Big Data, data integrity, and the fracturing of the control zone

Big Data and Society

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Lagoze, Carl ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Big Data; control zone; paradigm shift; sociotechnical

Indexed keywords

EID: 84945261684     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20539517     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2053951714558281     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Agrawal D, Bernstein P, Bertino E, et al. (n.d.) Challenges and Opportunities with Big Data. Available at: https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/cyber/assets/pdfs/BigDataWhitePaper.pdf (accessed 28 October 2014).
2. Anderson C (2008) The end of theory: will the data deluge make the scientific method obsolete? Wired 1--5.
3. Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility (2013) Nature 496(7446): 398–398
4. A Question of Balance: Private Rights and the Public Interest in Scientific and Technical Databases (1999) Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9692 (accessed 28 October 2014).
5. Atkinson R (1996) Library functions, scholarly communication, and the foundation of the digital library: laying claim to the control zone. The Library Quarterly 66(3).
6. Barry A, Born G, (2013) Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences, 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
7. Bijker WE (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Borgman CL, (2011) The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 63(6): 1–40.
9. Bowker G (2014) The theory/data thing. International Journal of Communication 8(5).
10. Boyd D and Crawford K (2011) Six provocations for Big Data. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1926431.
11. Brembs B and Munafò M (2013) Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. ArXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3748 (accessed 28 October 2014).
12. Bruns A (2013) Faster than the speed of print: reconciling “big data” social media analysis and academic scholarship. First Monday 18(10). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4879/3756 (accessed 7 October 2013).
13. Butler D, (2013) When Google got flu wrong. Nature 494(7436): 155–156.
14. Christensen CM, (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
15. Christensen CM, Grossman JH and Hwang J (2008a) The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
16. Christensen CM, Horn MB and Johnson CW (2008b) Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
17. Christensen CM, Rosenbloom RS, (1995) Explaining the attacker’s advantage: technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy 24(2): 233–257.
18. Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age (2009) Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19. Cragin MH, Palmer CL, Carlson JR, (2010) Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 368(1926): 4023–4038.
20. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11(3): 147–162.
21. Driscoll K, Walker S, (2014) Big data, big questions working within a black box: transparency in the collection and production of big twitter data. International Journal of Communication 8(0): 20.
22. Edwards P, Mayernik MS, Batcheller A, et al. (2011) Science friction: data, metadata, and collaboration. Social Studies of Science 41(5): 667–690
23. Edwards PN (2010) A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Edwards PN, Jackson SJ, Bowker GC, et al. (2007) Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
25. Edwards PN, Jackson SJ, Chalmers MK, et al. (2013) Knowledge Infrastructures: Intellectual Frameworks and Research Challenges. Ann Arbor, MI.
26. Ericsson KA, Charness N, (1994) Expert performance: its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist 49(8): 725–747.
27. Gillespie T (2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: Gillespie T, Boczkowski P and Foot (eds) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p.167.
28. Ginsberg J, Mohebbi MH, Patel RS, (2009) Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457(7232): 1012–1014.
29. Ginsparg P, (1994) First steps towards electronic research communication. Los Alamos Science 8(4): 390–396.
30. Gitelman L (2013) “Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron (Infrastructures). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, p.192.
31. Gladney HM, Fox EA, Ahmed Z, et al. (1994) Digital Library: Gross Structure and Requirements: Report from a March 1994 Workshop. College Station: IEEE.
32. Greenberg J, White HC, Carrier S, (2009) A metadata best practice for a scientific data repository. Journal of Library Metadata 9(3–4): 194–212.
33. Hahnel M (2012) Exclusive: figshare a new open data project that wants to change the future of scholarly publishing. In: Impact of Social Sciences Blog.
34. Harrison WTA, Simpson J, Weil M, (2010) Editorial. Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online 66(1): e1–e2.
35. Haythornthwaite C, Lunsford KJ, Bowker GC, et al. (2006) Challenges for research and practice in distributed, interdisciplinary collaboration. In: Hine C (ed) New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-science. Information Science Publishing, pp.143–166.
36. Hey T, Tansley S and Tolle K (eds) (2009) The Fourth Paradigm. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.
37. Hirtle PB, (2000) Archival authenticity in a digital age. In: Cullen C, Levy DM, Lynch CA, (eds) Authenticity in a Digital Environment, Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
38. Huijboom N, Broek TD, (2011) Open data: an international comparison of strategies. European Journal of ePractice 12: 1–13.
39. Ioannidis JPA, (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8): e124.
40. Jasny BR, Chin G, Chong L, (2011) Data replication & reproducibility. Again, and again, and again… Introduction. Science (New York, N.Y.) 334(6060): 1225.
41. King G, (2011a) Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science (New York, N.Y.) 331(6018): 719–721.
42. King G (2011b) The social science data revolution. Available at: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/evbase-horizonsp.pdf (accessed 28 October 2014).
43. Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Kuhn TS (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Lagoze C (2010) Lost Identity: The Assimilation of Digital Libraries into the Web (PhD dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca. Available at: http://carllagoze.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/carllagoze.pdf.
46. Lamb R, Sawyer S, (2005) On extending social informatics from a rich legacy of networks and conceptual resources. Information Technology & People 18(1): 9–20.
47. Laney D (2001) {3D} Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity, and Variety.
48. Lazer D, Kennedy R, King G, (2014) The parable of Google flu: traps in big data analysis. Science 343(6176): 1203–1205.
49. Leonelli S (2014) What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of Big Data in biology. Big Data & Society 1(1). DOI: 10.1177/2053951714534395
50. Lerner FA (1999) Libraries Through the Ages. New York, NY: Continuum.
51. Mayer-Schönberger V, (2013) Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
52. Michener W, Vieglais D, Vision T, et al. (2011) DataONE: data observation network for earth — preserving data and enabling innovation in the biological and environmental sciences. D-Lib Magazine 17(1/2).
53. Milgram S, (1967) The small world problem. Psychology Today 2: 60–67.
54. Molloy JC (2011) The open knowledge foundation: open data means better science. PLoS Biology 9. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001195.
55. Morris CW (1938) Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56. Murray-Rust P, (2008) Open data in science. Serials Review 34: 52–64.
57. Naik G (2011). Mistakes in scientific studies surge. Wall Street Journal. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303627104576411850666582080.
58. Nissenbaum H, (2009) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life, Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
59. Normandeau N (2013) Beyond volume, variety and velocity is the issue of big data veracity. Available at: http://inside-bigdata.com/2013/09/12/beyond-volume-variety-velocity-issue-big-data-veracity/ (accessed 15 April 2014).
60. Nowotny H, (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
61. Pöschl U, (2004) Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance. Learned Publishing 17(2): 105–113.
62. Raven K (2012) 23andMe’s face in the crowdsourced health research industry gets bigger. Available at: http://blogs.nature.com/spoonful/2012/07/23andmes-face-in-the-crowdsourced-health-research-industry-gets-bigger.html (accessed 28 October 2014).
63. Reith M, Carr C and Gunsch G (2002) An examination of digital forensic models. International Journal of Digital Evidence 1: 1–12.
64. Researcher faked evidence of human cloning, Koreans report (2006) The New York Times, 10 January.
65. Rosenberg D (2013) Data before the fact. In: “Raw Data” is an Oxymoron. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.15–30.
66. Rosenbloom RS, Christensen CM, (1994) Technological discontinuties, organizational capabilities, and strategic commitments. Industrial and Corporate Change 3(3): 655–685.
67. Sauer JR, Peterjohn BG, Link WA, (1994) Observer differences in the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The Auk 111(1): 50–62.
68. Star SL, Griesemer JR, (1989) Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387.
69. Stodden V (2014) Enabling reproducibility in big data research: balancing confidentiality and scientific transparency. In: Privacy, Big Data and the Public Good. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/statistics-probability/statistical-theory-and-methods/privacy-big-data-and-public-good-frameworks-engagement (accessed 28 October 2014).
70. Sullivan BL, Aycrigg JL, Barry JH, et al. (2014) The eBird enterprise: an integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation 169 (January).
71. Szalay A, Gray J, (2001) The world-wide telescope. Science (New York, N.Y.) 293(5537): 2037–2040.
72. Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, (2011) Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE 6(6): 21.
73. Van House NA, Bishop AP, Buttenfield BP, (2003) Introduction: Digital Libraries as Sociotechnical Systems, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74. Verfaellie M and McGwin J (2011) The case of Diederik Stapel: Allegations of scientific fraud by prominent Dutch social psychologist are investigated by multiple universities. Psychological Science Agenda 25(12).
75. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 5(1): 14–26.
76. Wallis J, Borgman C, Mayernik M, (2007) Know thy sensor: trust, data quality, and data integrity in scientific digital libraries. In: Kovács L, Fuhr N, Meghini C, (eds) Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries SE - 32 Vol. 4675.Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 380–391.
77. Wiggins A and Crowston K (2010) Distributed scientific collaboration: research opportunities in citizen science. In: Proceedings of ACM CSCW 2010 workshop on the changing dynamics of scientific collaborations.
78. Zachary WW, (1977) An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups. Journal of Anthropological Research 33: 452–473.