Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk

Automatic aggregation of large-scale data is increasingly conceived as central in the production of ecological knowledge. This article examines the implications of the employment of automation techniques and ‘data-driven analysis’ in long-term biodiversity monitoring. What are the pathways and parad...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Naveen Thayyil
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2018-05-01
Series:Big Data & Society
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718779407
id doaj-dd69fe89c96e44398f6b732dd4963e90
record_format Article
spelling doaj-dd69fe89c96e44398f6b732dd4963e902020-11-25T03:55:52ZengSAGE PublishingBig Data & Society2053-95172018-05-01510.1177/2053951718779407Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of riskNaveen ThayyilAutomatic aggregation of large-scale data is increasingly conceived as central in the production of ecological knowledge. This article examines the implications of the employment of automation techniques and ‘data-driven analysis’ in long-term biodiversity monitoring. What are the pathways and paradoxes in the possible public acceptance of automated data-sets as a trustworthy source for use in global protection and regulation of biodiversity? This article suggests that the precautionary discourse aid topdown measures for the public acceptability of the use of such techniques. Automated biodiversity monitoring offers distinctive advantages to further precautionary goals in terms of a faster, cost-effective and less messy way of collecting data, at a large scale over long periods of time. However, it contradicts other values implied through precaution – for instance the opacity and reification of the construction of risk. How do the specific forms of data-making relate with specific forms of risk governance, and what implications does this have for helping us to understand appropriate ways of political representation in governance? Can paradoxes attendant to introducing a form of construction of data help understand the nature of the exercise of governmental power? This article is a part of special theme on Data Associations. To see a full list of all articles in this special theme, please click here: http://journals.sagepub.com/page/bds/collections/data-associations .https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718779407
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Naveen Thayyil
spellingShingle Naveen Thayyil
Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk
Big Data & Society
author_facet Naveen Thayyil
author_sort Naveen Thayyil
title Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk
title_short Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk
title_full Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk
title_fullStr Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk
title_full_unstemmed Constructing global data: Automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk
title_sort constructing global data: automated techniques in ecological monitoring, precaution and reification of risk
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Big Data & Society
issn 2053-9517
publishDate 2018-05-01
description Automatic aggregation of large-scale data is increasingly conceived as central in the production of ecological knowledge. This article examines the implications of the employment of automation techniques and ‘data-driven analysis’ in long-term biodiversity monitoring. What are the pathways and paradoxes in the possible public acceptance of automated data-sets as a trustworthy source for use in global protection and regulation of biodiversity? This article suggests that the precautionary discourse aid topdown measures for the public acceptability of the use of such techniques. Automated biodiversity monitoring offers distinctive advantages to further precautionary goals in terms of a faster, cost-effective and less messy way of collecting data, at a large scale over long periods of time. However, it contradicts other values implied through precaution – for instance the opacity and reification of the construction of risk. How do the specific forms of data-making relate with specific forms of risk governance, and what implications does this have for helping us to understand appropriate ways of political representation in governance? Can paradoxes attendant to introducing a form of construction of data help understand the nature of the exercise of governmental power? This article is a part of special theme on Data Associations. To see a full list of all articles in this special theme, please click here: http://journals.sagepub.com/page/bds/collections/data-associations .
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718779407
work_keys_str_mv AT naveenthayyil constructingglobaldataautomatedtechniquesinecologicalmonitoringprecautionandreificationofrisk
_version_ 1724467679664799744