Peer Review of boyd and Crawford: Critical Questions for Big Data
The article examines some of the implications that arise when studying Big Data. These issues and challenges are articulated in six important questions ranging from problems of objectivity and ethics to limitations in access and a new digital divide. According to boyd and Crawford, we need to start critically question the phenomenon of Big Data, its assumptions and biases (boyd & Crawford, 2012).
There was a clear red tread or train of thought throughout the article, making the article easy to read and understand. Each of the six critical questions were presented and examined before moving on the next. There was a nice flow in the article, with critical questions closely linked coming in succession. The arguments are well constructed and boyd and Crawford makes good use of other people’s research to strengthen their own claims.
However, there are some minor issues with the article that should be address. First off, the article was very one sided. It is clear that boyd and Crawford feel strongly about the subject, but they should be careful not to present the issues as black and white. “Significantly, Anderson’s sweeping dismissal of all other theories and disciplines is a tell: it reveals an arrogant undercurrent in many Big Data debates where other forms of analysis are too easily sidelined” (boyd & Crawford, 2012, p. 666). It would have been preferable if the article stayed away from words like arrogant as it is a decidedly negative word and rather subjective. In fact, it seemed like they were doing the exact same thing as they claimed Anderson did, disregarding any opposing views or fields of thought. A more nuanced presentation of Anderson’s point would have been interesting.
Secondly, the article should clearly state why we need to ask critical questions. The article simply state that it is necessary “[…]it is still necessary to ask critical questions about what all this data means, who gets access to what data, how data analysis is deployed, and to what ends” (boyd & Crawford, 2012, p. 664). It is interesting questions worth asking but lacks a concrete reason why. Large data sets or small data sets, these questions are relevant regardless of the size of the data sets or whether the data can be aggregated. It is hard to argue that Big Data is different from other data in how we should approach its use.
Finally, a clear conclusion to the article is needed. Instead of proposing ways to change the problems, the article simply ends how it began: “The era of Big Data has only just begun, but it is already important that we start questioning the assumptions, values, and biases of the new wave of research” (boyd & Crawford, 2012, p. 675). An idea or two on how to change the current path we are on regarding Big Data or concrete questions to ask would have been great. Furthermore, the conclusion was hidden away in the end of the last segment, instead of having its own clear place in the article.
