Politics and Epistemology of Big Data: A Critical Assessment

  • Teresa NumericoEmail author
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 134)


In this paper I will discuss Big Data as a suite of new methods for social and political research. I will start by tracing a genealogy of the idea that machine can perform better than human beings in managing extremely huge quantity of data, and that the quantity of information could change the quality of the interrogation posed to those data.

In the second part of the paper I will analyse Big Data as a social and rhetorical construction of the politics of research, claiming in favour of a more detailed account of the consequences for its progressive institutionalization. Without a serious methodological assessment of the changes that these new methods produce in the scientific epistemology of social and political sciences, we risk to underestimate the distortive or uncontrollable effects of the massive use of computer techniques. The challenge is how to avoid situations in which it is very difficult to reproduce the designed experiment, and it is arduous to explain the theories that can justify the output of researches. As an exemplification of the problem I will discuss the work on emotional contagion led by Facebook and published on PNAS in 2014.

Until now it was difficult to explore all the Big Data projects’ consequences on the perception of human intelligence and on the future of social research methods. The vision that there is no way to manage social data than to follow the results of a machine learning algorithm that works on inaccessible, epistemologically opaque and uncontrollable systems is rather problematic and deserve some extra consideration.


Big Data Epistemology of social and political sciences Machine learning Epistemic opacity Privacy Control Computational rationality Complexity 


  1. Ahonen, P. 2015. Institutionalizing Big Data methods in social and political research. Big Data & Society 2(2, July). Accessed 9 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. 2008. The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired, 23 June 2008. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  3. Barabási, A.L. 2010. Bursts: The hidden patterns behind everything we do, from your e-mail to bloody crusades. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, D. 2014. It’s complicated. In New Haven. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bowker, G.C. 2013. Data flakes: An afterword to ‘Raw Data’ is an oxymoron. In: Gitelman. 2013, 167–171.Google Scholar
  6. Bowker, G.C., and S. Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, D. 2010. Privacy and publicity in the context of Big Data. Raleigh (nc), 29 April 2010 Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  8. Boyd, D., and K. Crawford. 2012. Critical questions for Big Data. Information, Communication & Society 15 (5): 662–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrell, J. 2016. How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society 3(1, January). Accessed 8 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chun, H.K.W. 2011. Programmed visions: Software and memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chun, W.H. 2016. Updating to remain the same. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Custers, B. 2016. Click here to consent forever: Expiry dates for informed consent. Big Data & Society 3(January–June). Accessed 9 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derrida, J. 1995. Mal d’archive: une impression freudienne. Édition GalilÉe, Paris; En. Trans. Archive fever: A Freudian impression. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, R., and R. E. Robertson. 2015. The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS 112(33): E4512–E4521. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiormonte, D., T. Numerico, and F. Tomasi. 2015. Digital humanist. A critical enquiry. New York: Punctum Books.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. 1969/1982. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  17. Gillespie, T. 2014. The relevance of algorithms. In Media technologies :Essays on communication, materiality, and society, ed. T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, and K. Foot. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gitelman, L., ed. 2013. “Raw Data” is an oxymoron. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Han, B.C. 2013. Im Schwarm : Ansichten des Digitalen. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.Google Scholar
  20. Humphreys, P. 2004. Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2009. The philosophical novelty of computer simulation methods. Synthese 169 (3): 615–626.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramer, A.I. et al. 2014. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. PNAS 111(24, 17 June): 8788–8790. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  23. Laney, D. 2001. 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity, and variety, meta group (now Gartner Group) report. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  24. Lanier, J. 2013. Who owns the future? New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., and Vespignani, A. 2014. The parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big data analysis. Science 343(14 March): 1203–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lazer D., Kennedy R. 2015. What We Can Learn From the Epic Failure of Google Flu Trends. Wired, 10/1/2015. Accessed 2 nov 2018.
  27. Licklider, J.C.R. 1965. Libraries of the future. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. LIWC (2007) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program dictionary, 2007 version Accessed 2 Nov 2018
  29. Markham, A.N. 2013. Undermining ‘data’: A critical examination of a core term in scientific inquiry. First Monday, 18, 10, October. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  30. Mayer-Schönberger, V., and K. Cukier. 2013. Big Data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  31. Metcalf, J., and K. Crawford. 2016. Where are human subjects in Big Data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data and Society 3(January–June). Accessed 9 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nielsen, M. 2011. Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. O’Neil, C. 2016. Weapons of math destruction. In Allen Lane. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  35. Open Science Collaboration, B.A. Nosek, A.A. Aarts, C.J. Anderson, J.E. Anderson, H.B. Kappes, et al. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349 (6251): aac4716–aac4716 ISSN 0036-8075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pasquale, F. 2015. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raghavan, P. 2014. It’s time to scale the science in the social sciences. Big Data & Society 1(1, June): 1–4. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reality check on reproducibility. 2016. Nature 533(26 May): 437. Accessed 2 Nov 2018
  39. Rieder, G., and J. Simon. 2016. Datatrust: Or, the political quest for numerical evidence and the epistemologies of Big Data. Big Data and society 3. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  40. Rodotà, S. 2014. Il mondo nella rete. Quali i diritti, quali i vincoli. Repubblica/Laterza, Rome.Google Scholar
  41. Schroeck, M. et al. 2012. Analytics: The real-world use of Big Data, IBM Report. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  42. Schroeder, R. 2014. Big Data and the brave new world of social and media research. Big Data and society 1(2, December): 1–11. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.
  43. Symons, J., and R. Alvarado 2016. Big Can we trust Big Data? Applying philosophy of science to software. Big Data & Society 1–17(July–December). Accessed 7 Oct 2016.
  44. Turing A. M. 1945. Proposal for the development in the mathematical division of an automatic computing engine (ACE), Report to the Executive Committee of National Physical Laboratory 1945, reprinted in Turing 1992, Collected Works of A.M. Turing: mechanical intelligence, Ince D. C. ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1–86.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 1947. Lecture to the London Mathematical Society on 20 February 1947. In The essential Turing, ed. J. Copeland, 378–394. 2004. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Zwitter, A. 2014. Big Data Ethics. Big Data & Society 1(2, November): 1–6. Accessed 9 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Communication and Performing artsUniversity of Rome TreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations