Critical Data, Critical Technology in Theory and Practice
Critical Data, Critical Technology in Theory and Practice
复制标题
理论与实践中的关键数据、关键技术
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jim Thatcher
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ryan Burns;Craig M. Dalton;Jim Thatcher
数据，其来源，分析和潜在影响是最近流行的中心，行业和学术辩论的知识，政策，身份和日常城市生活。这些辩论发生在整个学院，从地理到数字人文，数据科学，媒体研究等。这些和其他社会科学领域的研究人员越来越多地参与新的数据基础设施（Batty 2013; Marvin，Luque-Ayala，and McFarlane 2016; Pickren 2016），代表性技术（Hochman 2014）和分析实践（Poorthuis et al. 2016），因为它们出现在私营企业（撒切尔2014），学术研究（Crawford and Finn 2014）和政府机构（Taylor and Schroeder 2015）。在政治和工业中，这些相关现象有各种流行语，如大数据和智能城市（Kitchin 2014 c，2016; Datta 2016），为未来的社会和经济增长和稳定提供了诱人的承诺（Lohr 2012）。在最近的批判性研究中，早期对这些新的数据提取、可视化和分析系统的力量的傲慢声称，例如安德森（2008）现在已经将近十年了，臭名昭著的“理论终结”的说法，成为学者们评估实际数据实践和效果的陈词滥调（撒切尔2016）。这种新的数据范式的承诺和批评都涉及对当前未充分研究的背景和社会关系中的异构数据集的算法分析（Kitchin 2014 a）。这个焦点问题从各种地理角度关注这种新范式，强调激进的政治和广泛的数据分析关键方法。以这些方式参与数据为思考和实践这些数据开辟了新的，有前途的途径。通过这种方式，本节不仅涉及关键数据研究，还涉及围绕技术调解，饱和和维持晚期资本主义现代性的方式进行的更大的对话（Graham 2005）。迄今为止的研究对这些新形式的分析和数据的使用、解释和意义以及它们与更广泛的社会政治和经济进程的关系提出了更多的问题，而不是答案。Crampton 2015; Crampton，Roberts，and Poorthuis 2014; Kitchin 2014 b）。研究人员提出了一系列提示，表明数据研究的初期方法（boyd and Crawford 2012;巴恩斯2013;伯恩斯2015），并呼吁在该领域提供更多的奖学金（Kitchin 2014 a;施罗德2014）。为了解决这些问题，本期的文章重点关注以下问题：通过新的数据源和分析，激进的政治是否可能？数据分析支持和促进哪些假设、排除、矛盾和可能性？数据驱动的科学产生了什么样的认识论和本体论承诺？这些承诺是如何塑造由所述技术系统或通过所述技术系统产生的知识的？在早期呼吁对数据进行批判性研究的基础上（道尔顿和撒切尔2014;道尔顿，泰勒和撒切尔2016），这个焦点问题在一个共同的论坛上探索和评估数据，分析和新空间技术的关键方法。由于其与知识和权力的空间构成的接触历史，地理学作为一个领域有一个独特的机会来塑造围绕关键数据研究的日益增长的对话。从技术红线（撒切尔2013;道尔顿and撒切尔2015）到人道主义和发展（Burns forthcoming），再到空间信息生产中经常被忽视的性别性质（Stephens 2013），数据的空间组成影响着可以做什么以及通过它可以知道什么（Kwan 2002;埃尔伍德2010）。在这个快速发展的研究机构中，学者们将新数据和分析视为我们观察社会过程的部分和不完整的镜头（boyd and Crawford 2012; Gabrys 2016）。这种方法强调认识论、本体论和知识生产，
D ata, its sources, analytics, and potential effects are at the center of recent popular, industry, and scholarly debates about knowledge, policy, identity, and everyday urban life. These debates have taken place across the academy, from geography to digital humanities, data science, media studies, and beyond. Researchers in these and other social science fields are increasingly engaging with new data infrastructures (Batty 2013; Marvin, Luque-Ayala, and McFarlane 2016; Pickren 2016), representational technologies (Hochman 2014), and analytic practices (Poorthuis et al. 2016) as they emerge in private industry (Thatcher 2014), academic research (Crawford and Finn 2014), and government agencies (Taylor and Schroeder 2015). In politics and industry, these related phenomena go by a variety of buzzwords, such as big data and smart cities (Kitchin 2014c, 2016; Datta 2016), that offer tantalizing promises of future social and economic growth and stability (Lohr 2012). In more recent critical investigations, early hubristic claims of the power of these new systems of data extraction, visualization, and analysis, such as Anderson’s (2008) now nearly decade-old, infamous claim of the “end of theory,” serve as shibboleths by which scholars situate themselves to evaluate actual data practices and effects (Thatcher 2016). Both promises and critiques of this new paradigm of data involve algorithmic analysis of heterogeneous data sets within currently underexamined contexts and social relations (Kitchin 2014a). This focus issue engages with this new paradigm from a variety of geographical perspectives emphasizing radical politics and broadly critical approaches to data analytics. Engaging data in these ways opens new, promising avenues for thought about and practices that incorporate such data. In this way, the section speaks not only to work in critical data studies but also to larger conversations around the ways in which technology mediates, saturates, and sustains late capitalist modernity (Graham 2005). Research to date raises more questions than answers about the use, interpretation, and meaning of these new forms of analysis and data as well as their relationship to broader sociopolitical and economic processes (cf. Crampton 2015; Crampton, Roberts, and Poorthuis 2014; Kitchin 2014b). Researchers suggest a series of prompts that indicate an incipient approach to data studies (boyd and Crawford 2012; Barnes 2013; Burns 2015) and call for additional scholarship in the area (Kitchin 2014a; Schroeder 2014). Addressing these questions, the articles in this issue focus on questions such as these: Is a radical politics possible through new data sources and analytics? What assumptions, exclusions, contradictions, and possibilities do data analytics espouse and promote? What epistemological and ontological commitments arise from data-driven science? How have these commitments shaped the knowledges produced by and through the technological systems in question? Building on earlier calls for critical studies of data (Dalton and Thatcher 2014; Dalton, Taylor, and Thatcher 2016), this focus issue explores and evaluates critical approaches to data, analytics, and new spatial technologies in a common forum. Due to its history of engagement with the spatial constitution of knowledge and power, geography as a field has a unique opportunity to shape the growing dialogues around critical data studies. From technological redlining (Thatcher 2013; Dalton and Thatcher 2015) to humanitarianism and development (Burns forthcoming), to oft-unconsidered gendered nature of spatial information production (Stephens 2013), the spatial component of data influences what can be done and what can be known through it (Kwan 2002; Elwood 2010). In this quickly evolving body of research, scholars treat new data and analytics as partial and incomplete lenses through which we view social processes (boyd and Crawford 2012; Gabrys 2016). Such an approach emphasizes issues around epistemology, ontology, and knowledge production,
侵入大数据的社交生活
影响因子：
8.5
作者：
Pybus J
通讯作者：
Pybus J