{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/381984"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/381984","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Feminicide Data: Configuring Multiplicity in Practice","abstract":"This dissertation provides a theoretical and methodological study to assess the multiplicity of feminicide data practices. Various global institutions, national governments, and citizens on the ground engage in counting the gender-related killing of women and girls, resulting in different versions of feminicide data. In 2022 alone, the United Nations estimated 89,000 women and girls were intentionally killed, yet official figures continue to fall short. In response, citizen-led initiatives around the world have turned to digital tools to produce ‘missing’ or ‘counter’ data, challenging state narratives and exposing gaps in institutional records. Numerical data influence decisions about resource allocation, prevention mechanisms, and policy implementation to address gender-based violence (GBV). Thus, it is essential to question the qualitative work of quantitative measurements. Such an endeavour poses critical considerations for the means by which a woman’s dead body becomes a feminicide data point across global, national, and local scales. As feminicide data travels from local stories to global data sets of comparison, the process of scaling introduces uncertainties, paradoxes and friction. Using Mexico as a case study, the empirical chapters focus on three milieus producing feminicide data: the global (international organisations); the national (the state’s data infrastructures); and the local (citizen data). Sociologically, feminicide data provides a rich exploration of power asymmetries. Grounded in feminist epistemologies and intersectional theories of power (Hill Collins 2000), this study unravels the relational and labour-intensive processes involved in data production, showing how power and data are distributed through everyday interactions between people, tools, platforms, and protocols. Results draw on mixed methods, including: qualitative in-depth interviews; discourse analysis of secondary sources (reports, guidelines, databases, analysis); the co-design of a participatory action research workshop to create a digital memorial against feminicide; critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA) of digital interfaces; and autoethnography. Based on this empirical exploration, it is argued that feminicide data are ontologically multiple rather than singularly factual. Findings unearth how the seeming singularity of a dead woman’s body shifts into many when her case is categorised differently in global data settings, national data sets, and local data stories. By tracing how bodies become data points, each empirical chapter unpacks a key paradox in data scaling and its implications for feminicide data configurations: data intimacies emerging from recounting distance (Chapter 5), data debris resulting from classifying discordance (Chapter 6), and data bargaining arising from standardising dimension (Chapter 7). This dissertation exposes the fractures and contingencies in current methods of quantifying social life. It demonstrates that feminicide is yet to be measured as it is sociologically understood for numerical metrics fail to capture the ontological multiplicity of feminicide data, particularly in translating conceptual ambiguities like ‘gender’ as a crime motivator. Moreover, scaling paradoxes further expose shifting attachments to data depending on retrieval levels, highlighting an overlooked ontological dimension of GBV, feminicide, and scales. At closer proximity, feminicide data configurations become less numerical, more intimate, and relational, reflecting immediate, context-specific realities of violence. In contrast, as distance increases, data rely more on expert legitimacy and authoritative norms of ‘objectivity,’ ‘visibility,’ and ‘science,’ reinforcing the notion of a reality waiting to be measured rather than actively constructed in everyday practices. Finally, the overall analysis contributes to critical debates on data justice, feminist methodologies, and the politics of knowledge production, highlighting the productive, yet inherently frictional work involved in configuring feminicide data.","abstract_html":"This dissertation provides a theoretical and methodological study to assess the multiplicity of feminicide data practices. Various global institutions, national governments, and citizens on the ground engage in counting the gender-related killing of women and girls, resulting in different versions of feminicide data. In 2022 alone, the United Nations estimated 89,000 women and girls were intentionally killed, yet official figures continue to fall short. In response, citizen-led initiatives around the world have turned to digital tools to produce ‘missing’ or ‘counter’ data, challenging state narratives and exposing gaps in institutional records. Numerical data influence decisions about resource allocation, prevention mechanisms, and policy implementation to address gender-based violence (GBV). Thus, it is essential to question the qualitative work of quantitative measurements. Such an endeavour poses critical considerations for the means by which a woman’s dead body becomes a feminicide data point across global, national, and local scales. As feminicide data travels from local stories to global data sets of comparison, the process of scaling introduces uncertainties, paradoxes and friction. Using Mexico as a case study, the empirical chapters focus on three milieus producing feminicide data: the global (international organisations); the national (the state’s data infrastructures); and the local (citizen data). Sociologically, feminicide data provides a rich exploration of power asymmetries. Grounded in feminist epistemologies and intersectional theories of power (Hill Collins 2000), this study unravels the relational and labour-intensive processes involved in data production, showing how power and data are distributed through everyday interactions between people, tools, platforms, and protocols. Results draw on mixed methods, including: qualitative in-depth interviews; discourse analysis of secondary sources (reports, guidelines, databases, analysis); the co-design of a participatory action research workshop to create a digital memorial against feminicide; critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA) of digital interfaces; and autoethnography. Based on this empirical exploration, it is argued that feminicide data are ontologically multiple rather than singularly factual. Findings unearth how the seeming singularity of a dead woman’s body shifts into many when her case is categorised differently in global data settings, national data sets, and local data stories. By tracing how bodies become data points, each empirical chapter unpacks a key paradox in data scaling and its implications for feminicide data configurations: data intimacies emerging from recounting distance (Chapter 5), data debris resulting from classifying discordance (Chapter 6), and data bargaining arising from standardising dimension (Chapter 7). This dissertation exposes the fractures and contingencies in current methods of quantifying social life. It demonstrates that feminicide is yet to be measured as it is sociologically understood for numerical metrics fail to capture the ontological multiplicity of feminicide data, particularly in translating conceptual ambiguities like ‘gender’ as a crime motivator. Moreover, scaling paradoxes further expose shifting attachments to data depending on retrieval levels, highlighting an overlooked ontological dimension of GBV, feminicide, and scales. At closer proximity, feminicide data configurations become less numerical, more intimate, and relational, reflecting immediate, context-specific realities of violence. In contrast, as distance increases, data rely more on expert legitimacy and authoritative norms of ‘objectivity,’ ‘visibility,’ and ‘science,’ reinforcing the notion of a reality waiting to be measured rather than actively constructed in everyday practices. Finally, the overall analysis contributes to critical debates on data justice, feminist methodologies, and the politics of knowledge production, highlighting the productive, yet inherently frictional work involved in configuring feminicide data.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Mobayed Vega, Saide"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["McPherson, Ella"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024-09-01","date_published":"2024-09-01","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:18Z","subjects":["feminicide","feminicide data","data practices","critical data studies","digital sociology","scales","sociology of knowledge","STS","data configurations"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c8efb3ef-a90c-479b-b77a-345742ce2eb4/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:creator.authoridentifier","label":"Author Identifier","values":["0000000327117674"],"render_values":[{"text":"0000-0003-2711-7674","href":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2711-7674","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.116976","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["McPherson, Ella"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.sponsor","label":"Sponsor","values":["CONAHCyT Cambridge Scholarship, Churchill College, Department of Sociology"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Mobayed Vega, Saide"]},{"key":"dc:creator.authoridentifier","label":"Author Identifier","values":["0000000327117674"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2024-09-01"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/381984"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["feminicide","feminicide data","data practices","critical data studies","digital sociology","scales","sociology of knowledge","STS","data configurations"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c8efb3ef-a90c-479b-b77a-345742ce2eb4/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargotype","label":"Dc Rights Embargotype","values":["controlled.access"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.116976"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c5dd7d15-5d2b-4afe-8ea5-f4e0c69a24f3/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This dissertation provides a theoretical and methodological study to assess the multiplicity of feminicide data practices. Various global institutions, national governments, and citizens on the ground engage in counting the gender-related killing of women and girls, resulting in different versions of feminicide data. In 2022 alone, the United Nations estimated 89,000 women and girls were intentionally killed, yet official figures continue to fall short. In response, citizen-led initiatives around the world have turned to digital tools to produce ‘missing’ or ‘counter’ data, challenging state narratives and exposing gaps in institutional records. Numerical data influence decisions about resource allocation, prevention mechanisms, and policy implementation to address gender-based violence (GBV). Thus, it is essential to question the qualitative work of quantitative measurements. Such an endeavour poses critical considerations for the means by which a woman’s dead body becomes a feminicide data point across global, national, and local scales. As feminicide data travels from local stories to global data sets of comparison, the process of scaling introduces uncertainties, paradoxes and friction. Using Mexico as a case study, the empirical chapters focus on three milieus producing feminicide data: the global (international organisations); the national (the state’s data infrastructures); and the local (citizen data). Sociologically, feminicide data provides a rich exploration of power asymmetries. Grounded in feminist epistemologies and intersectional theories of power (Hill Collins 2000), this study unravels the relational and labour-intensive processes involved in data production, showing how power and data are distributed through everyday interactions between people, tools, platforms, and protocols. Results draw on mixed methods, including: qualitative in-depth interviews; discourse analysis of secondary sources (reports, guidelines, databases, analysis); the co-design of a participatory action research workshop to create a digital memorial against feminicide; critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA) of digital interfaces; and autoethnography. Based on this empirical exploration, it is argued that feminicide data are ontologically multiple rather than singularly factual. Findings unearth how the seeming singularity of a dead woman’s body shifts into many when her case is categorised differently in global data settings, national data sets, and local data stories. By tracing how bodies become data points, each empirical chapter unpacks a key paradox in data scaling and its implications for feminicide data configurations: data intimacies emerging from recounting distance (Chapter 5), data debris resulting from classifying discordance (Chapter 6), and data bargaining arising from standardising dimension (Chapter 7). This dissertation exposes the fractures and contingencies in current methods of quantifying social life. It demonstrates that feminicide is yet to be measured as it is sociologically understood for numerical metrics fail to capture the ontological multiplicity of feminicide data, particularly in translating conceptual ambiguities like ‘gender’ as a crime motivator. Moreover, scaling paradoxes further expose shifting attachments to data depending on retrieval levels, highlighting an overlooked ontological dimension of GBV, feminicide, and scales. At closer proximity, feminicide data configurations become less numerical, more intimate, and relational, reflecting immediate, context-specific realities of violence. In contrast, as distance increases, data rely more on expert legitimacy and authoritative norms of ‘objectivity,’ ‘visibility,’ and ‘science,’ reinforcing the notion of a reality waiting to be measured rather than actively constructed in everyday practices. Finally, the overall analysis contributes to critical debates on data justice, feminist methodologies, and the politics of knowledge production, highlighting the productive, yet inherently frictional work involved in configuring feminicide data."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["fbfdd4d242f2f9fe8fa7e5524789dcaa","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Feminicide Data: Configuring Multiplicity in Practice"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["McPherson, Ella"],"dc:contributor.sponsor":["CONAHCyT Cambridge Scholarship, Churchill College, Department of Sociology"],"dc:creator":["Mobayed Vega, Saide"],"dc:creator.authoridentifier":["0000000327117674"],"dc:date.issued":["2024-09-01"],"dc:description.abstract":["This dissertation provides a theoretical and methodological study to assess the multiplicity of feminicide data practices. Various global institutions, national governments, and citizens on the ground engage in counting the gender-related killing of women and girls, resulting in different versions of feminicide data. In 2022 alone, the United Nations estimated 89,000 women and girls were intentionally killed, yet official figures continue to fall short. In response, citizen-led initiatives around the world have turned to digital tools to produce ‘missing’ or ‘counter’ data, challenging state narratives and exposing gaps in institutional records. Numerical data influence decisions about resource allocation, prevention mechanisms, and policy implementation to address gender-based violence (GBV). Thus, it is essential to question the qualitative work of quantitative measurements. Such an endeavour poses critical considerations for the means by which a woman’s dead body becomes a feminicide data point across global, national, and local scales. As feminicide data travels from local stories to global data sets of comparison, the process of scaling introduces uncertainties, paradoxes and friction. Using Mexico as a case study, the empirical chapters focus on three milieus producing feminicide data: the global (international organisations); the national (the state’s data infrastructures); and the local (citizen data). Sociologically, feminicide data provides a rich exploration of power asymmetries. Grounded in feminist epistemologies and intersectional theories of power (Hill Collins 2000), this study unravels the relational and labour-intensive processes involved in data production, showing how power and data are distributed through everyday interactions between people, tools, platforms, and protocols. Results draw on mixed methods, including: qualitative in-depth interviews; discourse analysis of secondary sources (reports, guidelines, databases, analysis); the co-design of a participatory action research workshop to create a digital memorial against feminicide; critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA) of digital interfaces; and autoethnography. Based on this empirical exploration, it is argued that feminicide data are ontologically multiple rather than singularly factual. Findings unearth how the seeming singularity of a dead woman’s body shifts into many when her case is categorised differently in global data settings, national data sets, and local data stories. By tracing how bodies become data points, each empirical chapter unpacks a key paradox in data scaling and its implications for feminicide data configurations: data intimacies emerging from recounting distance (Chapter 5), data debris resulting from classifying discordance (Chapter 6), and data bargaining arising from standardising dimension (Chapter 7). This dissertation exposes the fractures and contingencies in current methods of quantifying social life. It demonstrates that feminicide is yet to be measured as it is sociologically understood for numerical metrics fail to capture the ontological multiplicity of feminicide data, particularly in translating conceptual ambiguities like ‘gender’ as a crime motivator. Moreover, scaling paradoxes further expose shifting attachments to data depending on retrieval levels, highlighting an overlooked ontological dimension of GBV, feminicide, and scales. At closer proximity, feminicide data configurations become less numerical, more intimate, and relational, reflecting immediate, context-specific realities of violence. In contrast, as distance increases, data rely more on expert legitimacy and authoritative norms of ‘objectivity,’ ‘visibility,’ and ‘science,’ reinforcing the notion of a reality waiting to be measured rather than actively constructed in everyday practices. Finally, the overall analysis contributes to critical debates on data justice, feminist methodologies, and the politics of knowledge production, highlighting the productive, yet inherently frictional work involved in configuring feminicide data."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["fbfdd4d242f2f9fe8fa7e5524789dcaa","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.116976"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c5dd7d15-5d2b-4afe-8ea5-f4e0c69a24f3/download"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/381984"],"dc:rights":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/c8efb3ef-a90c-479b-b77a-345742ce2eb4/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"dc:rights.embargotype":["controlled.access"],"dc:subject":["feminicide","feminicide data","data practices","critical data studies","digital sociology","scales","sociology of knowledge","STS","data configurations"],"dc:title":["Feminicide Data: Configuring Multiplicity in Practice"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:18Z"}