10th Biennial ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference in conjunction with the Australian Social Network Analysis Conference (ASNAC)

Civil society organisations are increasingly shaping what data sovereignty means by reframing governance, rights, and ethical frameworks regarding the use of personal data. Engagement of civil society organisations in the debates challenge the established conception of data sovereignty held by nation-states and multinational corporations, which often treat personal data as an instrument of control, geopolitical power, and commercial profit. This research attempt to address how civil society organisations frame data sovereignty issues and how does their framing inform the struggles for equitable data practices in increasingly datafied societies?

Using a field-theoretic approach in combination with social network analysis, this study identified the social structure of organisations and their relational position in online network. Based on social structure, organisations in this thesis are classified into three analytically distinct field positions: ‘Complex’, ‘Glocal’, and ‘Local’. This classification reflects how organisations accumulate and mobilise two key forms of capital (economic capital and cosmopolitan capital). Based on social relations, two standard measures from social network analysis (indegree centrality and outdegree centrality) are used to capture organisational ‘popularity’ and ‘activity’ in online network. With this approach, organisations are classified into four relational roles: ‘Authority’ (high indegree, low outdegree), ‘Influencer’ (high indegree, high outdegree), ‘Initiator’ (low indegree, high outdegree), and ‘Observer’ (low indegree, low outdegree).

Examining the relation between field position and frame engagement of 289 data sovereignty organisations, this study found that the more prominent an organisation's field position, the less likely it is to adopt the national-state frame, and the more likely it is to engage with the individual-person frame as its primary discursive strategy. This gradient reflects the logic of the field where organisations with more prominent field position operate across national jurisdictions and much rely on transnational legitimacy structures such as international standards bodies, global civil society coalitions, and cross-border regulatory networks. On the contrary, smaller organisations with limited network recognition struggle in a field in which the state remains the most proximate and accessible source of institutional protection, making national-state framing a rational discursive alignment. The community-collective frame occupies a rather middle ground.

These patterns suggest that data sovereignty is not a single discursive project but a stratified one. What organisations state about data is inseparable from where they position in the field. Organisations with higher field status translate equity, fairness, and justice claims into the language of international standards, multi‑stakeholder coalitions, and cross‑border regulatory norms, thereby making equitable data practices legible to global platforms and regulators. Meanwhile, locally rooted organisations frame data sovereignty in national terms which makes rights‑based, territorially anchored remedies more practicable for addressing local harms.

Keywords: data sovereignty, field, organisation, social network analysis