{"id":504,"date":"2020-02-11T15:32:50","date_gmt":"2020-02-11T13:32:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/?p=504"},"modified":"2020-02-11T15:32:50","modified_gmt":"2020-02-11T13:32:50","slug":"whats-up-with-all-this-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/2020\/02\/11\/whats-up-with-all-this-data\/","title":{"rendered":"What’s up with all this data?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cThe easier it is to quantify, the less it\u2019s\nworth\u201d  <\/em>– Seth Godin<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can you\nspend a day without your phone, or would you be less smart without techy\ngadgets, maybe less capable?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our brain\ncertainly has limits in holding information and in representing reality with restricted\nsensory inputs and processing capabilities. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Information\ntechnology certainly extends our abilities and reflects important scientific\nadvances when assisting us in better discerning cause and effect and in supporting\noptimal decision-making.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A primary\nway it works is through the seamless generation, combination and processing of\nnew information. But just as the brain is constrained by its capacity to sense\nand process information, our technological artefacts are similarly limited by\nthe type of information generated as well as the processing logics they are\nprogrammed into.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following portrays some criticism of information technology, specifically focusing on the \u2018datafication\u2019 of our experiences and the algorithmic representation of phenomena. The idea is not to paint a sombre picture but to help maintain course in rapid socio-technical evolution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly,\ndo the digital tentacles capture all corners of our society?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smart\ntechnologies such as AI, IoT, machine learning, robotics and automated systems\npromise to deliver on efficiency and responsiveness, but it looks like they\nmight be further exacerbating the \u201cunequal distribution of digital benefits in\ntheir design and implementation\u201d (Park & Humphry, 2019, p. 935).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not\nonly that access to digital services is largely intertwined with socio-economic\nstatus, but service providers often lean towards relatively normative and\nsimplified user responses when training their algorithms, with AI-learning\noften being skewed towards the majority (Park & Humphry, 2019).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should we\nthen be comfortable with AI solutions doing things like screening applications\nfor jobs, for bank loans or insurance?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To what\nextent can or does data depict an accurate representation of existing\nrealities?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a phenomenological perspective, no single\nview can ever be complete, as the perception of a referent is altered by its\nrelationship to context and to juxtaposed voids. We can never enumerate all possible views, but we can\u2019t design with a singular viewpoint in\nmind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monteiro\n& Parmiggiani (2019) demonstrate the limits of what they call \u2018synthetic\nknowing\u2019 with a longitudinal case study of digitally-rendered\nenvironmental monitoring by an oil and gas company operating in the politically\ncontested Arctic. They reveal how knowing <\/em>is politically charged, and how\nsensors and algorithms increasingly represent phenomenological reality,\n\u2018configurable\u2019 to the guise of profit-making stakeholders.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With\nliquification into digital<\/em> materiality, real-time knowing can become an\nalgorithmic phenomenon, and the debate is ongoing on whether enough credibility\nis warranted to base consequential decisions on. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skewed\nalgorithmic representation of people and environments may constrain the intelligence\nof our services and decision-making, but there is a close corollary when it\ncomes to how we personally construct our daily experiences, particularly when\ndealing with digital representations of our own selves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example\nof \u2018datafication\u2019 of the self is found in the context of self-tracking\ntechnologies such as fitness apps and smart wearables which abound in a growing\n\u2018healthist\u2019 culture, both in the private and organizational domains.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measurement of activities like running or leisure time, and measurement of internal states such as cardiovascular performance, sleep, caloric intake, stress, etc., is meant to support users in monitoring, managing, and achieving desired performance levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are possible implications of having a \u2018quantified self\u2019 on the definition of self, and consequently, on one\u2019s lived experience?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The bright\nside of the discourse reports feelings of empowerment and control, growing\nself-awareness, as well as initial spikes in interest and engagement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nKristensen & Ruckenstein (2018) point out that initial intensification of\nexperience, feelings of liberation, and developed inner sensitivity may later\nbecome limiting in terms of self-experience. Of the reasons proposed is the\nnotion of amplification <\/em>that the data may bring to certain aspects of\nthe self at the expense of others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An\naugmented or a reduced experience? <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are possible implications of having a \u2018quantified self\u2019 on the definition of self, and consequently, on one\u2019s lived experience?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a\npsychoanalytic perspective, Andrieu (2015) argues that the ontological\ndiscontinuity between the \u2018living person\u2019, the \u2018living person as reflected by\nthe data\u2019 (i.e. the quantified self), and the \u2018lived experience\u2019, reflects a\ndistinction between 3 levels of self-knowledge. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compared to\ntransformation by \u2018normal\u2019 knowing of oneself, technology-mediated\nself-transformation doesn\u2019t take place only through self-examination by one\u2019s\nconsciousness. It happens via a \u2018confrontation\u2019 between one\u2019s lived self and\nthe data reflected by tracking technology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andrieu\nindeed poses some pertinent questions on whether this is a new form of\n\u2018bio-power\u2019, or a mode of subjectivation (i.e. a redefinition of the self); is\nit the \u2018living self\u2019 that is reflected, or the \u2018living self as transformed by\nthe digital self\u2019?  <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To\nillustrate, well-being, which was once qualitative and in a way,\nnon-communicable, becomes numeric and translatable under the illusion of\ncorrespondence between one\u2019s lived physical condition and the digital self \u2013 is\nit then one\u2019s felt well-being, or is it one\u2019s\nwellbeing-as-mediated-by-the-data?  <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the above-mentioned\nlimitations of datafication in our services, \u2018algorithms of the skin\u2019 and a\nparticular \u2018bio-pedagogy\u2019 further reinforce certain desirable profiles of\nhealth and physical education (Ardieu, 2015). Here, the consequences relate to how\nwe perceive and manage our bodies and lifestyles, in addition to the recurring concern\nof people having access to the resources needed to perform up to measure.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a\nnutshell, technological dependence may compromise the self-governance of one\u2019s\nown body. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This runs counter\nto the ethos of \u2018embodied experience\u2019 where we must learn to rediscover our experiences\nthrough a more holistic integration of mind, body and emotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a world of constant distraction, we are\neasily alienated from ourselves. It is no surprise that we end up serving other\npeople\u2019s agendas, working tirelessly like a cog in a machine (Godin, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But \u2018living by the numbers\u2019 can be\ncounterbalanced by \u2018living with <\/em>the numbers\u2019 in what Pantzar &\nRuckenstein (2017) optimistically describe as a milieu of open-endedness and\nreflexivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In concluding, it is advisable to be attuned,\neven wary, of the man-made things that mediate between the world and our\nconsciousness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology can be fascinating in augmenting\nour ability to internalize the world, and to externalize the mind. But we need\nto find that sweet spot in our quest for optimization, to make sure it doesn\u2019t\nover-rationalize our institutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fares Khalil<\/a>
Doctoral Student<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Godin, S. (2010). Linchpin: Are you indispensable?<\/em>.\nNew York: Portfolio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Monteiro, E., and\nParmiggiani, E. (2019). Synthetic knowing: The politics of the internet of\nthings. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 43(1), pp. 167-184.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ng, I.C.L. and\nWakenshaw, S.Y.L. (2017). The Internet-of-Things: Review and research\ndirections. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), pp. 3-21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pantzar, M., &\nRuckenstein, M. (2017). Living the metrics: Self-tracking and situated\nobjectivity. Digital Health. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Park, S. and Humphry, J. (2019). Exclusion by design: intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), pp. 934-953<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Photos: Unsplash<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cThe easier it is to quantify, the less it\u2019s worth\u201d  – Seth Godin Can you spend a day without your phone, or would you be less smart without techy gadgets, maybe less capable?  Our brain certainly has limits in holding information and in representing reality with restricted sensory inputs and processing capabilities.  Information technology certainly …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[35,33,37,36,34,38],"class_list":["post-504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cers-blog","tag-ai","tag-data","tag-datafication","tag-information-technology","tag-it","tag-robotics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/504","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=504"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/504\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":507,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/504\/revisions\/507"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}