大数据的修辞:数据时代的收集、解读与表现

Poroi Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI:10.13008/2151-2957.1311
B. Mehlenbacher, A. Mehlenbacher
{"title":"大数据的修辞:数据时代的收集、解读与表现","authors":"B. Mehlenbacher, A. Mehlenbacher","doi":"10.13008/2151-2957.1311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rhetorical studies of science, technology, and medicine (RSTM) have provided critical understanding of how argument and argument norms within a field shape what is meant by “data.” Work has also examined how questions that shape data collection are asked, how data is interpreted, and even how data is shared. Understood as a form of argument, data reveals important insights into rhetorical situations, the motives of rhetorical actors, and the broader appeals that shape everything from the kinds of technologies built, to their inclusion in our daily lives, to the infrastructures of cities, the medical practices and policies concerning public health, etc. Big data merits continued attention from RSTM scholars as our understanding of its pervasive use and its ethos grows, but its arguments remain elusive (Salvo, 2012). To unpack the elusivity of big data, we explore one particularly illustrative case of big data and political, democratic influence: the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal. To understand the case, we turn to social studies of data to explore the range of ethical issues raised by big data, and to examine the rhetorical strategies that entail big data.","PeriodicalId":93222,"journal":{"name":"Poroi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Rhetoric of Big Data: Collecting, Interpreting, and Representing in the Age of Datafication\",\"authors\":\"B. Mehlenbacher, A. Mehlenbacher\",\"doi\":\"10.13008/2151-2957.1311\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rhetorical studies of science, technology, and medicine (RSTM) have provided critical understanding of how argument and argument norms within a field shape what is meant by “data.” Work has also examined how questions that shape data collection are asked, how data is interpreted, and even how data is shared. Understood as a form of argument, data reveals important insights into rhetorical situations, the motives of rhetorical actors, and the broader appeals that shape everything from the kinds of technologies built, to their inclusion in our daily lives, to the infrastructures of cities, the medical practices and policies concerning public health, etc. Big data merits continued attention from RSTM scholars as our understanding of its pervasive use and its ethos grows, but its arguments remain elusive (Salvo, 2012). To unpack the elusivity of big data, we explore one particularly illustrative case of big data and political, democratic influence: the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal. To understand the case, we turn to social studies of data to explore the range of ethical issues raised by big data, and to examine the rhetorical strategies that entail big data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Poroi\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Poroi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1311\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poroi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学、技术和医学(RSTM)的修辞研究提供了对一个领域内的论证和论证规范如何塑造“数据”含义的批判性理解。工作还研究了如何提出影响数据收集的问题,如何解释数据,甚至如何共享数据。作为一种论证形式,数据揭示了对修辞情境的重要见解,修辞行为者的动机,以及塑造一切事物的更广泛的吸引力,从建造的各种技术,到它们在我们日常生活中的包含,到城市的基础设施,医疗实践和有关公共卫生的政策,等等。随着我们对大数据的普遍使用及其精神的理解不断加深,大数据值得RSTM学者的持续关注,但其论点仍然难以捉摸(Salvo, 2012)。为了揭开大数据的神秘面纱,我们探讨了一个特别能说明大数据与政治、民主影响的案例:facebook与剑桥分析公司(cambridge Analytica)的丑闻。为了理解这个案例,我们转向数据的社会研究,探索大数据引发的道德问题的范围,并检查涉及大数据的修辞策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Rhetoric of Big Data: Collecting, Interpreting, and Representing in the Age of Datafication
Rhetorical studies of science, technology, and medicine (RSTM) have provided critical understanding of how argument and argument norms within a field shape what is meant by “data.” Work has also examined how questions that shape data collection are asked, how data is interpreted, and even how data is shared. Understood as a form of argument, data reveals important insights into rhetorical situations, the motives of rhetorical actors, and the broader appeals that shape everything from the kinds of technologies built, to their inclusion in our daily lives, to the infrastructures of cities, the medical practices and policies concerning public health, etc. Big data merits continued attention from RSTM scholars as our understanding of its pervasive use and its ethos grows, but its arguments remain elusive (Salvo, 2012). To unpack the elusivity of big data, we explore one particularly illustrative case of big data and political, democratic influence: the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal. To understand the case, we turn to social studies of data to explore the range of ethical issues raised by big data, and to examine the rhetorical strategies that entail big data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信