DATA VISUALIZATION AND CONCEPTUALIZATION ON ACADEMIC DIGITAL PLATFORMS: THE SUCCEEDED ISSUES OF KNOWLEDGE STORAGE AND THE NEW CHALLENGES
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2022-2-30-45
Digital platforms present revolutionary phenomena that fundamentally change the way both scientific research and its metadata are stored and organized. Platforms inherit features of classical libraries, at the same time seen as revolutionary, implementing algorithms and interactive methods of systematization and analytics. Adequate access to research data and metadata is perceived as the result of a high-quality storage organization. The latter is aimed to provide an adequate picture of research fields’ conditions and interactions, as well as the prospects of their development. While data is related to researches themselves, metadata demonstrate social aspects of scientific work: researches, institutions and projects they conduct. The lack of a universal workflow of entering data leads to multiple misrepresentations, among others, about the platforms themselves. Understanding of platforms as autonomous structures, “black boxes” with “mysterious” algorithms, significantly limits intellectual access to issues required to be resolved in relation to them. The workflow of entering and processing data and metadata is dependent on the competences of the actors, mentioned above. Should a scientist, focused on actual research, be well equipped technically to avoid misrepresentation of scientific results on their part? Should a data scientist be universally educated so they can comply with the standards of historical indexers? Indexing itself is one of the main focuses of the article. It is analyzed in two respects: as an instrument of textual search (on the example of early medieval practices) and as an instrument of navigation in multiple fields of research on a platform. The index is construed here in accordance with its initial function of a pointer, on the one hand, and as a “map-reading”, which not only reads, but also creates the maps of communications in disciplinary and interdisciplinary fields, on the other. This observation highlights the necessity to overcome a number of difficulties. The first one is correspondence between the conceptual and technical levels of the platform organization. Another issue is the way classical methods optimize and visualize data within the realm of digital storage. Indexing, science mapping and complex systems engaged cannot be unambiguously evaluated. They all are methods used to simultaneously optimize and politicize data (as it is demonstrated in the “politics of the list”). The given analysis shows the need for constant work on the correspondence of the conceptual, visual and technical levels of academic platforms: technical issues could not be perceived independently from the conceptual ones, whether they are related to the data or metadata of research. The progress of knowledge and communication of scientific communities demonstrate themselves as dependent on the strategies related to the methodological apparatus that determines the quality of research data and metadata representation.
Keywords: academic platforms, digital platforms, data, metadata, indexing, science mapping, network science
References:
Ames 2018 – Ames, M. G. (2018). Deconstructing the algorithmic sublime. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718779194
Avnoon N. 2021 – Avnoon, N. (2021). Data scientists’ identity work: Omnivorous symbolic boundaries in skills acquisition. Work, Employment and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020977306
Birnholtz et al. 2012 – Birnholtz, J., et al. (2021). Cross-campus collaboration: A scientometric and network case study of publication activity across two campuses of a single institution. ASIS&T. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22807
Bratt 2017 – Bratt, S., Hemsley, J., Qin, J., & Costa, M. (2017). Big data, big metadata and quantitative study of science: A workflow model for big scietomentrics. Proceedings of the association for information science and technology, 54(1), 36–45.
Brevini et al. 2020 – Brevini, B., & Pasquale, F. (2020). Revisiting the Black Box Society by rethinking the political economy of big data. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720935146
Bucher 2016 – Bucher, T. (2016). Neither black nor box: Ways of knowing algorithms. In S. Kubitschko, & A. Kaun (Eds.), Innovative Methods in Media and Communication Research (pp. 81–98). Palgrave Macmillan; Cham.
Calise at al. 2000 – Calise, M., & Lowi, T. J. (2000). Hyperpolitics: Hypertext, concepts and theory-making. International Political Science Review, 21(3), 283–310.
Carusi 2006 – Carusi, A. (2006). Textual practitioners: A comparison of hypertext theory and phenomenology of reading. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 5(2), 163–180.
Culler 2010 – Culler, J. (2010). The closeness of close reading. ADE Bulletin, 149, 20–25.
Dewandre 2020 – Dewandre, N. (2020). Big Data: From modern fears to enlightened and vigilant embrace of new beginnings. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720936708
Fields 2020 – Fields, D., Bissell, D., & Macrorie, R. (2020). Platform methods: studying platform urbanism outside the black box. Urban Geography. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1730642
Gehl 2015 – Gehl, R. W. (2015). Sharing, knowledge management and big data: A partial genealogy of the data scientist. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 413–428.
Goede et al. 2016 – Goede, de M., Leander, A., & Sullivan, G. (2016). Introduction: The politics of the list. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(1), 3–13.
Hu 2020 – Hu, M. (2020). Cambridge Analytica’s black box. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720938091
Jacomy 2020 – Jacomy, M. (2020). Epistemic clashes in network science: Mapping the tensions between idiographic and nomothetic subcultures. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720949577
Kitchin 2014 – Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society.https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481
Le Deuff 2018 – Le Deuff, O. (2018). Digital humanities: history and development. Iste and Wiley.
Micheli 2020 – Micheli, M., Ponti, M., Craglia, M., & Suman, A. B. (2020). Emerging models of data governance in the age of datafication. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720948087
Moats et al. 2019 – Moats, D., & Seaver, N. (2019). “You Social Scientists Love Mind Games’’: Experimenting in the ‘‘divide’’ between data science and critical algorithm studies. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719833404
Modir 2014 – Modir, L., Guan, L. C., & Aziz, S. B. S. (2014). Text, Hypertext, and Hyperfiction: A Convergence Between Poststructuralism and Narrative Theories. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014528915
Passi et al. 2020 – Passi, S., & Sengers, P. (2020). Making data science systems work. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720939605
Revill 2020 – Revill, G. (2020). Voicing the environment: Latour, Peirce and an expanded politics. EPD: Society and Space. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775820944521
Ribes 2018 – Ribes, D. (2018). STS, Meet Data Science, Once Again. Science, Technology, & Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918798899
Smith 2020 – Smith, G. (2020). The politics of algorithmic governance in the black box city. Big Data & Society.https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720933989
Staheli 2016 – Staheli, U. (2016). Indexing – The politics of invisibility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(1), 14–29.
Sullivan 2020 – Sullivan, G. (2020). The law of the list. Cambridge University Press.
( 305.12 kB ) 
( 298.49 kB )
Issue: 2, 2022
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 30 — 45
Downloads: 738