Critique and Contribute: A Practice-Based Framework for Improving Critical Data Studies and Data Science
Open accessAbstract
What would data science look like if its key critics were engaged to help improve it, and how might critiques of data science improve with an approach that considers the day-to-day practices of data science? This article argues for scholars to bridge the conversations that seek to critique data science and those that seek to advance data science practice to identify and create the social and organizational arrangements necessary for a more ethical data science. We summarize four critiques that are commonly made in critical data studies: data are inherently interpretive, data are inextricable from context, data are mediated through the sociomaterial arrangements that produce them, and data serve as a medium for the negotiation and communication of values. We present qualitative research with academic data scientists, "data for good" projects, and specialized cross-disciplinary engineering teams to show evidence of these critiques in the day-to-day experience of data scientists as they acknowledge and grapple with the complexities of their work. Using ethnographic vignettes from two large multiresearcher field sites, we develop a set of concepts for analyzing and advancing the practice of data science and improving critical data studies, including (1) communication is central to the data science endeavor; (2) making sense of data is a collective process; (3) data are starting, not end points, and (4) data are sets of stories. We conclude with two calls to action for researchers and practitioners in data science and critical data studies alike. First, creating opportunities for bringing social scientific and humanistic expertise into data science practice simultaneously will advance both data science and critical data studies. Second, practitioners should leverage the insights from critical data studies to build new kinds of organizational arrangements, which we argue will help advance a more ethical data science. Engaging the insights of critical data studies will improve data science. Careful attention to the practices of data science will improve scholarly critiques. Genuine collaborative conversations between these different communities will help push for more ethical, and better, ways of knowing in increasingly datum-saturated societies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Reproducibility is stringently subject not only to the mere sharing of data, models and results, but also to the availability of information about the full discourse around data collection, understanding, assumptions held and insights drawn from model construction and results' analyses.
“When shifting the focus to the research practices seen in Data Science, it has been noted that reproducibility is stringently subject not only to the mere sharing of data, models and results to the community, but also to the availability of information about the full discourse around data collection, understanding, assumptions held and insights drawn from model construction and results' analyses [”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [372]
In “Data as Context: The Challenges of Reproducibility in Academic Data Science” (page unavailable), the paper says reproducibility requires more than publishing results: researchers need broader context, documentation, and communication around data. It does not say the *full* discourse must be made available; it argues that context is dynamic and can never be wholly captured as data. The claim overstates that requirement. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEven the data on which an algorithm is trained on are not an objective truth, they are dependent upon the context in which they have been produced.
“Even the data on which an algorithm is trained on are not an objective truth, they are dependent upon the context in which they have been produced (Neff et al., 2017).”
From Ethical principles in machine learning and artificial intelligence: cases from the field and possible ways forward (2020) · cites this paper as Neff et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 173
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- [4]boyd d, Crawford K Critical questions for big data. Inf Commun Soc. 2012; 15: 662– 679
- [6]Gillespie T The relevance of algorithms. In: Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ, Foot KA (Eds.): Media Technologies, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013, pp. 167– 193
- [7]Sweeney L Discrimination in online ad delivery. ACM Queue. 2013; 11: 1– 19
- [8]The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 2014 Civil rights principles for the era of big data. Available online at www.civilrights.org/press/2014/civil-rights-principles-big-data.html?referrer= https://www.google.com (last accessed 3 29, 2017)
- [9]Crawford K, Miltner K, Gray ML Special section introduction. Int J Commun. 2014; 8: 1663– 1672
- [16]Drouhard M, Tanweer A, Fiore-Gartland B A typology of hackathon events. In: Hacking at Time-Bound Events Workshop at Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2016 (CSCW’16), 2016, pp. 1– 4
- [18]Dossick CS, Neff G, Osburn L, et al. Technical boundary spanners and translation: A study of energy modeling for high performance hospitals. Engineering Project Organization Conference, Cle Elum, WA, 2016
- [19]Monson C, Dossick CS, Neff G, et al. Finding connections between design processes and institutional forces on integrated AEC teams for high performance energy design. Engineering Project Organization Conference, Cle Elum, WA, 2016
- [23]Fiore-Gartland B, Neff G Communication, mediation, and the expectations of data: Data valences across health and wellness communities. Int J Commun. 2015; 9: 1466– 1484
- [29]Fiore-Gartland B, Tanweer A It's the context, stupid: Reproducibility as a scientific communication problem. 4S/EASST Conference, Barcelona, 2016
- [32]Downey GJ Making media work: Time, space, identity, and labor in the analysis of information and communication infrastructures. In: Gillespie T, Boczkowski PJ, Foot KA (Eds.): Media Technologies, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013, pp. 141– 165
- [36]Ribes D, Jackson S Data Bite Man: The work of sustaining long-term data collection. In: Gitelman L (Ed.): “Raw Data” is an oxymoron, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013, pp. 147– 166
- [43]Levy KEC Relational big data. Stanford Law Rev Online. 2013; 66: 7 3
- [44]Couldry N, Powell A Big Data from the bottom up. Big Data Soc. 2014; 73: 7 9
- [49]Schrock A What communication can contribute to data studies: Three lenses on communication and data. Int J Commun. 2017; 11: 701– 709
- [50]Neff G, Nafus D Self-tracking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016
- [52]Kuksenok K Influence apart from adoption: How interaction between programming and scientific practices shapes modes of inquiry in four oceanography teams. PhD dissertation, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2016
- Authors
- Neff, G., Tanweer, A., Fiore-Gartland, B., & Osburn, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Neff, Gina
- Venue
- Big Data
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 85-97
- ISSN
- 2167-6461 (ISSN-L)
- 2167-647X
- PMC
- PMC5515123
- OpenAlex
- W2716311441
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 40.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Big Data (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1300271)
- U.S. Department of Energy
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Big Data Technologies and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- critical data studies, data science practice, sociomateriality, collective sensemaking, organizational arrangements
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Reproducibility of Results
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