Metadata, Digital Infrastructure, and the Data Ideologies of Cultural Anthropology
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.
KeywordsMetadata Ethnography Digital infrastructure Collaboration Re-interpretation Data ideology Hermeneutics
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.”
- 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
- 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
- Drucker, J., & Svensson, P. (2016). The Why and How of Middleware. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 010, 2.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Knorr-Cetina, K. (2009). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Leopold, R. (2013). Articulating Culturally Sensitive Knowledge Online: A Cherokee Case Study. Museum Anthropology Review, 7(1–2), 85–104.Google Scholar
- 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
- Nader, L. (1972). Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED065375. Accessed 12 Oct 2012.
- Nafus, D. (2017). Data Friction. Platypus: The CASTAC Blog. http://blog.castac.org/2017/02/data-friction/. Accessed 7 Mar 2019.
- 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
- Riley, J. (2009–2010). Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe. http://jennriley.com/metadatamap/. Accessed Mar 2019.
- 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
- 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