Quantifying Quality: Towards a Post-humanist Perspective on Sensemaking

  • Eric MonteiroEmail author
  • Thomas Østerlie
  • Elena Parmiggiani
  • Marius Mikalsen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 543)


Processes of quantifying the qualitative have deep historical roots that demonstrate their contested nature. The ongoing push for Big Data/data science presupposes the quantification of qualitative phenomena. We analyse an ongoing case where the core of the qualitative – judgements, assessments, sensemaking – is being challenged by quantification through Big Data/data science-inspired new digital tools. Concretely, we study how traditionally qualitative sensemaking practices of geological interpretations in commercial oil and gas exploration are challenged by efforts of quantification driven by geophysical, sensor-based measurements captured by digital tools. Drawing on Wylie’s notion of scaffolding, we outline three aspects of the performativity of scaffolding underpinning geological sensemaking: scaffolding is (i) dynamic (evolving with additional data, quality assurance, triangulation), (ii) provisional (radically changed when faced with sufficiently inconsistent data) and (iii) decentred (in and through distributed, loosely coupled networks of practices). In our analysis, the quantitative does not unilaterally replace the qualitative; there is an irreducible, reciprocal relationship. Yet, there is scope for significant changes in the role, location and sequence of tasks of quantification within the qualitative as we reflect on by way of concluding.


Scaffolding Performative Post-humanist Sensemaking Big data 


  1. 1.
    Crosby, A.W.: The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, H.: Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Autor, D.H.: Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. J. Econ. Perspect. 29(3), 3–30 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brynjolfsson, E., McAffee, A.: The Second Machine Age. W. W. Norton & Company Inc., New York (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leonelli, S., Rappert, B., Davies, G.: Data shadows: knowledge, openness, and absence. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 42(2), 191–202 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kitchin, R.: Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data Soc. 1(1), 1–12 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapman, R., Wylie, A.: Evidential Reasoning in Archaeology. Bloomsbury Academic, London (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wylie, A.: How archaeological data bites back: strategies for putting old data to work in new ways. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 42(2), 203–225 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wylie, A., Chapman, R.: Material evidence: learning from archaeological practice. In: Chapman, R., Wylie, A. (eds.) Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice, pp. 1–20. Routledge, Oxon (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barad, K.: Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press, Durham (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hultin, L., Mähring, M.: How practice makes sense in healthcare operations: studying sensemaking as performative, material-discursive practice. Hum. Relat. 70(5), 566–593 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V.: Exploring material-discursive practices. J. Manag. Stud. 52, 697–705 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Knorr Cetina, K.: Epistemic Cultures: How Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Currie, A.: Rock, Bone, and Ruin: An Optimist’s Guide to the Historical Sciences. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frodeman, R.: Geological reasoning: geology as an interpretive and historical science. GSA Bull. 107(8), 960–968 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frodeman, R.: Hermeneutics in the field: the philosophy of geology. In: Babich, B., Ginev, D. (eds.) The Multidimensionality of Hermeneutic Phenomenology. CP, vol. 70, pp. 69–79. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gitelman, L. (ed.): Raw Data is an Oxymoron. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agarwal, R., Dhar, V.: Big Data, Data Science, and Analytics: The Opportunity and Challenge for IS Research. Inf. Syst. Res. 25(3), 443–448 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson, C.: The End of Theory: The Data Deluge that Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. WIRED (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davenport, T.: Big Data at Work: Dispelling the Myths, Uncovering the Opportunities. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ribes, D., Polk, J.B.: Organizing for ontological change: the kernel of an AIDS infrastructure. Soc. Stud. Sci. 45(2), 214–241 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edwards, P.N.: Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: data-laden models, model-filtered data. Sci. Cult. 8(4), 437–472 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Power, M.: The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farjoun, M.: Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(2), 202–205 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van de Ven, A.H.: Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zuboff, S.: Big other: surveillance capitalism and prospects of an information civilization. J. Inf. Technol. 30(1), 75–89 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pearl, J., Mackenzie, D.: The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books, New York (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Monteiro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Østerlie
    • 1
  • Elena Parmiggiani
    • 1
  • Marius Mikalsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF DigitalTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations