Assistant professor (VU) Margot Kersing recently completed their PhD research on Big Data in the social domain and will defend their thesis March 27th 2025. Their work offers a sharp and sometimes unsettling look at how Big Data reshapes not only policy and organizational processes, but much more so the daily realities of professionals and the lives of citizens who rely on them. This interview highlights the main insights from their dissertation. For example, Kersing found that the balance between data-driven decision-making and democratic values can only be maintained through contestability.
Now that you have completed your PhD research, what are the most important insights you have gained about how civil servants use Big Data within the social domain?
I realised that the impact of Big Data is much larger than individual civil servants. If affects politicians, civil servants, citizens, and many other involved actors. So, after my initial focus on individual civil servants I opened up my research to get a better view on the whole picture.
My research shows that civil servants mainly use data-driven technologies as efficiency and accountability instruments. The services for citizens and their needs, unfortunately, fade further and further into the background when data-driven systems are used.
Data-driven technologies often change not only their daily work but also their professional role identity. It shifts from client coach, who mainly has personal attention for the citizen, to caseload manager, who is more concerned with managing the caseload. So, through the use of data-driven technologies, not only do their work and role identity change, but also the nature of their relationship with citizens.
If we zoom out a bit more, we also see that digitalization often disrupts the relationship between the citizen and the government, and consequently, the welfare state or participatory society. In the participatory society, citizens are expected to take control over their own lives, but they often cannot do so because they are hindered by the data-driven working methods of their municipality and the work coach they deal with. They often have no idea at all how data-driven governance affects their lives.
Were there findings that surprised you compared to what you expected when you started?
I was surprised that, in local politics, the use of data-driven technologies in the domain of work and income is discussed so little. The topic only emerges in response to scandal, but data-driven technologies have a huge influence on how civil servants do their work and on the lives of citizens.
Local politicians often do not seem aware of the political choices and implications that come with data-driven working, and when a scandal occurs, they depoliticize the issue by pushing it back into the administrative apparatus. They do not seem to really take responsibility for the consequences of data-driven governance.
Those who create these data-driven technologies, who influence them, or who make decisions about which data is collected and how such data-driven instruments work, have a great deal of influence over which (public) values dominate within them.
How have your results been received by professionals and policymakers, for example, in municipalities or welfare organizations? Are there already examples of how your research has had an impact?
I have presented my results at several municipalities, and I have given workshops and guest lectures to professionals working within municipal organizations. Some professionals are startled by the findings, but immediately start reflecting on whether similar dynamics occur in their own municipality, what impact data-driven working has on their employees and the residents of their municipality, and what role data-driven technologies play in their trust relationship with those residents.
Other professionals sometimes react defensive, especially when I present the experiences of welfare recipients regarding the data-driven practices of their municipality. They see it as criticism of the way they do their work, whereas I actually believe the findings offer valuable starting points for improvement. Municipal employees often deal with high work pressure: caseloads are very large, and they try to help many welfare recipients find work again. That is already difficult in itself, and even more so when the number of clients exceeds the capacity available. Work coaches work very hard and do their very best, but the role of data-driven technologies varies from positive to negative. In order for my research to have a long-lasting impact, civil servants should have the time to structurally reflect on data-driven governance.
Where I do believe my research has had an impact is through media exposure. I was invited to discuss my findings in a three-part podcast series called Big Brother in de Bijstand by Vers Beton, which focused primarily on the experiences of welfare recipients with their municipality’s data-driven practices. Those were quite horrifying stories.
Additionally, Michelle van Tongerloo used my work in her book Komt een land bij de dokter. In these ways, my research, and especially the stories of ordinary citizens, reach a broader audience. Far too many people think, “That won’t happen to me,” but people are more vulnerable than they realize.
Your dissertation focused strongly on public values and ethics in relation to Big Data. How do you view this now, after completing your research?
After completing my research, I see even more clearly that data-driven work is never value-neutral. Public values are pushed aside and replaced by the values and interests of different actors who influence the process.
Data-driven technologies not only describe reality, but they also shape it. A parallel digital reality is created, which then becomes the basis for policymaking, decision-making, and steering both citizens and civil servants.
Those who create these data-driven technologies, who influence them, or who make decisions about which data is collected and how such data-driven instruments work, have a great deal of influence over which (public) values dominate within them.
How do you think the balance can be found between efficiency and data-driven decision-making on the one hand, and values such as justice, transparency, and responsibility on the other?
This balance can only be achieved through contestability. All citizens should have the ability to question and challenge policy designs, especially concerning data-driven technologies.
It is a democratic necessity to question and contest the results of data-driven governance. In order to exercise this contestability, citizens need access to well-functioning accountability chains. The core lies in transparency. Show citizens how and which choices are made in data processes and who is responsible for what. Values such as justice and human dignity must be explicitly integrated into data-driven governance.
If you focus solely on short-term efficiency, you are in fact not being efficient at all in the long run. It should be about sustainable outcomes. Unfortunately, quick fixes do not exist.
Ironically enough, I also believe that many municipalities severely underestimate how much money, time, energy, and knowledge it actually takes to get a data-driven tool up and running and to keep it running. It is not a magical effortless solution for every and any problem.
In what ways do your findings show how local governments can start rebuilding trust with their citizens?
Citizens should be more involved in the development and use of data-driven systems. As I said before, I believe contestability is precisely what is needed to foster a critical perspective and perhaps even some healthy distrust towards the government. Allowing citizens to question and contest outcomes is the only way to rebuild mutual trust.
But for me, it is not only about involving citizens; it is especially about devulnerabilization: making citizens less vulnerable and more resilient. There are several examples of how we can achieve this. For instance, an option would be to offer citizens “Demos Data Defense” workshops where citizens can learn how to defend themselves against the datahunger of the state. Currently, most digital inclusion programs focus only on digital citizenship, digital literacy, and cybersecurity courses, teaching people to adapt to digital systems. However, we must return to the basic question: is digitalization actually the solution, and if so, how? Another route is to rely more on the knowledge of experts who provide more insights into the vulnerabilities of certain minority groups.
What are your next steps? Which new research questions have emerged from your PhD?
The lived experiences of citizens will remain central. I want to develop this as a dedicated field of study: Citizen-Centered Data Sciences. I envision this to be a similar development to the emergence of the field of study on patient sciences, which was developed by scholars like Hester van de Bovenkamp.
I am additionally very motivated to research devulnerabilization: how can we make citizens less vulnerable or more resilient?
Is there a book, a podcast, or a project you recently encountered adjacent to your field of research that you found inspiring and that you would like to recommend?
In my research, I was most inspired by the stories of citizens and their experiences. It was their strength and vulnerability that allowed for the most valuable insights to emerge. That is why I want to recommend projects of citizens who were brave enough to write about their experiences. Stella de Swart wrote the book ‘Armoede krijg je gratis’ (Poverty you receive for free) and Gerard Sangers wrote the book ‘De mening van… de uitkeringstrekker’ (The opinion of … a welfare leech. Both are eye-opening pieces of work that I would recommend everyone to read.
