4.5 Article

Just good enough data: Figuring data citizenships through air pollution sensing and data stories

期刊

BIG DATA & SOCIETY
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2053951716679677

关键词

Citizen sensing; citizen data; environmental data; data practices; data stories; data citizenships

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP)/ERC [313347]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
  3. King's College London
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [313347] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Citizen sensing, or the use of low-cost and accessible digital technologies to monitor environments, has contributed to new types of environmental data and data practices. Through a discussion of participatory research into air pollution sensing with residents of northeastern Pennsylvania concerned about the effects of hydraulic fracturing, we examine how new technologies for generating environmental data also give rise to new problems for analysing and making sense of citizen-gathered data. After first outlining the citizen data practices we collaboratively developed with residents for monitoring air quality, we then describe the data stories that we created along with citizens as a method and technique for composing data. We further mobilise the concept of 'just good enough data' to discuss the ways in which citizen data gives rise to alternative ways of creating, valuing and interpreting datasets. We specifically consider how environmental data raises different concerns and possibilities in relation to Big Data, which can be distinct from security or social media studies. We then suggest ways in which citizen datasets could generate different practices and interpretive insights that go beyond the usual uses of environmental data for regulation, compliance and modelling to generate expanded data citizenships.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据