绘制GDPR (In-)有效性的实证文献:系统回顾

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Wenlong Li , Zihao Li , Wenkai Li , Yueming Zhang , Aolan Li
{"title":"绘制GDPR (In-)有效性的实证文献:系统回顾","authors":"Wenlong Li ,&nbsp;Zihao Li ,&nbsp;Wenkai Li ,&nbsp;Yueming Zhang ,&nbsp;Aolan Li","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the realm of data protection, a striking disconnect prevails between traditional domains of doctrinal, legal, theoretical, and policy-based inquiries and a burgeoning body of empirical evidence. Much of the scholarly and regulatory discourse remains entrenched in abstract legal principles or normative frameworks, leaving the empirical landscape uncharted or minimally engaged. Since the birth of EU data protection law, a modest body of empirical evidence has been generated but remains widely scattered and unexamined. Such evidence offers vital insights into the effectiveness of data protection measures but languishes on the periphery, inadequately integrated into the broader conversation. To make a meaningful connection, we conduct a comprehensive review and synthesis of empirical research spanning nearly three decades (1995 - March 2022), advocating for a more robust integration of empirical evidence into the evaluation and review of the GDPR while laying a methodological foundation for coordinated research. By categorising evidence into four distinct groups– Awareness and Trust, Operational Performance, Ripple Effect, and Normative Clarity, we provide a structured analysis therein and highlight the variety and nuances of the empirical evidence produced about the GDPR. Our discussion offers critical reflections on the current orientations and designs of evaluation work, challenging some popular but misguided orientations that significantly influence public debate and even direction of empirical and doctrinal research. This synthesis also sheds light on several understated aspects, surfaced by our systematic review, including the complex structure of the GDPR and the internal contradictions between components, the GDPR's interaction with other normative values and legal frameworks, as well as unintended consequences imposed by the GDPR on other values not explicitly recognised as regulatory objectives (such as innovation). We further propose a methodological improvement in how empirical evidence can be generated and utilised, stressing the need for more guided, coordinated and rigorous empirical research. By re-aligning empirical focus towards these ends and establishing strategic coordination at the community level, we seek to inform and underpin evaluative work that aligns empirical inquiries with policy and doctrinal needs, while truly reflecting the complexities and challenges of safeguarding personal data in the digital age.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"57 ","pages":"Article 106129"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping the empirical literature of the GDPR's (In-)effectiveness: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Wenlong Li ,&nbsp;Zihao Li ,&nbsp;Wenkai Li ,&nbsp;Yueming Zhang ,&nbsp;Aolan Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In the realm of data protection, a striking disconnect prevails between traditional domains of doctrinal, legal, theoretical, and policy-based inquiries and a burgeoning body of empirical evidence. Much of the scholarly and regulatory discourse remains entrenched in abstract legal principles or normative frameworks, leaving the empirical landscape uncharted or minimally engaged. Since the birth of EU data protection law, a modest body of empirical evidence has been generated but remains widely scattered and unexamined. Such evidence offers vital insights into the effectiveness of data protection measures but languishes on the periphery, inadequately integrated into the broader conversation. To make a meaningful connection, we conduct a comprehensive review and synthesis of empirical research spanning nearly three decades (1995 - March 2022), advocating for a more robust integration of empirical evidence into the evaluation and review of the GDPR while laying a methodological foundation for coordinated research. By categorising evidence into four distinct groups– Awareness and Trust, Operational Performance, Ripple Effect, and Normative Clarity, we provide a structured analysis therein and highlight the variety and nuances of the empirical evidence produced about the GDPR. Our discussion offers critical reflections on the current orientations and designs of evaluation work, challenging some popular but misguided orientations that significantly influence public debate and even direction of empirical and doctrinal research. This synthesis also sheds light on several understated aspects, surfaced by our systematic review, including the complex structure of the GDPR and the internal contradictions between components, the GDPR's interaction with other normative values and legal frameworks, as well as unintended consequences imposed by the GDPR on other values not explicitly recognised as regulatory objectives (such as innovation). We further propose a methodological improvement in how empirical evidence can be generated and utilised, stressing the need for more guided, coordinated and rigorous empirical research. By re-aligning empirical focus towards these ends and establishing strategic coordination at the community level, we seek to inform and underpin evaluative work that aligns empirical inquiries with policy and doctrinal needs, while truly reflecting the complexities and challenges of safeguarding personal data in the digital age.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":\"57 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212473X25000021\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212473X25000021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在数据保护领域,传统的理论、法律、理论和政策研究领域与不断涌现的经验证据之间存在着明显的脱节。大部分学术和监管论述仍停留在抽象的法律原则或规范框架上,对经验领域的研究尚未涉足或很少涉足。自欧盟数据保护法诞生以来,已经产生了一定数量的实证证据,但这些证据仍然非常分散,也未得到审查。这些证据为数据保护措施的有效性提供了重要的启示,但却被边缘化,没有充分融入更广泛的对话中。为了建立有意义的联系,我们对横跨近三十年(1995 年至 2022 年 3 月)的实证研究进行了全面回顾和综合,主张将实证证据更有力地纳入 GDPR 的评估和审查中,同时为协调研究奠定方法论基础。我们将证据分为四个不同的组别--认知与信任、操作性能、涟漪效应和规范清晰度,并在其中提供了结构化的分析,强调了有关 GDPR 的经验证据的多样性和细微差别。我们的讨论对当前评估工作的方向和设计进行了批判性反思,对一些流行但被误导的方向提出了质疑,这些方向极大地影响了公众辩论,甚至影响了实证研究和理论研究的方向。本综述还揭示了我们的系统性审查所揭示的几个被低估的方面,包括 GDPR 的复杂结构和各组成部分之间的内部矛盾、GDPR 与其他规范性价值观和法律框架之间的互动,以及 GDPR 对其他未被明确认定为监管目标的价值观(如创新)施加的意外后果。我们还建议从方法论上改进实证证据的生成和利用方式,强调需要更有指导性、更协调、更严格的实证研究。通过重新调整实证研究重点以实现这些目标,并在社区层面建立战略协调,我们力求为评估工作提供信息和支持,使实证研究与政策和理论需求相一致,同时真实反映数字时代保护个人数据的复杂性和挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping the empirical literature of the GDPR's (In-)effectiveness: A systematic review
In the realm of data protection, a striking disconnect prevails between traditional domains of doctrinal, legal, theoretical, and policy-based inquiries and a burgeoning body of empirical evidence. Much of the scholarly and regulatory discourse remains entrenched in abstract legal principles or normative frameworks, leaving the empirical landscape uncharted or minimally engaged. Since the birth of EU data protection law, a modest body of empirical evidence has been generated but remains widely scattered and unexamined. Such evidence offers vital insights into the effectiveness of data protection measures but languishes on the periphery, inadequately integrated into the broader conversation. To make a meaningful connection, we conduct a comprehensive review and synthesis of empirical research spanning nearly three decades (1995 - March 2022), advocating for a more robust integration of empirical evidence into the evaluation and review of the GDPR while laying a methodological foundation for coordinated research. By categorising evidence into four distinct groups– Awareness and Trust, Operational Performance, Ripple Effect, and Normative Clarity, we provide a structured analysis therein and highlight the variety and nuances of the empirical evidence produced about the GDPR. Our discussion offers critical reflections on the current orientations and designs of evaluation work, challenging some popular but misguided orientations that significantly influence public debate and even direction of empirical and doctrinal research. This synthesis also sheds light on several understated aspects, surfaced by our systematic review, including the complex structure of the GDPR and the internal contradictions between components, the GDPR's interaction with other normative values and legal frameworks, as well as unintended consequences imposed by the GDPR on other values not explicitly recognised as regulatory objectives (such as innovation). We further propose a methodological improvement in how empirical evidence can be generated and utilised, stressing the need for more guided, coordinated and rigorous empirical research. By re-aligning empirical focus towards these ends and establishing strategic coordination at the community level, we seek to inform and underpin evaluative work that aligns empirical inquiries with policy and doctrinal needs, while truly reflecting the complexities and challenges of safeguarding personal data in the digital age.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信