Setting the guidelines for the social, political and human consequences of research in the database age is an issue that has yet to be fully explored. On one hand, the champions of publicness and digital democracy argue for absolute transparency and data freedom. On the other, privacy advocates consistently take issue with what they see as a potential threat to individual liberty. In their 2011 paper “Six Provocations for Big Data,” Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford attempt to bridge this divide by laying out the basic principles of what they call ‘Big Data,’ as well as a broad set of principles that should guide researchers seeking to harness the power of that data for social good.
Perhaps most importantly, Boyd and Crawford enumerate the basic misassumption that researchers, academics and media professionals often make when interpreting Big Data: they treat data as an objective and infallible source of knowledge when it is really just a piece of the underlying story. Numbers do not speak for themselves, so we must adapt our methods of research to the demands of new technology. As Latour puts it, “Change the instruments, and you will change the entire social theory that goes with them.”