Thanks so much, Elise, for pushing yourself out of your comfort zone and posting a video. That’s very much in the spirit of the course and I truly appreciate your rising to the challenge—it was also nice work. I got a very good impression through the modulation in your tone of voice and your facial expressions of how to best respond back to your thoughts.
You’ve definitely put your finger on two themes running through the readings so far: the ethics of data and how its perceived neutrality increases it perceived power. Bode’s work (that I assume you will have read by now) will speak directly to the points you raise about the (mis)representation of the human experience in its datafied form, and I look forward to future conversations on the topic.
As for the role of a perceived neutrality, I wonder what your continued thoughts might be on the fact that the power/utility/meaningfulness (??) of “data” in a very generalized sense rises as people are removed. That is to say, data-as-representation gains in strength as any localizable human experience is removed, and yet the data still only makes sense when it still somehow represents that experience? For my part, I do indeed think there’s something important in this seeming contradiction in terms—and, moreover, that the humanities have something important to contribute to the conversation. Bode’s paper is again on my mind here.
Finally, thanks for reflecting on the purposes of the course and I think that you are right on target insofar as I believe that it is important to focus on not only the content but also the meta-cognitive activities of understanding how our actions fit into, reinforce, and/or work against different (dominant or non-dominant) paradigms. However…I wonder if I could push you to offer your own preliminary ideas about where you come down on the issues at hand. How do you think you’ll approach using your data? How are you starting to form your own ethical imperatives or methodological approaches to data in your work?
Thanks for your feedback on Brian’s Strategic Fixations; I’ll email them to everyone!
You’re asking the hard questions now, Alison! Where do I come down on the issue at hand? How will I approach using my data? I have far less faith in quantitative data analysis than I did before. I think I used to think that we could find answers in math, algorithms, stats, and the like. I’m much less likely to believe these things unquestioningly now. I am much more likely to still employ quantitative and qualitative methods hand in hand while acknowledging the limitations to any kind of “study”. However, this is not to say that results can’t be found to be helpful–especially in the social sicencey/humanities space I’m trying to carve out. Instead, recognizing both the limitations of quantitative analysis and the affordances of human beings intervening in these processes is helpful. I can bring years of training to help read and contextualize the data. The data doesn’t have the answers. I do. (Well. I have my version of my own contextualized interpretation and analysis of the data). But I also have to ask the hard questions in order to get to even part of an answer.
Alison Langmead
January 27, 2020 — 8:26 am
Thanks so much, Elise, for pushing yourself out of your comfort zone and posting a video. That’s very much in the spirit of the course and I truly appreciate your rising to the challenge—it was also nice work. I got a very good impression through the modulation in your tone of voice and your facial expressions of how to best respond back to your thoughts.
You’ve definitely put your finger on two themes running through the readings so far: the ethics of data and how its perceived neutrality increases it perceived power. Bode’s work (that I assume you will have read by now) will speak directly to the points you raise about the (mis)representation of the human experience in its datafied form, and I look forward to future conversations on the topic.
As for the role of a perceived neutrality, I wonder what your continued thoughts might be on the fact that the power/utility/meaningfulness (??) of “data” in a very generalized sense rises as people are removed. That is to say, data-as-representation gains in strength as any localizable human experience is removed, and yet the data still only makes sense when it still somehow represents that experience? For my part, I do indeed think there’s something important in this seeming contradiction in terms—and, moreover, that the humanities have something important to contribute to the conversation. Bode’s paper is again on my mind here.
Finally, thanks for reflecting on the purposes of the course and I think that you are right on target insofar as I believe that it is important to focus on not only the content but also the meta-cognitive activities of understanding how our actions fit into, reinforce, and/or work against different (dominant or non-dominant) paradigms. However…I wonder if I could push you to offer your own preliminary ideas about where you come down on the issues at hand. How do you think you’ll approach using your data? How are you starting to form your own ethical imperatives or methodological approaches to data in your work?
Thanks for your feedback on Brian’s Strategic Fixations; I’ll email them to everyone!
esilva
January 28, 2020 — 1:34 pm
You’re asking the hard questions now, Alison! Where do I come down on the issue at hand? How will I approach using my data? I have far less faith in quantitative data analysis than I did before. I think I used to think that we could find answers in math, algorithms, stats, and the like. I’m much less likely to believe these things unquestioningly now. I am much more likely to still employ quantitative and qualitative methods hand in hand while acknowledging the limitations to any kind of “study”. However, this is not to say that results can’t be found to be helpful–especially in the social sicencey/humanities space I’m trying to carve out. Instead, recognizing both the limitations of quantitative analysis and the affordances of human beings intervening in these processes is helpful. I can bring years of training to help read and contextualize the data. The data doesn’t have the answers. I do. (Well. I have my version of my own contextualized interpretation and analysis of the data). But I also have to ask the hard questions in order to get to even part of an answer.