Exposing Civic Normativity: Applying the Persona-Based Walkthrough Method to the Dutch Happiness Meter
Abstract
This study analyzes the Dutch Happiness Meter (HM) – a digital tool employed by the government to quantify citizens’ happiness – through the lens of critical data studies. We introduce the “persona-based walkthrough method” to explore the HM’s algorithmic underpinnings and its socio technical construction of happiness. By navigating diverse personas through the HM’s interface, we answer the following questions: RQ1: How does the Dutch Happiness Meter (HM) embed socio-cultural norms and biases within its algorithmic design, and how do these translate to the quantification and representation of citizen happiness across diverse demographic groups? RQ2: How does the persona-based walkthrough method reveal the limitations and exclusions of black-boxed e-government applications such as the Happiness Meter, and how can this method contribute to algorithmic accountability and transparency in digital governance? and RQ3: What are the implications of datafying subjective well-being through tools like the Happiness Meter on public perceptions of happiness, and how does algorithmic governance influence the epistemologies of well-being in the context of policy-making and societal inclusion? The analysis untangles cultural and computational synergies, examining their influence on civic normativity and quantified well-being. Our contribution shows how such data-driven systems construct a normative understanding of happiness which impacts governmental strategies and public accountability. The findings reveal critical insights into the underlying assumptions and biases in the HM, particularly how socio-technical systems shape user experience and influence perceptions of well-being. By employing personas, especially “anti-personas”, the study exposes civic normativity as mechanisms of exclusions and inequality. This study aims to contribute to discussions on digital governance’s role in shaping societal perceptions of well-being, highlighting the need for algorithmic accountability, transparency and inclusivity in algorithmic e-governmental infrastructures.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Albrecht, C., Aversa, E., Bassett, K., Bounegru, L., Chun, W., & Dhavan, N. (2019). Research persona as digital method. Digital Methods Initiative Wiki. https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/SummerSchool2019
Anderson, B., & Harrison, P. (2006). Questioning affect and emotion. Area, 38(3), 333–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00700.x
Burns, G.W. (2011). Gross national happiness: A gift from Bhutan to the world. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive Psychology as Social Change (pp. 73–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9938-9_5
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2016). Welzijn in Nederland. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2015/45/welzijn-in-nederland
Correa, M. (2017). The History of Gross National Happiness. Buenos Aires. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18737.38243
Couldry, N., & Powell, A. (2014). Big data from the bottom up. Big Data & Society, 1(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714539277
Couldry, N. (2015). Researching social analytics: Cultural sociology in the face of algorithmic power. In R.H. Williams & L. Zolberg (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture (pp. 383–395). Routledge.
de Graaf, G., & Huberts, L.W.J.C. (2011). Integriteit in het Nederlands openbaar bestuur. In Democratie doorgelicht: Het functioneren van de Nederlandse democratie (pp. 477–497). Leiden University Press/Amsterdam University Press.
Diakopoulos, N. (2014). Algorithmic Accountability: The Investigation of Black Boxes. Tow Center for Digital Journalism. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8ZK5TW2
Drucker, J. (2011). Humanities approaches to graphical display. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 5(1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/1/000091/000091.html
Duguay, S., & Gold-Apel, H. (2023). Stumbling blocks and alternative paths: Reconsidering the walkthrough method for analyzing apps. Social Media + Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231158822
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017). Slave to the algorithm? Why a ‘right to an explanation’ is probably not the remedy you are looking for. Duke Law and Technology Review, 16, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2972855
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
Gray, J., Gerlitz, C., & Bounegru, L. (2018). Data infrastructure literacy. Big Data & Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786316
Grudin, J., & Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (PDC) (pp. 144–152).
Hacking, I. (1986). Making up people. In T.C. Heller, M. Sosna, & D.E. Wellbery (Eds.), Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought (pp. 161–171). Stanford University Press.
Haraway, D.J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Huvila, I. (2012). Information Services and Digital Literacy: In Search of the Boundaries of Knowing. Chandos Publishing.
Kennedy, H., Hill, R.L., Aiello, G., & Allen, W. (2016). The work that visualization conventions do. Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1153126
Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481
Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T.P. (2014). Towards critical data studies: Charting and unpacking data assemblages and their work. The Programmable City Working Paper, 2. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/7p4rh
Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T.P., & McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2014.983149
Knops, R.W. (2018). Kamerbrief over onderzoek naar algoritmen. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.
Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2016). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 18(6), 763–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438
Marshall, P.D., Moore, C., & Barbour, K. (2019). Persona Studies: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Nissenbaum, H. (1994). Computing and accountability. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/175222.175228
Oishi, S., Kushlev, K., & Schimmack, U. (2018). Progressive taxation, income inequality, and happiness. American Psychologist, 73(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000166
Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.
Pruitt, J., & Grundin, J. (2003). Personas: Practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (pp. 1–15). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997089
Pulla, V. (2016). Who are the Lhotsampa? What caused their flight from Bhutan? In V. Pulla (Ed.), The Lhotsampa people of Bhutan: Resilience and survival (pp. 1–13). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54507-5_1
Rijksoverheid. (2018). Gedragscode openbaar bestuur. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/
Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2),. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104
Statistics Netherlands. (2018). Open data. https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/en/
Stewart, F. (2014). Against happiness: A critical appraisal of the use of measures of happiness for evaluating progress in development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15(4), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2014.903234
Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (2018). World Happiness Report. http://worldhappiness.report/
Uricchio, W. (2017). Data, culture and the ambivalence of algorithms. The Programmable City Working Paper, 21. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/53mjz/
U.S. General Services Administration. (2018). Data.gov. https://www.data.gov/
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2016). De platformsamenleving: Strijd om publieke waarden in een online wereld. Amsterdam University Press.
Wieringa, M. (2020). What to account for when accounting for algorithms: A systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1–18). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372833
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/ms.2024.8.25-46
Date of publication: 2025-01-27 13:06:18
Date of submission: 2024-09-30 21:19:12
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Alexander Smit, Tim de Winkel, Maranke Wieringa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.