数据公民:量化2019冠状病毒病及以后的结构性种族主义

IF 6.5 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Big Data & Society Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/20539517231213821
Cal Lee Garrett, Claire Laurier Decoteau
{"title":"数据公民:量化2019冠状病毒病及以后的结构性种族主义","authors":"Cal Lee Garrett, Claire Laurier Decoteau","doi":"10.1177/20539517231213821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data-driven public health policies were widely implemented to mitigate the uneven impact of COVID-19. In the United States, evidence-based interventions are often employed in “racial equity” initiatives to provide calculable representations of racial disparities. However, disparities in working or living conditions, germane to public health but outside the conventional scope of epidemiology, are seldom measured or addressed. What is the effect of defining racial equity with quantitative health outcomes? Drawing on qualitative analysis of 175 interviews with experts and residents in Chicago during the emergence of COVID-19, we find that these policies link the distribution of public resources to effective participation in state projects of data generation. Bringing together theories of quantification and biosocial citizenship, we argue that a form of data citizenship has emerged where public resources are allocated based on quantitative metrics and the variations they depict. Data citizenship is characterized by at least two mechanisms for governing with statistics. Data fixes produce better numbers through technical adjustments in data collection or analysis based on expert assumptions or expectations. Data drag delays distribution of public relief until numbers are compiled to demonstrate and specify needs or deservingness. This paper challenges the use of racial statistics as a salve for structural racism and illustrates how statistical data can exacerbate racial disparities by promising equity.","PeriodicalId":47834,"journal":{"name":"Big Data & Society","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Data citizenship: Quantifying structural racism in COVID-19 and beyond\",\"authors\":\"Cal Lee Garrett, Claire Laurier Decoteau\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20539517231213821\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Data-driven public health policies were widely implemented to mitigate the uneven impact of COVID-19. In the United States, evidence-based interventions are often employed in “racial equity” initiatives to provide calculable representations of racial disparities. However, disparities in working or living conditions, germane to public health but outside the conventional scope of epidemiology, are seldom measured or addressed. What is the effect of defining racial equity with quantitative health outcomes? Drawing on qualitative analysis of 175 interviews with experts and residents in Chicago during the emergence of COVID-19, we find that these policies link the distribution of public resources to effective participation in state projects of data generation. Bringing together theories of quantification and biosocial citizenship, we argue that a form of data citizenship has emerged where public resources are allocated based on quantitative metrics and the variations they depict. Data citizenship is characterized by at least two mechanisms for governing with statistics. Data fixes produce better numbers through technical adjustments in data collection or analysis based on expert assumptions or expectations. Data drag delays distribution of public relief until numbers are compiled to demonstrate and specify needs or deservingness. This paper challenges the use of racial statistics as a salve for structural racism and illustrates how statistical data can exacerbate racial disparities by promising equity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Big Data & Society\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Big Data & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231213821\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Big Data & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231213821","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

广泛实施数据驱动的公共卫生政策,以减轻COVID-19的不平衡影响。在美国,“种族平等”倡议经常采用基于证据的干预措施,以提供可计算的种族差异表征。然而,与公共卫生密切相关但超出流行病学常规范围的工作或生活条件差异很少得到衡量或处理。用定量健康结果定义种族平等的影响是什么?通过对新冠肺炎期间对芝加哥专家和居民进行的175次访谈进行定性分析,我们发现,这些政策将公共资源的分配与有效参与州数据生成项目联系起来。将量化和生物社会公民的理论结合在一起,我们认为一种数据公民的形式已经出现,其中公共资源的分配基于定量指标及其描述的变化。数据公民身份的特点是至少有两种用统计数据进行治理的机制。数据修正通过基于专家假设或预期的数据收集或分析中的技术调整产生更好的数字。数据拖延了公共救济的分发,直到编制数字以证明和具体说明需要或值得分发为止。本文挑战使用种族统计数据作为结构性种族主义的膏药,并说明统计数据如何通过承诺公平来加剧种族差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Data citizenship: Quantifying structural racism in COVID-19 and beyond
Data-driven public health policies were widely implemented to mitigate the uneven impact of COVID-19. In the United States, evidence-based interventions are often employed in “racial equity” initiatives to provide calculable representations of racial disparities. However, disparities in working or living conditions, germane to public health but outside the conventional scope of epidemiology, are seldom measured or addressed. What is the effect of defining racial equity with quantitative health outcomes? Drawing on qualitative analysis of 175 interviews with experts and residents in Chicago during the emergence of COVID-19, we find that these policies link the distribution of public resources to effective participation in state projects of data generation. Bringing together theories of quantification and biosocial citizenship, we argue that a form of data citizenship has emerged where public resources are allocated based on quantitative metrics and the variations they depict. Data citizenship is characterized by at least two mechanisms for governing with statistics. Data fixes produce better numbers through technical adjustments in data collection or analysis based on expert assumptions or expectations. Data drag delays distribution of public relief until numbers are compiled to demonstrate and specify needs or deservingness. This paper challenges the use of racial statistics as a salve for structural racism and illustrates how statistical data can exacerbate racial disparities by promising equity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Big Data & Society
Big Data & Society SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
10.60%
发文量
59
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Big Data & Society (BD&S) is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that publishes interdisciplinary work principally in the social sciences, humanities, and computing and their intersections with the arts and natural sciences. The journal focuses on the implications of Big Data for societies and aims to connect debates about Big Data practices and their effects on various sectors such as academia, social life, industry, business, and government. BD&S considers Big Data as an emerging field of practices, not solely defined by but generative of unique data qualities such as high volume, granularity, data linking, and mining. The journal pays attention to digital content generated both online and offline, encompassing social media, search engines, closed networks (e.g., commercial or government transactions), and open networks like digital archives, open government, and crowdsourced data. Rather than providing a fixed definition of Big Data, BD&S encourages interdisciplinary inquiries, debates, and studies on various topics and themes related to Big Data practices. BD&S seeks contributions that analyze Big Data practices, involve empirical engagements and experiments with innovative methods, and reflect on the consequences of these practices for the representation, realization, and governance of societies. As a digital-only journal, BD&S's platform can accommodate multimedia formats such as complex images, dynamic visualizations, videos, and audio content. The contents of the journal encompass peer-reviewed research articles, colloquia, bookcasts, think pieces, state-of-the-art methods, and work by early career researchers.
期刊最新文献
Is there a role of the kidney failure risk equation in optimizing timing of vascular access creation in pre-dialysis patients? From rules to examples: Machine learning's type of authority Outlier bias: AI classification of curb ramps, outliers, and context Artificial intelligence and skills in the workplace: An integrative research agenda Redress and worldmaking: Differing approaches to algorithmic reparations for housing justice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1