Advertisement

Metadata, Digital Infrastructure, and the Data Ideologies of Cultural Anthropology

  • Lindsay PoirierEmail author
  • Kim Fortun
  • Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn
  • Mike Fortun
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, based on fieldwork with the Research Data Alliance and our work designing the Platform for Experimental Collaborative Ethnography (PECE), we elaborate on the concept of data ideologies and examine how they have informed work and data-sharing practice in academic research, and in cultural anthropology more specifically. Data ideologies refer to people’s underlying assumptions about data, the way they operate, and the consequences they produce. We argue that, while many cultural anthropologists have been reticent to share their data, making anthropological data more open and accessible affords new possibilities for multi-perspectival analysis and re-interpretation of data—practices that can make ethnographic narratives more robust and pluralistic. Metadata is key to encouraging re-interpretation of archived data, as it situates data collection and analysis in a particular time, setting, and cultural context. We demonstrate how we implemented data-sharing infrastructure and metadata standards in PECE—not to advance reproducible research practices, but instead to encourage collaborative hermeneutics and iterative re-analysis of data. We conclude that attending to complex contemporary problems will demand linking undervalued and underfunded infrastructural work to the cultural work of shifting the discipline’s data ideologies.

Keywords

Metadata Ethnography Digital infrastructure Collaboration Re-interpretation Data ideology Hermeneutics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The development of the PECE platform and the writing of this chapter were made possible through the support of the National Science Foundation (Award #1535888), “Environmental Health Governance in Six Cities: How Scientific Cultures, Practices and Infrastructure Shape Governance Styles.”

Works Cited

  1. Allen, A. P. (2018). Recall Initiative: From Memory and Life History, to Ireland and History. Digital Repository of Ireland [Distributor], Irish Qualitative Data Archive [Depositing Institution].  https://doi.org/10.7486/DRI.wp98p078n
  2. Beall, J. (2004). Dublin Core: An Obituary. Library Hi Tech News, 21(8), 40–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgman, C. L. (2012). The Conundrum of Sharing Research Data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1059–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crowder, J. W. (2017). Visualizing Tensions in an Ethnographic Moment: Images and Intersubjectivity. Medical Anthropology, 36(6), 584–601.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2017.1315572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dourish, P. (2017). No SQL: The Shifting Materialities of Database Technology. In The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7932804
  6. Drucker, J., & Svensson, P. (2016). The Why and How of Middleware. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 010, 2.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, P., Mayernik, M. S., Batcheller, A., Bowker, G., & Borgman, C. (2011). Science Friction: Data, Metadata, and Collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 41(5), 667–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ember, M. (2000). HRAF in the 21st Century: Blueprint for the Future After Fifty Years. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files, Inc. https://hraf.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/HRAF-in-the-21st-Century.pdf
  9. Fassin, D., & Rechtman, R. (2009). The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood (trans: Gomme, R.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fortun, K., & Fortun, M. (2005). Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary U.S. Toxicology. American Anthropologist, 107(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fortun, M., Fortun, K., & Marcus, G. E. (2017). Computers in/and Anthropology: The Poetics and Politics of Digitization. In L. Hjorth, H. Horst, A. Galloway, & G. Bell (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography (pp. 11–20). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  12. Fortun, M., & Fortun, K. (2019). Anthropologies of the Sciences: Thinking Across Strata. In J. MacClancy (Ed.), Exotic No More: Anthropology for the Contemporary World (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goldberg, D. (2015). World as Platform—Genres of Scholarly Knowledge Production—Medium. Genres of Scholarly Knowledge Production (Online Collection). https://medium.com/genres-of-scholarly-knowledge-production/world-asplatform-da7f8a1f042e
  14. Greenberg, J. (2009). Metadata and Digital Information. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition (pp. 3610–3623). New York: Taylor and Francis.  https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helmreich, S. (2007). Induction, Deduction, Abduction, and the Logics of Race and Kinship. American Ethnologist, 34(2), 230–232.  https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keane, W. (2018). On Semiotic Ideology. Signs and Society, 6(1), 64–87.  https://doi.org/10.1086/695387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2009). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leopold, R. (2013). Articulating Culturally Sensitive Knowledge Online: A Cherokee Case Study. Museum Anthropology Review, 7(1–2), 85–104.Google Scholar
  19. Marsh, D. E., & Punzalan, R. L. (2019). Studying and Mobilizing the Impacts of Anthropological Data in Archives. In J. Crowder, M. Fortun, R. Besara, & L. Poirier (Eds.), Anthropological Data in the Digital Age. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Nader, L. (1972). Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED065375. Accessed 12 Oct 2012.
  21. Nafus, D. (2017). Data Friction. Platypus: The CASTAC Blog. http://blog.castac.org/2017/02/data-friction/. Accessed 7 Mar 2019.
  22. O’Donnell, K., Pembroke, S., & McGettrick, C. (2015). Magdalene Oral History Collection. Digital Repository of Ireland [Distributor], Irish Qualitative Data Archive [Depositing Institution].  https://doi.org/10.7486/DRI.dn39x152w
  23. Ribes, D. (2019). STS, Meet Data Science, Once Again. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(3), 514–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Riley, J. (2009–2010). Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe. http://jennriley.com/metadatamap/. Accessed Mar 2019.
  25. Roy, A. (2011). Urbanisms, Worlding Practices and the Theory of Planning. Planning Theory, 10(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In P. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  27. Weibel, S., Iannella, R., & Cathro, W. (1997, June). The 4th Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Report. D-Lib Magazine. http://mirror.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.html
  28. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(160018), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay Poirier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kim Fortun
    • 2
  • Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn
    • 3
  • Mike Fortun
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations