Thematic Session 2
Data Justice and Digital Ethics: Navigating Privacy, Consent, and Surveillance in Research
Moderator
Dr. Dennis B. Batangan, MSc. (Heidelberg)
Director, Institute of Philippine Culture
Chair, Department of Sociology and Anthropology
April 22, 2026 (Wednesday)
2:15 PM – 3:15 PM
Focusing squarely on the ethical frontiers, this area addresses the responsibility of social scientists when working with personal or potentially sensitive data in digital spaces.
Topics of Interest: Challenges of obtaining informed consent from digital populations, regulatory frameworks (e.g., data privacy laws) and their impact on research, researcher reflexivity in data collection, the ethics of studying online communities and platform governance, and mitigating the risks of digital surveillance.
Key Question: How do we ensure our research practices actively promote justice and protect the rights of participants in an increasingly digital and interconnected world?
Technological Use — Including AI — Under Moral Authority
Reynand Dumala-on
The University of Auckland
(New Zealand)
Traditional classrooms are increasingly adopting digital tools and artificial intelligence (AI), yet there is limited empirical guidance on how teachers and schools should govern these technologies to protect attention, maintain moral alignment, sustain student agency, and support academic formation. This study investigates how a Steiner school enacts moral authority to regulate technology use in everyday lessons. Drawing on an ethnographic design that includes classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis, the research identifies a governance approach that is device-restrictive, purpose-bound, and teacher-mediated. In routine lessons, student phones and laptops are excluded; computers are used primarily in supervised laboratory periods rather than as default classroom media; and rare screen time is tightly time-bounded, explicitly introduced by teachers, and followed by questioning and discussion. Teachers express caution toward pre-packaged animations, noting their potential to shift conceptual work from active classroom reasoning to passive viewing. In earlier school years, institutional documents and interviews describe little to no classroom technology, aligning with pedagogical aims that prioritise sensory, imaginative, and relational activity before screen-mediated abstraction. Data suggests moral authority as intentional governance of technological mediation to protect attention and support autonomy. It challenges technological determinism and proposes a transferable governance framework encompassing purpose, time management, teacher mediation, developmental fitness, and transparency to align classroom technology and AI with human morality and learning goals.
Experiencing Objectification in Platform Work: Food Delivery Riders’ Accounts of Organizational Absence and Self-Valuation
Emerald Jay D. Ilac, Ph.D.
Department of Leadership and Strategy
Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Developmen
​
Ma. Tonirose D.
Mactal, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
​
Clarisse Aeaea M. Kilboy
Department of Psychology
​
Purpose
This study aimed to explain how food delivery platform riders experience objectification in the context of platform-based work, with particular attention to how organizational practices and leadership shape experiences of marginalization, dignity, and voice.
​
Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative design was employed using Descriptive Phenomenological Analysis. In-depth interviews were conducted with nine food delivery platform riders to describe the essential structures of their lived experiences of objectification. Subaltern Theory was used as an interpretive lens in making sense of the findings.
Findings
Five experiential themes were identified: (1) leaders’ non-presence resulting in perceived abandonment, (2) leaders’ devaluing of food delivery riders, (3) social devaluation of personhood, (4) the creation of self-supporting leadership, and (5) self-valuation through autonomy. The findings illustrate how leadership absence, paternalistic practices, and social devaluation contribute to experiences of devoicing and marginalization, while also revealing how riders negotiate these conditions through collective support, self-governance, and everyday forms of agency.
​
Originality
This study contributes to research on equality, dignity, and inclusion in platform-based work by providing a phenomenological account of how objectification and devoicing are experienced and negotiated by gig workers in a Southeast Asian context. It extends existing research by highlighting how these experiences are shaped through relational dynamics, power asymmetries, and everyday organizational practices.
​
Regulating Patient Data in Philippine Health Research: Bridging Privacy, Intellectual Property, and Data
Dr. Severo C. Madrona, Jr.
Department of History
This paper examines data justice and data privacy in Philippine health research by analyzing how patient data is governed across legal frameworks and institutional practices. It focuses on the interaction between the Data Privacy Act of 2012, intellectual property law, and the observable operations of health research institutions. The study has three objectives: first, to clarify how Philippine law regulates the collection and use of patient data in research; second, to assess how these rules are operationalized across institutional settings; and third, to identify governance gaps that raise concerns for data justice.
​The paper asks: (1) How do Philippine legal frameworks structure the use of patient data in health research? (2) To what extent do existing data privacy regulations provide meaningful safeguards in practice? (3) What institutional features shape the distribution of control and benefits derived from such data?
Methodologically, the study adopts a doctrinal and institutional approach. It analyzes statutes, regulations, and policy issuances alongside publicly available materials from health research governance systems, including national registries, regulatory guidance, and selected institutional examples such as the Philippine Genome Center. The analysis focuses on documented governance structures rather than restricted datasets.
The paper argues that while Philippine law establishes formal protections, their implementation in research contexts remains uneven, particularly in addressing issues of transparency, control, and benefit-sharing. It concludes by proposing targeted reforms to strengthen accountability and align Philippine health research governance with emerging principles of data justice.
​