I don't understand what Burns is arguing here. Who is he referring to claims that DHN is a "savior" or "the solution" to crisis response?

"Big data should therefore be be conceptualized as a framing of what can be known about a humanitarian crisis, and how one is able to grasp that knowledge; in short, it is an epistemology. This epistemology privileges knowledges and knowledge- based practices originating in remote geographies and de- emphasizes the connections between multiple knowledges.... Put another way, this configuration obscures the funding, resource, and skills constraints causing imperfect humanitarian response, instead positing volunteered labor as ‘the solution.’ This subjectivity formation carves a space in which digital humanitarians are necessary for effective humanitarian activities." (Burns 2015: 9–10)

Is it "a lack of relational sense of responsibility" in crisis response (state vs private sector vs public) or is it the wicked problem of power, class, social hierarchies, etc.?

"... ways of framing data and correlations that elicit a greater sense of responsibility and commitment."

That could have a temporal component to it to position urgency, timescape, horizon, etc.

This critique addresses surveillance state concerns about glue-ing datasets together to form a broader understanding of aggregate social behavior without the necessary constraints/warnings about social contexts and discontinuity between data.

Skimmed the Ruppert paper, sadly doesn't engage with time and topologies.

Beyond this quote, Chandler (in engaging crisis/disaster scenarios) argues that Big Data may be more appropriately framed as community reflexive knowledge than causal knowledge. That's an interesting idea.

*"Thus, It would be more useful to see Big Data as reflexive knowledge rather than as causal knowledge. Big Data cannot help explain global warming but it can enable individuals and household to measure their own energy consumption through the datafication of household objects and complex production and supply chains. Big Data thereby datafies or materialises an individual or community’s being in the world. This reflexive approach works to construct a pluralised and multiple world of self-organising and adaptive processes. The imaginary of Big Data is that the producers and consumers of knowledge and of governance would be indistinguishable; where both knowing and governing exist without external mediation, constituting a perfect harmonious and self-adapting system: often called ‘community resilience’. In this discourse, increasingly articulated by governments and policy-makers, knowledge of causal connections is no longer relevant as communities adapt to the real-time appearances of the world, without necessarily understanding them."

"Rather than engaging in external understandings of causality in the world, Big Data works on changing social behaviour by enabling greater adaptive reflexivity. If, through Big Data, we could detect and manage our own biorhythms and know the effects of poor eating or a lack of exercise, we could monitor our own health and not need costly medical interventions. Equally, if vulnerable and marginal communities could ‘datafy’ their own modes of being and relationships to their environments they would be able to augment their coping capacities and resilience without disasters or crises occurring. In essence, the imaginary of Big Data resolves the essential problem of modernity and modernist epistemologies, the problem of unintended consequences or side-effects caused by unknown causation, through work on the datafication of the self in its relational-embeddedness.42 This is why disasters in current forms of resilience thinking are understood to be ‘transformative’: revealing the unintended consequences of social planning which prevented proper awareness and responsiveness. Disasters themselves become a form of ‘datafication’, revealing the existence of poor modes of self-governance."*

Downloaded Chandler paper. Cites Meier quite a bit.

Burns criticism of humanitarian response as not truly collaborative and an abdication of the state's responsibility for social welfare to the private sector.

This is perhaps the most important step in the process. DO NOT simply request "Thoughts?" or "Please check out my site and let me know what I can do to make it better." These types of messages offer the reviewer nothing to work with.

The examples listed in this section are relevant to career evaluation/feedback, but here are some potential questions for requesting constructive critique of your ePortfolio:

• *My goal is to emphasize my leadership skills and experience. Does this ePortfolio communicate that?
• Does the order/organization of this site make sense? Are things located where you think they should be? For example, do you think my Collaboratory experience should be moved to the technology page?
• Did you feel any of the reflections were insufficient in terms of detail and development? Were there any that you had questions about after reading?*

On a effectivement intérêt à s'outiller pour être en mesure de qualifier les "logiques transactionnelles" à l'oeuvre en sous-texte de nos discussions (comme des dispositifs tels que hypothèse.is nous aident à le faire). Cependant, je me demande quelle conscience commune nous pourrons cultiver de l'impact de notre manière de vivre l'allure (esthétique) de nos délibérations. Car, cela me semble un horizon à viser en plus (outre la maîtrise des moyens techniques de la construction de connaissances partageables) si nous espérons que notre collaboration (et co-éditorialisation) permette de dégager des conclusions relativement stables - provisoires ou non. Si nous voulons cultiver un milieu propice à élaborer une véritable sphère intersubjective (un espace formé de valeurs et structuré autour de certains repères), la dynamique même de nos échanges doit aussi faire l'objet d'une éducation à la fois théorique et technique et, de ce point de vue, il importe de transformer la crise de la vérité (bien réelle) qui affecte notre société en une opportunité concrète de nous rappeler l'utilité d'une formation critique. Mais, cette occasion de bâtir de manière concertée des bases pour une nouvelle co-appartenance ne portera tous ses fruits que si nous articulons à l'enjeu de la formation à une littératie numérique (où la fonction de l'éditorialisation dans la constitution de l'environnement demeure à définir), le souci pour la sensibilisation du public en général (et du monde de l'éducation en particulier) à la question du rôle du développement d'un sens esthétique dans l'effort collectif pour constituer du sens en communs.

p.74 Summarises the place of the university/multiversity

(1) The multiversity is a place where great thought and great research are often possible.

(2) The multiversity is a place from which great contributions can often be made to society.

(3) The multiversity is a place in which the claims of institutional continuity and efficiency come to head-on collision with its educational aims; the latter are normally wiped off the map.

(4) The multiversity is a place in which the education of the vast majority ranges from the mediocre to the pernicious. This fact creates new educational norms, which become positive deterrents to the education of any who wish to go beyond the majority. It is for these students -- the bright ones, the original or independent ones, the ones who care deeply --that the university is such bad news. It is in the crazy position of obstructing their education.

(5) Education at the multiversity is post-secondary, encouraging the transfer of discrete units of information and theory, rather than liberal, encouraging the contemplation of energizing form in what a student comes to know. And the system of lectures, essays and exams, and the root assumptions of thousands of the university's members, canonize the post-secondary version of education. It is possible to go beyond it, but only by radically dissenting from the university. For the twenty-year-old who does not know what he is dissenting in favour of, this is either very isolating or very undermining.

Transition into feminist readings of Austen from giving examples of older critiques (of secondary sources) of Austen's work. This aids her argument and supports her challenging of previous readings of the work.

Insightful, the company with the most market share would be the most readily available...

There is, truly, so much potential in these tools and approaches toward asynchronous, distributed reading and writing. One question I have, already, is how such distributed forms of production-consumption further dissolve notions of textuality and authorship so entrenched within traditional notions and practices of scholarship and empirical research. The flattened hierarchies, especially, threaten the institutionalized power structures which have tightly controlled the design, review, and dissemination of scholarship and research.

The crucial formulation of Latour's argument—in tandem with the corollary, below, that "we have never been modern in the very simple sense that while we emancipated ourselves, each day we also more tightly entangled ourselves in the fabric of nature."

Learning is never a side effect. It is a parallel event, occuring all the time. If we consider learning as a consequent event and an object of some other doing, then we are in danger of committing the same sin as the 'banking' model--x causes y. Dangerous and predictably problematic.

Is it significant that Helen has no lines? Is she even real, or just an idealized (and thus silent) version of femininity?

This passage reminds me of Eve Sedgwick's essay on reparative reading.

The lifecycle according to who? This 8-component description is from the point of view of only the people who obsessively think about this "problem".

Ask a researcher and I think you'll hear that lifecycle means something like:

collect -> analyze -> publish

or a more complex data management plan might be:

ask someone -> receive data in email -> analyze -> cite -> publish -> tenure

To most people lifecycle means "while I am using the data" and archiving means "my storage guy makes backups occasionally".

Asking people to be aware of the whole cycle outlined here is a non-starter, but I think there is another approach to achieve what we want... dramatic pause [to be continued]

What parts of this cycle should the individual be responsible for vs which parts are places where help is needed from the institution?

Who cares most about the 20-year rule? This is an ideal that appeals to some, but in practice even the most zealous adherents can't picture what this looks like in some concrete way-- except in the most traditional ways: physical paper journals in libraries are tangible examples of the 20-year rule.

Until we have a digital equivalent for data I don't blame people looking for tenure or jobs for not caring about this ideal if we can't provide a clear picture of how to achieve this widely at an institutional level. For digital materials I think the picture people have in their minds is of tape backup. Maybe this is generational? New generations not exposed widely to cassette tapes, DVDs, and other physical media that "old people" remember, only then will it be possible to have a new ideal that people can see in their minds-eye.

I'm not sure what this really means and I don't think data entropy is a helpful term. Poor practices certainly lead to disorganized collections of data, but I think this notion comes from a time when people were very concerned about degradation of physical media on which data is stored. That is, of course, still a concern, but I think the term data entropy really lends itself as an excuse for people who don't use good practices to manage data and is a cover for the real problem which is a kind of data illiteracy in much the same way we also face computational illiteracy widely in the sciences. Managing data really is hard, but let's not mask it with fanciful notions like data entropy.

Is it not the task of simplifying, that the research denies herself, when dreaming of showing the full complexity of a phenomenon to it audience?

We often learn the most through bad examples

I know this is going somewhere, Boyle. So please don't take this as a comment like hating repetition. Okay, we good? Good. So far this entire reading is nothing but Tu Quoque. I am sure Isocrates is going to eventually explain himself, but this is all the logical fallacy of using critique to critique. Don't yell at me!