To summarize some of the interesting points made in class yesterday, we have come to an understanding that data is a representation, which implies interpretation. To go further, data is a social fact and is socially produced, I think this is related to the statement Professor Himpele made about data being instrinsically partial and incomplete because choices about the data are being made by some data collector/presenter. I used “collector/presenter” intentionally to relate this to the digital data and culture visualization that Rei, Matthew, and I made in Miro. In our visualization we attempted to demonstrate the implied interpretation of data, a representation, by showing what cultural factors may influence the interpretive process. One thing that I would like to change about our visualiztion after yesterday’s conversation is the location of the digital data. Though we discussed as a group how culture can be the context that the data is understood in, and we attempted to show how their are multiple points of view involved in the whole process of collecting, presenting, and consuming data, I think that locating digital data is some sort of cultural web would be a more helpful representation.

Towards the end of our discussion yesterday what really intrigued me was the idea of data protection and regulation. My question in Miro was about why is it that only some research is restricted by institutions like IRB. As Boyd and Crawford mentioned there is contention over how ethical it is to use “public” data that may not be intended to be viewed by all of the public (p. 673). I am not that familiar with data protection and regulation, but it seems to me that mostly educational/academic, health, and financial data are regulated. I wonder if this reflects how valuable this data is or how at-risk it is of being used inappropriately. Maybe the gaps in regulation are just reflective of the ongoing argument on how to regulate some newer forms of data like internet social media.