Understanding trust and distrust in public data infrastructures as socio-technical systems

In the landscape of (Open) Science, the discourse on trust has been a cornerstone of discussions, emphasizing the importance of fostering reliability and credibility within scientific practices. However, I advocate for a view that extends beyond the emphasis on trust and to consider dynamics of mistrust and distrust in public data infrastructures. This proposal is rooted in the recognition that infrastructures, as complex socio-technical systems, not only facilitate the flow of information but can also act as recipients of system trust or system distrust.

While existing research has predominantly examined trust in data repositories and public infrastructures (Yakel et al., 2013; Donaldson, 2015; Yoon and Lee, 2019), the ongoing doctoral research presented in this talk shifts attention towards the dimensions of distrust and mistrust. Informed by infrastructure studies, it emphasizes the embeddedness of scientific infrastructures within political contexts. The central question revolves around understanding how individuals distinguish between their distrust in a political system and their attitudes towards the infrastructures embedded within that system. 

In the context of (Open) Science infrastructures, the concept of system trust as a notion of trust in socio-technical systems is important. System trust encapsulates the confidence and reliance placed in the overall functionality and dependability of complex systems (Luhmann, 1979; Giddens, 1990; Möllering, 2001). As users engage with infrastructures, their trust in the system plays a pivotal role in shaping their interactions and decisions. It is conceivable to view trust in public data infrastructures as a manifestation of system trust, reflecting users' confidence in the system's ability to securely and effectively handle information. However, the question arises: can system distrust be theorized when trust in these infrastructures falters or wavers? 

The presented research acknowledges the potential for theorizing system distrust, exploring how the breakdown or uncertainty in trust relations within data infrastructures may give rise to a distinct conceptualization of system distrust. This perspective adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of the interplay between trust, distrust, and the systemic dynamics of public data infrastructures, offering insights into the implications of system trust and its potential fragility within the evolving landscape of scientific practices.

An illustrative case study within this research is the Data Rescue movement. In 2016 and 2017, these hackathon-style events aimed to safeguard U.S. federal environmental data, uniting scientists, information professionals, and activists nationwide. Responding to concerns about climate change denial and perceived erosion of environmental protections under the Trump administration, the events were lauded as examples of archival data activism. However, their impact revealed vulnerabilities in federal data infrastructures, particularly in access, amidst budget constraints and staffing reductions. The movement fell short of creating a comprehensive archive, with no endangered data actually deleted. This grassroots activism highlighted the inherently political nature of data management and archiving, emphasizing how mistrust or distrust in public data infrastructures can lead to activities in the realm of data activism.

As trust in public data infrastructures is revealed to be susceptible to fluctuations and uncertainties, this research contributes to the study of trust within (open) science by unraveling the implications of system trust in public data infrastructures and its potential fragility. This research not only broadens the scope of (Open) Science discourse but also enriches the field of Science and Technology Studies by highlighting the nuanced dynamics of trust, distrust, and systemic interactions within public data infrastructures. The insights garnered from this exploration contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships shaping scientific practices, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach that embraces the complexities of trust in socio-technical systems.