Skip to main content

Cathy Fussell

Followers

2

Following

1

Mentions

1

Public Views

I am a Sir Roland Wilson PhD scholar at the Crawford School of Public Policy (ANU) and Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. My doctoral research explores how government can realise the collective value of data. Working at the intersection of theories of value and power, and public service practice, I unpack what collective value looks like and how it can be systematically created. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari’s assemblage theory, I interrogate how we think and talk about data, develops a collective theory of value and power, and applies that theory to practice. I hope this work will support the public sector policy and data communities to design, create, and facilitate supported data assemblages that create collective value.

less

Interests

Uploads

Papers by Cathy Fussell

Four data discourses and assemblage forms: a methodological framework

Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings ... more Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings of data that struggle for discursive dominance. This paper argues that four discourses have emerged: data as an asset, data as latent knowledge, data as a technology of governing, and data as resistance. These four discourses align with Deleuze and Guattari's capitalist, territorial, statist, and nomadic social formations, respectively. The social forms exist in reciprocal relationship to and are the aggregates of concrete assemblages. This paper outlines how CDS scholarship can be connected conceptually and methodologically through this four-discourse framework and the relationship between discourse, social form, and concrete assemblage. This coherence and Deleuze and Guattari's approach to identifying and harnessing opportunities for change can be used to amplify the CDS agenda of challenging data power asymmetries and creating more widely valued data assemblages.

What a power-with looks like and why we should choose it

This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-te... more This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-term level and why it is preferable to a power-over. At an episodic, one-off level a power-over-that is, hoarding power and value-appears more profitable. However, the dynamic changes over the long term. Maximising our capacity to act (i.e. power) is inherently collective; enhancing our capacity to act requires combining with other things (e.g. people, objects, ideas). With human collaborators, future rounds of collaboration and value creation are jeopardised by past hoarding. Power and value hoarding erode reputation, trust, effective feedback, and partners' capacity, limit innovation and resilience, and induce resistance and withdrawal from the partnership. In contrast, where value is shared (i.e. a power-with) collaborators reinvest, and more value is created, a virtuous cycle. In this paper, alongside a simpler model demonstrating virtuous and vicious cycles of value creation or destruction, I demonstrate more complex systemic forms of power-with that I label 'collective experimentation' and 'collaborative competition'. Collective experiments leverage diversity and, through experimentation, create new capacities (i.e. power) and resilience to change. They mitigate the groups' risk of failure from experiments by sharing value from successes. Data is used as feedback from experiments rather than to judge and control. Facilitated by governing agents with protections against corruption and value hoarding, the capacities of all are enhanced, leading to collective flourishing. Real-world case studies will be provided and linked to theory to illustrate the applicability of these ideas to governments' use of data.

Searching for a positive theory of power

We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power-that is domination-unless we are able to... more We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power-that is domination-unless we are able to articulate an alternative, coherently and concisely. Power-to and power-with emerged in separate dichotomous debates to oppose domination (power-over), the traditional focus of power theory. Efforts to combine power-to, power-over, and power-with into a trichotomy, rather than producing a clear and robust positive theory of power to challenge domination, have created a complex and contested mix of definitions. This paper proposes a simplified formulation of the trichotomy: power at its most fundamental is the capacity to act and achieve outcomes and is labelled power-to. Power-over and power-with become two opposing exercises of this capacity. Power-over retains its emphasis on the hoarding of value by the dominant (normatively negative). Power-with is redefined to refer to an exercise of power in which value is equitably shared (normatively positive). These new definitions require that we abandon some of the distinguishing features that have been attached to these terms, but doing so resolves some outstanding disputes and provides new opportunities. It opens the way to more effectively ask what power-with and the conditions for collective flourishing and value creation might look like and why we should choose them over domination.

Three propositions for realising collective value

This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look li... more This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look like which impedes its realisation. Three propositions to address this problem are offered, which are expanded upon in three subsequent working papers. The first proposition is that value is the expanded capacity to act (i.e. power) that we seek from all social investments. The second proposition differentiates collective value creation from value extraction. Power-with is where the value produced from social investments is shared (value sharing). Power-over is where value is hoarded (value extraction). The third proposition is that only a power-with (value sharing) leads to long-term collective virtuous cycles of value creation. Examples are provided of what this looks like in practice indicating the key features of a power-with. In contrast, value extraction risks and undermines value creation by eroding trust, reducing effective feedback, reducing collective members' capacity to contribute, and can lead to passive withdrawal from value creation arrangements or their active resistance. The authority and legitimacy of society's agents (e.g. elected officials, public administrators, corporate executives) rests on their facilitation of collective value creation and its dispersal, and on protecting the collective from value extraction.

Why we struggle to realise the value of data

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation is often elusive. This paper examines the origins and logics of the discourses that underpin the drive to invest in data and analytics. It finds that a linear-mechanic 3 logic scaffolds the ideas drawn from public administration theory, economics, and theories of data and evidence use that permeate government, business, and academic framings. However, within the critique of these ideas, another pattern emerges. The view that simple metrics and universal solutions should guide and evaluate the actions of centralised, hierarchical decision makers competes with an alternative perspective. Value creation and its consumption are increasingly seen as a collective and complex endeavour. Yet we lack theories of value to support this approach. In response, this paper proposes that a new theory of value is required if we are to understand and articulate what collective value looks like and how to create it. Subsequent papers propose that new theory.

Realising the collective value of data by governing with rather than over

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realis... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realisation is often fraught, and it is possible to get it scandalously wrong. It is difficult to realise value unless you know what it looks like, and our current theories of value are an inadequate guide. The mechanistic Newtonian-inspired logic that often informs thinking about value creation is counterproductive in complex problem spaces typical of social domains. This logic often leads to harmful practices that erode reputations and trust. However, we do not yet know how to govern complexity to create collective value. To address this problem, I propose a combined theory of value and power underpinned by complexity theory. That is, value is the enhanced capacity to act (i.e. power) we seek from all social arrangements. I rework the power-to, -over, and -with trichotomy to argue that the value created in social assemblages can be hoarded (power-over) or shared (power with). I pose the questions ‘what does a power-with look like?’ and ‘why should we choose it?’ I propose that systemic power with (i.e. governing-with) tends to look like a collective experiment in which data is used as feedback, rather than to judge and control. As all participants obtain value, virtuous cycles of value creation ensue. Governing with is proposed as normatively superior to governing-over for producing long-term collective value and flourishing as the contributing capacities of all are enhanced. We cannot effectively combat domination (i.e. power-over) unless we can clearly articulate an alternative. This paper proposes power-with and governing-with as domination’s foil.

Understanding value through Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphysical and ethical foundations

This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and ... more This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and how to create it. Mapped over Deleuze and Guattari's theory of desiring-production, value becomes enhanced capacity to act (or power) and the desire for value creates our entire social world. We enter social relationships-friendships, families, organisations, nation-states, etc-to enhance our capacity to act. In the process, we create desiring-machines or assemblages which are temporary collections of things (people, objects, ideas, etc) arranged to create and disperse value for its participants. These assemblages adhere and are legitimate where they produce value for all their contributors and risk dissolution and harm where they disempower and extract value (i.e. illegitimate desiring-production). An inverse metaphysics to traditional Western thought is required in which, firstly, things are motivated internally rather than externally such as by universal laws or truths, and secondly, existence is inherently dynamic rather than static. In this dynamic, complex world, understanding flows of value and their blockers becomes critical to creating collective value and flourishing.

What a power-with looks like and why we should choose it

This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-te... more This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-term level and why it is preferable to a power-over. At an episodic, one-off level a power-over—that is, hoarding power and value—appears more profitable. However, the dynamic changes over the long term. Maximising our capacity to act (i.e. power) is inherently collective; enhancing our capacity to act requires combining with other things (e.g. people, objects, ideas). With human collaborators, future rounds of collaboration and value creation are jeopardised by past hoarding. Power and value hoarding erode reputation, trust, effective feedback, and partners’ capacity, limit innovation and resilience, and induce resistance and withdrawal from the partnership. In contrast, where value is shared (i.e. a power with) collaborators reinvest, and more value is created, a virtuous cycle. In this paper, alongside a simpler model demonstrating virtuous and vicious cycles of value creation or destru...

Realising the collective value of data by governing with rather than over

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realis... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realisation is often fraught, and it is possible to get it scandalously wrong. It is difficult to realise value unless you know what it looks like, and our current theories of value are an inadequate guide. The mechanistic Newtonian-inspired logic that often informs thinking about value creation is counterproductive in complex problem spaces typical of social domains. This logic often leads to harmful practices that erode reputations and trust. However, we do not yet know how to govern complexity to create collective value. To address this problem, I propose a combined theory of value and power underpinned by complexity theory. That is, value is the enhanced capacity to act (i.e. power) we seek from all social arrangements. I rework the power-to, -over, and -with trichotomy to argue that the value created in social assemblages can be hoarded (power-over) or shared (power with). I pose the ques...

Why we struggle to realise the value of data

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation is often elusive. This paper examines the origins and logics of the discourses that underpin the drive to invest in data and analytics. It finds that a linear-mechanic logic scaffolds the ideas drawn from public administration theory, economics, and theories of data and evidence use that permeate government, business, and academic framings. However, within the critique of these ideas, another pattern emerges. The view that simple metrics and universal solutions should guide and evaluate the actions of centralised, hierarchical decision makers competes with an alternative perspective. Value creation and its consumption are increasingly seen as a collective and complex endeavour. Yet we lack theories of value to support this approach. In response, this paper proposes that a new theory of value is required if we are to understand and articulate what collective value looks like and how to c...

Understanding value through Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphysical and ethical foundations

This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and ... more This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and how to create it. Mapped over Deleuze and Guattari's theory of desiring-production, value becomes enhanced capacity to act (or power) and the desire for value creates our entire social world. We enter social relationships-friendships, families, organisations, nation-states, etc-to enhance our capacity to act. In the process, we create desiring-machines or assemblages which are temporary collections of things (people, objects, ideas, etc) arranged to create and disperse value for its participants. These assemblages adhere and are legitimate where they produce value for all their contributors and risk dissolution and harm where they disempower and extract value (i.e. illegitimate desiring-production). An inverse metaphysics to traditional Western thought is required in which, firstly, things are motivated internally rather than externally such as by universal laws or truths, and secondly, existence is inherently dynamic rather than static. In this dynamic, complex world, understanding flows of value and their blockers becomes critical to creating collective value and flourishing.

Three propositions for realising collective value

This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look li... more This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look like which impedes its realisation. Three propositions to address this problem are offered, which are expanded upon in three subsequent working papers. The first proposition is that value is the expanded capacity to act (i.e. power) that we seek from all social investments. The second proposition differentiates collective value creation from value extraction. Power-with is where the value produced from social investments is shared (value sharing). Power-over is where value is hoarded (value extraction). The third proposition is that only a power-with (value sharing) leads to long-term collective virtuous cycles of value creation. Examples are provided of what this looks like in practice indicating the key features of a power-with. In contrast, value extraction risks and undermines value creation by eroding trust, reducing effective feedback, reducing collective members' capacity to contribute, and can lead to passive withdrawal from value creation arrangements or their active resistance. The authority and legitimacy of society's agents (e.g. elected officials, public administrators, corporate executives) rests on their facilitation of collective value creation and its dispersal, and on protecting the collective from value extraction.

Searching for a positive theory of power

We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power—that is domination—unless we are able to... more We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power—that is domination—unless we are able to articulate an alternative, coherently and concisely. Power-to and power-with emerged in separate dichotomous debates to oppose domination (power-over), the traditional focus of power theory. Efforts to combine power-to, power-over, and power-with into a trichotomy, rather than producing a clear and robust positive theory of power to challenge domination, have created a complex and contested mix of definitions. This paper proposes a simplified formulation of the trichotomy: power at its most fundamental is the capacity to act and achieve outcomes and is labelled power-to. Power-over and power-with become two opposing exercises of this capacity. Power-over retains its emphasis on the hoarding of value by the dominant (normatively negative). Power-with is redefined to refer to an exercise of power in which value is equitably shared (normatively positive). These new definitions require that...

Four data discourses and assemblage forms: a methodological framework

Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings ... more Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings of data that struggle for discursive dominance. This paper argues that four discourses have emerged: data as an asset, data as latent knowledge, data as a technology of governing, and data as resistance. These four discourses align with Deleuze and Guattari’s capitalist, territorial, statist, and nomadic social formations, respectively. The social forms exist in reciprocal relationship to and are the aggregates of concrete assemblages. This paper outlines how CDS scholarship can be connected conceptually and methodologically through this four discourse framework and the relationship between discourse, social form, and concrete assemblage. This coherence and Deleuze and Guattari’s approach to identifying and harnessing opportunities for change can be used to amplify the CDS agenda of challenging data power asymmetries and creating more widely valued data assemblages.

Four data discourses and assemblage forms: a methodological framework

Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings ... more Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings of data that struggle for discursive dominance. This paper argues that four discourses have emerged: data as an asset, data as latent knowledge, data as a technology of governing, and data as resistance. These four discourses align with Deleuze and Guattari's capitalist, territorial, statist, and nomadic social formations, respectively. The social forms exist in reciprocal relationship to and are the aggregates of concrete assemblages. This paper outlines how CDS scholarship can be connected conceptually and methodologically through this four-discourse framework and the relationship between discourse, social form, and concrete assemblage. This coherence and Deleuze and Guattari's approach to identifying and harnessing opportunities for change can be used to amplify the CDS agenda of challenging data power asymmetries and creating more widely valued data assemblages.

What a power-with looks like and why we should choose it

This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-te... more This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-term level and why it is preferable to a power-over. At an episodic, one-off level a power-over-that is, hoarding power and value-appears more profitable. However, the dynamic changes over the long term. Maximising our capacity to act (i.e. power) is inherently collective; enhancing our capacity to act requires combining with other things (e.g. people, objects, ideas). With human collaborators, future rounds of collaboration and value creation are jeopardised by past hoarding. Power and value hoarding erode reputation, trust, effective feedback, and partners' capacity, limit innovation and resilience, and induce resistance and withdrawal from the partnership. In contrast, where value is shared (i.e. a power-with) collaborators reinvest, and more value is created, a virtuous cycle. In this paper, alongside a simpler model demonstrating virtuous and vicious cycles of value creation or destruction, I demonstrate more complex systemic forms of power-with that I label 'collective experimentation' and 'collaborative competition'. Collective experiments leverage diversity and, through experimentation, create new capacities (i.e. power) and resilience to change. They mitigate the groups' risk of failure from experiments by sharing value from successes. Data is used as feedback from experiments rather than to judge and control. Facilitated by governing agents with protections against corruption and value hoarding, the capacities of all are enhanced, leading to collective flourishing. Real-world case studies will be provided and linked to theory to illustrate the applicability of these ideas to governments' use of data.

Searching for a positive theory of power

We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power-that is domination-unless we are able to... more We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power-that is domination-unless we are able to articulate an alternative, coherently and concisely. Power-to and power-with emerged in separate dichotomous debates to oppose domination (power-over), the traditional focus of power theory. Efforts to combine power-to, power-over, and power-with into a trichotomy, rather than producing a clear and robust positive theory of power to challenge domination, have created a complex and contested mix of definitions. This paper proposes a simplified formulation of the trichotomy: power at its most fundamental is the capacity to act and achieve outcomes and is labelled power-to. Power-over and power-with become two opposing exercises of this capacity. Power-over retains its emphasis on the hoarding of value by the dominant (normatively negative). Power-with is redefined to refer to an exercise of power in which value is equitably shared (normatively positive). These new definitions require that we abandon some of the distinguishing features that have been attached to these terms, but doing so resolves some outstanding disputes and provides new opportunities. It opens the way to more effectively ask what power-with and the conditions for collective flourishing and value creation might look like and why we should choose them over domination.

Three propositions for realising collective value

This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look li... more This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look like which impedes its realisation. Three propositions to address this problem are offered, which are expanded upon in three subsequent working papers. The first proposition is that value is the expanded capacity to act (i.e. power) that we seek from all social investments. The second proposition differentiates collective value creation from value extraction. Power-with is where the value produced from social investments is shared (value sharing). Power-over is where value is hoarded (value extraction). The third proposition is that only a power-with (value sharing) leads to long-term collective virtuous cycles of value creation. Examples are provided of what this looks like in practice indicating the key features of a power-with. In contrast, value extraction risks and undermines value creation by eroding trust, reducing effective feedback, reducing collective members' capacity to contribute, and can lead to passive withdrawal from value creation arrangements or their active resistance. The authority and legitimacy of society's agents (e.g. elected officials, public administrators, corporate executives) rests on their facilitation of collective value creation and its dispersal, and on protecting the collective from value extraction.

Why we struggle to realise the value of data

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation is often elusive. This paper examines the origins and logics of the discourses that underpin the drive to invest in data and analytics. It finds that a linear-mechanic 3 logic scaffolds the ideas drawn from public administration theory, economics, and theories of data and evidence use that permeate government, business, and academic framings. However, within the critique of these ideas, another pattern emerges. The view that simple metrics and universal solutions should guide and evaluate the actions of centralised, hierarchical decision makers competes with an alternative perspective. Value creation and its consumption are increasingly seen as a collective and complex endeavour. Yet we lack theories of value to support this approach. In response, this paper proposes that a new theory of value is required if we are to understand and articulate what collective value looks like and how to create it. Subsequent papers propose that new theory.

Realising the collective value of data by governing with rather than over

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realis... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realisation is often fraught, and it is possible to get it scandalously wrong. It is difficult to realise value unless you know what it looks like, and our current theories of value are an inadequate guide. The mechanistic Newtonian-inspired logic that often informs thinking about value creation is counterproductive in complex problem spaces typical of social domains. This logic often leads to harmful practices that erode reputations and trust. However, we do not yet know how to govern complexity to create collective value. To address this problem, I propose a combined theory of value and power underpinned by complexity theory. That is, value is the enhanced capacity to act (i.e. power) we seek from all social arrangements. I rework the power-to, -over, and -with trichotomy to argue that the value created in social assemblages can be hoarded (power-over) or shared (power with). I pose the questions ‘what does a power-with look like?’ and ‘why should we choose it?’ I propose that systemic power with (i.e. governing-with) tends to look like a collective experiment in which data is used as feedback, rather than to judge and control. As all participants obtain value, virtuous cycles of value creation ensue. Governing with is proposed as normatively superior to governing-over for producing long-term collective value and flourishing as the contributing capacities of all are enhanced. We cannot effectively combat domination (i.e. power-over) unless we can clearly articulate an alternative. This paper proposes power-with and governing-with as domination’s foil.

Understanding value through Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphysical and ethical foundations

This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and ... more This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and how to create it. Mapped over Deleuze and Guattari's theory of desiring-production, value becomes enhanced capacity to act (or power) and the desire for value creates our entire social world. We enter social relationships-friendships, families, organisations, nation-states, etc-to enhance our capacity to act. In the process, we create desiring-machines or assemblages which are temporary collections of things (people, objects, ideas, etc) arranged to create and disperse value for its participants. These assemblages adhere and are legitimate where they produce value for all their contributors and risk dissolution and harm where they disempower and extract value (i.e. illegitimate desiring-production). An inverse metaphysics to traditional Western thought is required in which, firstly, things are motivated internally rather than externally such as by universal laws or truths, and secondly, existence is inherently dynamic rather than static. In this dynamic, complex world, understanding flows of value and their blockers becomes critical to creating collective value and flourishing.

What a power-with looks like and why we should choose it

This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-te... more This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-term level and why it is preferable to a power-over. At an episodic, one-off level a power-over—that is, hoarding power and value—appears more profitable. However, the dynamic changes over the long term. Maximising our capacity to act (i.e. power) is inherently collective; enhancing our capacity to act requires combining with other things (e.g. people, objects, ideas). With human collaborators, future rounds of collaboration and value creation are jeopardised by past hoarding. Power and value hoarding erode reputation, trust, effective feedback, and partners’ capacity, limit innovation and resilience, and induce resistance and withdrawal from the partnership. In contrast, where value is shared (i.e. a power with) collaborators reinvest, and more value is created, a virtuous cycle. In this paper, alongside a simpler model demonstrating virtuous and vicious cycles of value creation or destru...

Realising the collective value of data by governing with rather than over

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realis... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data. However, value realisation is often fraught, and it is possible to get it scandalously wrong. It is difficult to realise value unless you know what it looks like, and our current theories of value are an inadequate guide. The mechanistic Newtonian-inspired logic that often informs thinking about value creation is counterproductive in complex problem spaces typical of social domains. This logic often leads to harmful practices that erode reputations and trust. However, we do not yet know how to govern complexity to create collective value. To address this problem, I propose a combined theory of value and power underpinned by complexity theory. That is, value is the enhanced capacity to act (i.e. power) we seek from all social arrangements. I rework the power-to, -over, and -with trichotomy to argue that the value created in social assemblages can be hoarded (power-over) or shared (power with). I pose the ques...

Why we struggle to realise the value of data

Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation... more Governments and businesses are under pressure to realise the value of data, yet value realisation is often elusive. This paper examines the origins and logics of the discourses that underpin the drive to invest in data and analytics. It finds that a linear-mechanic logic scaffolds the ideas drawn from public administration theory, economics, and theories of data and evidence use that permeate government, business, and academic framings. However, within the critique of these ideas, another pattern emerges. The view that simple metrics and universal solutions should guide and evaluate the actions of centralised, hierarchical decision makers competes with an alternative perspective. Value creation and its consumption are increasingly seen as a collective and complex endeavour. Yet we lack theories of value to support this approach. In response, this paper proposes that a new theory of value is required if we are to understand and articulate what collective value looks like and how to c...

Understanding value through Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphysical and ethical foundations

This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and ... more This paper provides the metaphysical and ethical foundations for understanding what value is and how to create it. Mapped over Deleuze and Guattari's theory of desiring-production, value becomes enhanced capacity to act (or power) and the desire for value creates our entire social world. We enter social relationships-friendships, families, organisations, nation-states, etc-to enhance our capacity to act. In the process, we create desiring-machines or assemblages which are temporary collections of things (people, objects, ideas, etc) arranged to create and disperse value for its participants. These assemblages adhere and are legitimate where they produce value for all their contributors and risk dissolution and harm where they disempower and extract value (i.e. illegitimate desiring-production). An inverse metaphysics to traditional Western thought is required in which, firstly, things are motivated internally rather than externally such as by universal laws or truths, and secondly, existence is inherently dynamic rather than static. In this dynamic, complex world, understanding flows of value and their blockers becomes critical to creating collective value and flourishing.

Three propositions for realising collective value

This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look li... more This paper addresses the problem that we lack clarity about what value and value creation look like which impedes its realisation. Three propositions to address this problem are offered, which are expanded upon in three subsequent working papers. The first proposition is that value is the expanded capacity to act (i.e. power) that we seek from all social investments. The second proposition differentiates collective value creation from value extraction. Power-with is where the value produced from social investments is shared (value sharing). Power-over is where value is hoarded (value extraction). The third proposition is that only a power-with (value sharing) leads to long-term collective virtuous cycles of value creation. Examples are provided of what this looks like in practice indicating the key features of a power-with. In contrast, value extraction risks and undermines value creation by eroding trust, reducing effective feedback, reducing collective members' capacity to contribute, and can lead to passive withdrawal from value creation arrangements or their active resistance. The authority and legitimacy of society's agents (e.g. elected officials, public administrators, corporate executives) rests on their facilitation of collective value creation and its dispersal, and on protecting the collective from value extraction.

Searching for a positive theory of power

We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power—that is domination—unless we are able to... more We cannot effectively combat negative exercises of power—that is domination—unless we are able to articulate an alternative, coherently and concisely. Power-to and power-with emerged in separate dichotomous debates to oppose domination (power-over), the traditional focus of power theory. Efforts to combine power-to, power-over, and power-with into a trichotomy, rather than producing a clear and robust positive theory of power to challenge domination, have created a complex and contested mix of definitions. This paper proposes a simplified formulation of the trichotomy: power at its most fundamental is the capacity to act and achieve outcomes and is labelled power-to. Power-over and power-with become two opposing exercises of this capacity. Power-over retains its emphasis on the hoarding of value by the dominant (normatively negative). Power-with is redefined to refer to an exercise of power in which value is equitably shared (normatively positive). These new definitions require that...

Four data discourses and assemblage forms: a methodological framework

Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings ... more Over nearly a decade, Critical Data Studies (CDS) scholars have interrogated a range of framings of data that struggle for discursive dominance. This paper argues that four discourses have emerged: data as an asset, data as latent knowledge, data as a technology of governing, and data as resistance. These four discourses align with Deleuze and Guattari’s capitalist, territorial, statist, and nomadic social formations, respectively. The social forms exist in reciprocal relationship to and are the aggregates of concrete assemblages. This paper outlines how CDS scholarship can be connected conceptually and methodologically through this four discourse framework and the relationship between discourse, social form, and concrete assemblage. This coherence and Deleuze and Guattari’s approach to identifying and harnessing opportunities for change can be used to amplify the CDS agenda of challenging data power asymmetries and creating more widely valued data assemblages.