client privacy and DSP autonomy, especially given the high stakes for marginalized populations.
• Motivation and related work: Prior research highlights the tension between standardization and discretion in social service data practices, with a focus on organizational-level impacts. However, gaps remain in understanding DSPs’ on-the-ground strategies to navigate and resist harmful data norms.

Solution

• Proposed approach: The study introduces a typology of resistant data practices among DSPs, based on qualitative interviews, to inform the design of digital case management systems that better align with DSPs’ needs and ethical obligations.
• Novelty:
  1. A typology of four resistant data practices: avoidance, selective omission, obfuscation, and contextualization.
  2. Analysis of how DSPs balance institutional requirements with client protection and professional discretion.
  3. Design considerations for public-sector digital systems that incorporate care and address structural challenges.
• Procedure and key techniques:
  • Conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 DSPs in the Chicago area.
  • Used constructivist grounded theory and thematic analysis to identify emergent data practices.
  • Explored how DSPs navigate documentation requirements and anticipate risks to clients and themselves.

Results

• Concrete findings:
  • DSPs use four resistant data practices:
    1. Avoidance: Logging minimal information in official systems and maintaining private notes.
    2. Selective omission: Skipping or leaving out sensitive or stigmatizing information.
    3. Obfuscation: Masking or recoding data to reduce potential harm.
    4. Contextualization: Adding qualitative context to mitigate misinterpretation of data.
  • DSPs perceive digital records as permanent and unpredictable in their future use, heightening concerns about client privacy and professional accountability.
• Advantage over baselines: The study highlights DSPs’ nuanced strategies for resisting harmful data norms, which are not addressed in existing literature on data work and social service technologies.
• Experiments / evaluation:
  • Interviews with 16 DSPs across 11 organizations in Chicago, focusing on their data practices and perceptions of risk.
  • Analysis of demographic diversity (e.g., race, gender, licensing) and organizational contexts (e.g., public health, private practice).
• Limitations and future work:
  • Limited geographic scope (Chicago area) and focus on DSPs’ perspectives, excluding direct input from clients.
  • Future research should explore resistant practices in other regions and contexts, as well as clients’ experiences with data practices.

Summary

This study examines how direct service providers (DSPs) resist harmful data practices in digital case management systems through four strategies: avoidance, selective omission, obfuscation, and contextualization. These practices highlight DSPs’ efforts to balance institutional demands with client protection and professional discretion. The findings underscore the structural and ethical challenges in social service data work and suggest design considerations for systems that prioritize care, privacy, and discretion. Future research should expand on these insights to explore broader contexts and stakeholder perspectives.