4.2 Article

Can I believe what I see? Data visualization and trust in the humanities

Journal

INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
Volume 46, Issue 4, Pages 522-546

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2021.1872874

Keywords

Data visualization; critical design; ethics; interdisciplinarity; interrogability; scepticism; GLAM; omission; bias; naming; classification; certainty; precision

Funding

  1. AHRC [AH/S01179X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors delve into the increasing importance of trust issues in relation to data and its use, focusing on humanities data and its visualization through analysis of recent projects with museums, archives, and libraries internationally. They discuss potential sources of mistrust and how different expectations and assumptions vary depending on the use and user of the data, offering a simple schema to trace implications. The article argues that vital trust issues can be addressed through design, which is seen as contributing insights and questions that impact the entire process.
Questions of trust are increasingly important in relation to data and its use. The authors focus on humanities data and its visualization, through analysis of their own recent projects with museums, archives and libraries internationally. Their account connects the specifics of hands-on digital humanities work to larger epistemological questions. They discuss the sources of potential mistrust, and examine how different expectations and assumptions emerge depending on the use and user of the data; they offer a simple schema through which the implications may be traced. It is argued that vital issues of trust can be engaged with through design, which, rather than being conceived as a cosmetic finish, is seen as contributing insights and questions that affect the whole process. The article concludes with recommendations intended to be useful in both theory and practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available