Information and death: towards a conceptual framework for studying information as it relates to dying, death, mourning and digital afterlife
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31iConf64181Keywords:
Information, Legacy, Death, Digital afterlife, PrivacyAbstract
Introduction. This paper presents a work in progress to develop a conceptual framework for studying information as it relates to the phenomenon of death, including dying, mourning, legacy, and digital afterlife.
Method and Analysis. A framework is derived using the results of a previously published systematic review of literature at the intersection of death and information management (Dinneen et al., 2024). Specifically, we conceptualised the factors identified in the review into the information and death framework.
Results. We present and discuss the first component of the framework: six key perspectives that represent different vantage points from which to view the problem, each with their own focus and concerns.
Conclusion(s). Though still in development, the framework looks promising for supporting empirical and theoretical research on pressing and global information-related issues surrounding the experience of loss, death, dying and digital afterlife.
References
Bassett, D. J. (2022). Creation and inheritance of digital afterlives. Springer International Publish-ing.
Bollmer, G. D. (2013). Millions now living will never die: Cultural anxieties about the afterlife of information. The Information Society, 29(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2013.777297
Dinneen, J. D., Krtalić, M., Davoudi, N., Hellmich, H., Ochsner, C., & Bressel, P. (2024). Information science and the inevitable: A literature review at the intersection of death and information management. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24861
Doyle, D. T., & Brubaker, J. R. (2023). Digital legacy: A systematic literature review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction,7(CSCW2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610059
Edwards, L., & Harbinja, E. (2020). ‘Be right Back’: What rights do we have over post-mortem ava-tars of ourselves? In L. Edwards & B. S. E. Harbinja (Eds.), Future law: Emerging technolo-gy, regulation, and ethics (pp. 262–292). Edinburgh University Press.
Fourie, I. (2024). Models and theories that can guide grief and bereavement information interven-tions: an information behaviour lens. Information Research an International Electronic Journal, 29(2), 302–321. https://doi.org/10.47989/ir292828
Given. L. M., Case, D. O., and Willson, R. (2023). Looking for information: Examining research on how people engage with information. 5th ed. Emerald Publishing
Harbinja, E. (2017c). Post-mortem privacy 2.0: Theory, law, and technology. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 31(1), 26–42.
Hollanek, T., Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars: on Responsible Applications of Generative AI in the Digital Afterlife Industry. Philos. Technol. 37, 63 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00744-w
Holt, J., J. D. Smeddinck, J. Nicholson, V. Vlachokyriakos & A. C. Durrant (2024). Post-mortem in-formation management: exploring contextual factors in appropriate personal data access after death. Human–Computer Interaction, DOI: 10.1080/07370024.2023.2300792
Huvila, I., & Gorichanaz, T. (2024). Trends in information behavior research, 2016–2022: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology paper. Journal of the Association for Infor-mation Science and Technology, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24943
Lindemann, N. F. (2022). The Ethics of ‘Deathbots.’ Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(60), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00417-x
Massimi, M., Odom, W., Banks, R., & Kirk, D. (2011). Matters of life and death: Locating the end of life in lifespan oriented HCI research. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 987–996. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979090
Morse, T. (2023). Digital necromancy: Users' perceptions of digital afterlife and posthumous communication technologies. Information, Communication & Society, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2205467
Nansen, B., Gould, H., Arnold, M., & Gibbs, M. (2023). Media, mortality, and necro-technologies: Eulogies for dead media. New Media & Society, 25(8), 2163–2182. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211027959
Öhman, C., & Floridi, L. (2017). The political economy of death in the age of information: A critical approach to the digital afterlife industry. Minds and Machines, 27(4), 639–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9445-2
Öhman, C., & Floridi, L. (2018). An Ethical Framework for the Digital Afterlife Industry. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 318–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0335-2
Ravitch, S. M. & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Sage: CA.
Savin-Baden, M. (2021). AI for death and dying (1st ed.). CRC Press.
Sofka, C. J., Cupit, I., Gilbert, K. R. (Eds.) (2012). Dying, death, and grief in an online universe: For counselors and educators. Springer Publishing Company.
Van der Waldt, G. (2020). Constructing conceptual frameworks in social science research. TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 16(1), 1-9.
Zaleppa, P., & Dudley, A. (2020). Ethical, legal and security implications of digital legacies on so-cial media. In G. Meiselwitz (Ed.), Social computing and social media. Design, ethics, user behavior, and social network analysis (pp. 419–429). Springer International Publishing.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Maja Krtalić, Jesse Dinneen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
