The development of big data is set to be a significant disruptive innovation in the production of official statistics offering a range of opportunities, challenges and risks to the work of national statistical institutions (NSIs). This paper provides a synoptic overview of these issues in detail, mapping out the various pros and cons of big data for producing official statistics, examining the work to date by NSIs in formulating a strategic and operational response to big data, and plotting some suggestions with respect to on-going change management needed to address the use of big data for official statistics.
The argument is pretty much distilled into this table:
This morning Rob Kitchin presented a keynote talk at the New Techniques and Technologies for Statistics conference in Brussels. The presentation examined the potential impact of the unfolding data revolution – big data, open and linked data, data infrastructures, and new data analytics – on the production of official statistics and the work of national statistical institutions. The slides that accompanied the talk are below.
We’re recruiting! We are seeking two postdoctoral researchers to work on the Programmable City project to (1) unpack data assemblages, and (2) examine big data industry and smart cities.
These posts will complement the existing research team.
Post 1: Unpacking a data assemblage, including the associated technological stack
Adopting a critical data studies approach, this researcher will examine in depth, and compare and contrast, two data assemblages, mostly likely operating in the public sector. The aim is to gain a detailed conceptual and empirical understanding from a social sciences perspective of how data infrastructures are on the one hand technically assembled (through a technical stack composed of hardware, networks, software, algorithms, data, interfaces) and operated using a set of technical and social practices, and how their production and operation is socially, politically, legally and economically framed. The empirical research will consist primarily of ethnographic work within organisations, along with in-depth interviews with key actors and stakeholders.
Post 2: Big data industry and smart cities
This researcher will, on the one hand, examine in depth the development of big data industries in Dublin and Boston, examining the big data ecosystem (including big data analytics and data brokers) and its associated discursive regime, and on the other, examine how big data are being mobilised and deployed within smart city initiatives as part of big data assemblages. The aim is to gain a detailed conceptual and empirical understanding of the development and use of big data and big data analytics within the private and public sector to complement existing project work on open data, and how big data are being deployed in practice in cities and any associated consequences. The empirical research will consist primarily of in-depth interviews with key actors and stakeholders and one and two case studies of urban big data initiatives.
There will be some latitude to re-jig these projects in negotiation with the principal investigator in order to fit the interests, expertise and experience of the appointed researchers.
A new paper by Rob Kitchin has been published in DIS Magazine as part of its fascinating ‘Data issue‘. The paper explores the extent to which geosurveillance is becoming pervasive and routinised and the consequences of such geosurveillance with respect to civil rights and governance, and is accompanied by some original art by Mark Dorf (also used in the site banner above) It starts thus:
“For the past couple of decades there has been a steady stream of analysis that has documented the ways in which the rollout of new digital and networked technologies have enabled increasingly pervasive and extensive forms of state and corporate surveillance. Such technologies have the capability to capture and communicate data about their use; simultaneously a wealth of sophisticated software has been developed that processes and acts on such data in automated, autonomous, and automatic ways. Importantly, the use of embedded GPS, sensors, and digital cameras are enabling location and movement to be tracked, facilitating extensive geosurveillance of people and places.
Continuous geosurveillance relies on the production of spatial big data, and in particular the notion of the “smart city” takes center stage, that is, urban landscapes that can be monitored, managed and regulated in real-time using ICT infrastructure and ubiquitous computing. Such instrumented cities are promoted as providing enhanced and more efficient and effective city services, ensuring safety and security, and providing resilience to economic and environmental shocks, but they also seriously infringe upon citizen’s privacy and are being used to profile and socially sort people, enact forms of anticipatory governance, and enable control creep, that is re-appropriation for uses beyond their initial design.
What follows is a consideration of the unfettered rush to create “smart cities” that is sensitive to the risks involved in extensively monitored urban landscapes. Are too much data about people and places being generated by public and private institutions and used to profile, sort, and sift in pernicious ways? In the rush to create smart cities is the privacy and freedom we expect in liberal democracies being eroded? Perhaps most alarming, are we creating cities that represent the interests of a select group of corporations and technocrats, rather than producing ones that represent the best interests of all citizens? ….”
Calculated Spaces: small data, big data, open data and data infrastructures
The promise of big and open data and data infrastructures is for greater evidence based decision making, informed policy, and efficient management. As mobile devices, wearables, UAVs/Drones, webcams, and sensors become more accessible and distributed in terms of cost, size and useability, it is assumed, that the ‘neutral facts’ derived from these ‘democratized technologies’ will lead to the production of objective and politically neutral models of places and spaces. Also, combining these data with those collected by GPS, satellite and radar with transaction (i.e. loyalty & swipe cards) and social media data and with framework data such as street networks or political boundaries, will lead to the perfect calculated model of the world. Finally, there is the dream of cloud storage liberating the data from geography with ‘free’ and ‘open’ platforms yet geo-fencing persists.
We hope submissions will include critically reflections on some of the following: the ‘politically neutral’ production of objective space, technological determinism, data driven managerialism, the social shaping effects of technology and data, technocratic governance, and data assemblages (Kitchin 2014). Also, on the implications of algorithmic, mathematic and geometric modelling of spaces and places, social physics, the ontologies of ontologies (Hacking 2012), the politics of portals and 3rd party platforms and the geopolitics of data storage and global infrastructures. Also how do small, data, and open data and data infrastructures transduce spaces and places (Kitchin, 2014, Dalton and Thatcher 2014, Kitchin and Lauriault 2014). The objective of this session is therefore to interrogate the epistemological and ontological issues raised by data and infrastructures and to discuss their social, ethical, legal and political implications.
We welcome papers that explore the above and some of the following questions:
Has the proliferation of data and related infrastructures led to more technocratic forms of governance, managerialism and predictive governance?
Have VGI, counter mapping, citizen science and participatory mapping been critically reflexive about the technologies used to collect the data they produce? Are these truly democratic and objective processes?
While we become better at counting, classifying, sharing, archiving and visualizing, and are offered platforms to do so what kind of spaces and places are we creating?
How to balance the instrumental use of data collection technologies, which inform science while also normalize sousveillance, dataveillance, and surveillance?
How might data and their related data collection technologies contribute to sustainability, resilience and planning?
Is it possible to balance commercialization, public good, and ethics with big data, open data and data infrastructures?
Potential contributors should liaise with the session organiser prior to submission of their abstract on the conference website. Contact email: Tracey.Lauriault@NUIM.ie
The CIG is organized by The Geographical Society of Ireland and the School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, and will be held at Queens University Belfast are delighted to host the 47th Conference of Irish Geographers that will take place 21-24 May 2015.
Session 5 is our last session of the Code and the City workshop. Video of the previous sessions are here: Session 1, Session 2, Session 3 and Session 4.
Session 5: Cities, code and governance
Coding alternative modes of governance: ‘Smart cities’ to ‘data cities’ Alison Powell, Media & Communications, LSE
Abstract
Within the last twenty years the concept of the “smart city” has emerged and re-emerged, focusing on various ways that technology layers new capacities over existing urban infrastructures. These “smart cities” are changing. The “smart city” of the early 2000s was a communicative city, while the smart city of the 2010s is a data city. The dynamics of these are different: a communicative city promises representation through voice – the ability to speak and listen – while a data city promises representation through information – information collected about individuals is fed back to civic decision makers who enact decisions based upon it. Data is thus a product flowing from citizen to government. In data cities governance is also different: both communicative and data cities could be the result of top-down governance decisions or subject to bottom-up reconfigurations, the ways that those decisions are enacted are quite different. A communicative city promises a democratic value to citizens of greater access to information, while a data city promises a value to governments of greater access to data about citizens. This structural inequity is particularly evident when we consider what must happen to data in a data city – it must be calculated.
Within a macro-political perspective, centralized calculation of data gathered from citizens is essential for developing visions of responsive, data-rich, centrally controlled smart cities. This seems to close off the potential for an alternative mode of governance for the contemporary data city. However, the expansion of participatory culture has created efforts to democratize collection of data about cities, through citizen science projects including air quality and noise mapping. In these projects, the legitimacy of the hierarchical city is challenged by the oppositional data collected by citizens, taken as evidence of an opposition between the “constituted knowledge” of institutions like city governance and the “adaptive knowledge” of loosely organized communities of practice (see Mansell, 2013). This contest of knowledge contrasts the two modes of combining citizenship, technology and space, the ‘hierarchical city’ and the ‘peer to peer’ city. Participatory data collection does seem to enact an alternative to centralized authority, but it is not clear whether data – without calculation – is really shifting governance.
Building upon the central contrast between hierarchical and peer to peer cities, this paper considers how the “micro politics” of cities are altered as calculation is integrated into civic participation. Drawing on historical and contemporary examples of peer to peer cities including community networks, citizen science, it argues that peer to peer calculation is the most significant yet most difficult activation of alternative governance of urban space.
Big data and stratification urban futures Agnieszka Leszczynski, Geography and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham
Abstract
Code has been recognized as intimately implicated in the socio-spatial stratification of cities. Big data in particular are underwriting a sweeping intensification of practices of socio-spatial sorting, which refers to the organization of city spaces into social and economic categories so as to categorize and effectively manage the individuals who inhabit them. These practices directly shape and reinforce material urban geographies of social disparity. One of the primary areas where we find evidence of this is in the increasing leveraging of big data towards the prefiguring of urban spatial pre-futures of deviance. Big data and attendant analytics are reproducing and reifying disenfranchisement alog axes of race, class, socioeconomic status, and geography at scales from the city as a whole to individual neighbourhoods so as to create material spaces for specific kinds of vertical surveillance interventions (e.g., increased police presence), and to justify the targeting of particular neighborhoods and neighbourhood populations for these practices (e.g., by prefiguring them as criminalized a priori). The ways in which this is enacted in practice is
discussed with reference to, amongst others, the EMOTIVE Twitter analytics software program designed as a riot prevention system in the UK, and the Chicago Police Department’s turn to big data analytics as a predictive policing measure.
The cryptographic city David M. Berry, Media & Communication, University of Sussex
Abstract
Questions about opacity and transparency have been turned upside down in the post-Snowden era. With the certainty of tracking technologies, surveillance and monitoring, a new turn towards anonymity, opaque presence and crypto-identity has emerged in digital networks. This paper looks to examine questions of cryptography and encryption in relation to the city, particularly in relation to the increasing mediation of life through algorithms, software and code. Key questions are the relationship between opacity and opaque presence and notions of publicness and city space, but also the way in which the city as a programmable city will increasingly rely upon the cryptographic layers. Through an engagement with the notion of ‘capture’ the paper seeks to think through the limits of what we might call plaintext code/space and reflect on the crypto code/spaces and their materialities.
Additional Videos from previous sessions
Session 4 – Cultural curation and urban Interfaces: Locative media as experimental platforms for cultural data Nanna Verhoeff, Department of Media and Culture Studies, Utrecht University
Abstract
My contribution is concerned with the way in which urban interfaces are used for access to cultural collections – whether institutionally embedded, or bottom-up, participatory collections. Designed in code and exploring affordances of new location-based and/or mobile technologies for urban space-making, these interfaces are thought to be powerful tools for ideals of participatory urban culture. I propose to approach these “projects” as curatorial machines, as urban experimental laboratories for cultural data. This entails a threefold perspective, on curation, on code, and on principles of creative (sometimes artistic or playful) experimentation.
For this, we may remind ourselves of the curatorial project of museal and archival institutions, of preserving, and “caring” for the object, as well as creating new contexts for the object and providing access for an urban public – a field which is very much in transition as a result of current ambitions for new public engagement and ideals of participation, pervasive in all socio-economic and political regions of contemporary culture. Simultaneously we witness the current interest in the principles of data curation as the care for, interaction with, interpretation and visualisation of digital data, as the datafication and codification of culture invades all corners of urban life. Design of interfaces is central in how we can access, work with, and make meaning with digital culture. Departing from the concept of dispositif in the analysis of interfaces, I propose to bring together the fact that the interfaces are coded and designed, to (playfully) experiment with their affordances.
In my approach to this intersection of datafication of, and the proliferation of interfaces for “culture”, I aim to develop heuristic tools for critical evaluation of this phenomenon, broadly bracketed as [urban interfaces] as interfaces of cultural curation.
