Data Wagers in Worker Advocacy Research

This paper draws on Michel de Certeau’s notion of "tactics" to explore the use of data in labor organizing research in CSCW. Taking a historical view, we first analyze a set of cases from 20th century US labor history that offer three distinct lenses on the risks of data-based advocacy campaigns: wagers, compromises, and concessions. Across our cases, we frame reformers' use of data tactics as a rhetorical move, taken to advance incremental worker gains under conditions of precarity. However, by continuing to rely on certain data-based arguments in the short term, we argue that labor reformers may have limited the frame of debate for broader arguments necessary to improve conditions in the long-term. These tensions follow us into data-based advocacy research in the present, such as the emerging "digital workerism" movement. To ensure the continuation of responsible advocacy research in CSCW, we offer insights from social justice movements to suggest how members of the HCI and CSCW communities can work more intentionally alongside (or without) data methods to support worker-led direct action.