Search

Despite the lack of consensus on an official definition of Big Data, research and studies have continued to progress based on this "no consensus" stance over the years. However, the lack of a clear definition and scope for Big Data results in scientific research and communication lacking a common ground. Even with the popular "V" characteristics, Big Data remains elusive. The term is broad and is used differently in research, often referring to entirely different concepts, which is rarely stated explicitly in papers. While many studies and reviews attempt to draw a comprehensive understanding of Big Data, there has been little systematic research on the position and practical implications of the term Big Data in research environments. To address this gap, this paper presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on secondary studies to provide a comprehensive overview of how Big Data is used and understood across different scientific domains. Our objective was to monitor the application of the Big Data concept in science, identify which technologies are prevalent in which fields, and investigate the discrepancies between the theoretical understanding and practical usage of the term. Our study found that various Big Data technologies are being used in different scientific fields, including machine learning algorithms, distributed computing frameworks, and other tools. These manifestations of Big Data can be classified into four major categories: abstract concepts, large datasets, machine learning techniques, and the Big Data ecosystem. This study revealed that despite the general agreement on the "V" characteristics, researchers in different scientific fields have varied implicit understandings of Big Data. These implicit understandings significantly influence the content and discussions of studies involving Big Data, although they are often not explicitly stated. We call for a clearer articulation of the meaning of Big Data in research to facilitate smoother scientific communication., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Han, Gstrein and Andrikopoulos.)

The United Nations confirmed that privacy remains a human right in the digital age, but our daily digital experiences and seemingly ever-increasing amounts of data suggest that privacy is a mundane, distributed and technologically mediated concept. This article explores privacy by mapping out different legal and conceptual approaches to privacy protection in the context of datafication. It provides an essential starting point to explore the entwinement of technological, ethical and regulatory dynamics. It clarifies why each of the presented approaches emphasises particular aspects and analyses the tensions that arise. The resulting overview provides insight into the main strengths and limitations of the different approaches arising from specific traditions. This analytic overview therefore serves as a key resource to analyse the usefulness of the approaches in the context of the increasing datafication of both private and public spheres. Specifically, we contrast the approach focusing on data subjects whose data are being 'protected' with others, including Fair Information Practice Principles, the German right to 'informational self-determination', and the South American 'habeas data' doctrine. We also present and contrast emerging approaches to privacy (differential privacy, contextual integrity, group privacy) and discuss their intersection with datafication. In conclusion, we put forth that rather than aiming for one single solution that works worldwide and across all situations, it is essential to identify synergies and stumbling blocks between the various regulatory settings and newly emerging approaches., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022.)