Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0031642143 = product of:
  0.0063284286 = sum of:
    0.0063284286 = product of:
      0.012656857 = sum of:
        0.012656857 = weight(_text_:a in 2155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012656857 = score(doc=2155,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23833402 = fieldWeight in 2155, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent interest in Big Data has generated a broad range of new academic, corporate, and policy practices along with an evolving debate among its proponents, detractors, and skeptics. While the practices draw on a common set of tools, techniques, and technologies, most contributions to the debate come either from a particular disciplinary perspective or with a focus on a domain-specific issue. A close examination of these contributions reveals a set of common problematics that arise in various guises and in different places. It also demonstrates the need for a critical synthesis of the conceptual and practical dilemmas surrounding Big Data. The purpose of this article is to provide such a synthesis by drawing on relevant writings in the sciences, humanities, policy, and trade literature. In bringing these diverse literatures together, we aim to shed light on the common underlying issues that concern and affect all of these areas. By contextualizing the phenomenon of Big Data within larger socioeconomic developments, we also seek to provide a broader understanding of its drivers, barriers, and challenges. This approach allows us to identify attributes of Big Data that require more attention-autonomy, opacity, generativity, disparity, and futurity-leading to questions and ideas for moving beyond dilemmas.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=3083,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific disciplines are distinct not only in what they know but in how they know what they know-that is, in their "epistemic cultures." There is a close relationship between the technologies that a field utilizes and sanctions and the process of inquiry, the character and meaning of corroborative data and evidence, and the kinds of models and theories developed in a field. As the machinery changes, epistemic practices also change. A case in point is how the epistemic practices of historians are reconfigured by the introduction of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). We argue that GIS mediates historical understanding and knowledge creation in at least three ways: (a) by allowing historians to bring new sets of data into analysis, (b) by introducing novel questions, fresh insights, and new modes of analysis and reasoning, or discovering new answers to older questions; and (c) by providing new tools for historians to communicate with each other and with their audiences. We illustrate these mediations through the study of the historiography of Budapest Ghettos during World War II. Our study shows how GIS functionalities reveal hitherto unknown aspects of social life in the ghettos, while pushing certain other aspects into the background.

Type

a