Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 79Geographic Information Systems StudiesSmart Cities and TechnologiesMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Data Matter(s): Legitimacy, Coding, and Qualifications-of-Life

Open access
Wilson, Matthew W·2011·Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
DOI 10.1068/d7910
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Data are central to geographical technologies and provide the pathways in which geographic investigations are forwarded. The mattering of data is therefore important to those engaging in participatory use of these technologies. This paper understands ‘mattering’ both in the material sense, that data are products resulting from specific practices, and in the affective sense, that data are imaginative, generative, and evocative. I examine these senses of mattering, of both presence and significance, in a discussion of a community survey project held in Seattle, USA. During this four-year project, residents in ten neighborhoods were asked to collect data about their community streets using handheld computers. Residents tracked ‘assets’ and ‘deficits’ by locating objects such as damaged sidewalks and graffiti on telephone booths. These data records were then uploaded to a central server administered by a local nonprofit organization. The nonprofit worked with community residents to help link these data about their changing neighborhoods to agencies in the municipal government. Here, I argue that the legitimacy of these data practices is constructed through processes of standardization and objectification and that these processes transduct urban space. I ask, as participatory mapping practices target governing agencies with their data products, what are the implications for the kinds of knowledge produced and for its legitimacy? In other words, how does data come to matter?

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1068/d7910

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Amin A, 2002, Cities: Reimagining the Urban
  2. Butler R, 1999, Mind and Body Spaces: Geographies of Illness, Impairment, and Disability
  3. Castells M, 1996, The Rise of the Network Society
  4. Crampton J W, 2010, Mapping: A Critical Introduction to Cartography and GIS
  5. Crampton J W, 2007, Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography
  6. Deleuze G, 1987, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
  7. Foucault M, 2007, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977 – 1978
  8. Grosz E, 1992, Sexuality and Space, 241
  9. Haraway D J, 1991, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature
  10. Haraway D J, 1997, Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience
  11. Haraway D J, 1999, Knowledges and the Question of Alliances: A Conversation with Nancy Hartsock, Donna Haraway, and David Harvey
  12. Harvey F, 2005, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4, 57
  13. Kaika M, 2005, City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City
  14. Kinsley S, 2008, “Laying claim to technological futures—does anticipation foment control? Exploring the case of ubiquitous computing development”
  15. Kittler F, 1995, Article
  16. Latour B, 1993, We Have Never Been Modern
  17. Leitner H, 2000, URISA Journal, 12, 43
  18. Mackenzie A, 2002, Transductions: Bodies and Machines at Speed
  19. Mackenzie A, 2006, Cutting Code: Software and Sociality
  20. Merrick M, 2003, URISA Journal, 15, 33
  21. Ramasubramanian L, 1999, Geographic Information Research: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives, 87
  22. Wilson M W, 2005, “Implications for a public participation. Geographic information science: Analyzing trends in research and practice”

Cited by

See all 79

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wilson, M. W.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Matthew W
ORCID
Wilson, Matthew W
Venue
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-01-01
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
857-872
ISSN
  • 0263-7758 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-3433
DOI
10.1068/d7910
OpenAlex
W2154367940
Cited by
79
References
71
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 2
FWCI
56.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Environment and Planning D Society and Space (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographic Information Systems Studies
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Smart Cities and Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
participatory mapping, community survey, standardization, objectification, affective data, urban space, nonprofit organizations, municipal government, knowledge production

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.