Internet Geographer

Blog

Posts tagged aag
The Digital Geographies specialty group mailing list

I have been working with some brilliant colleagues and collaborators to set up a new ‘Digital Geographies’ speciality group up at the Association of American Geographers. The AAG is currently reviewing our application package. But what you can do in the meantime, is sign up to our newly-created mailing list (set up by the tireless Jim Thatcher). 

Those of you thinking of attending the AAG, might also be interested in the related call for papers that we’ve put together: Digital\Human\Labour

Digital\\\Human\\\Labour  **Call for papers at the 2017 AAG meeting**

Call for Papers: Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting. April 5-9, 2017, Boston, MA

The proposed Digital Geographies Working Group of the RGS/IBG and the proposed Digital Geographies Specialty Group of the AAG would like to invite submissions to a series of paper sessions and panels for the 2017 meeting of the American Association of Geographers in Boston, MA. Reflecting the shared interests of these groups, and their mutual desire to facilitate conversations between a wide range of geographical scholarship, this call is for papers exploring specifically the various intersections of ‘digital’ and ‘labour’ in diverse meanings of both.

We will convene a concluding panel session, and encourage interested participants to submit abstracts for any of these three paper sessions:

The human labour of digital work

Discussant: Mark Graham

The spread of the internet to three and a half billion people around the world has significant implications for the human labour. It is now relatively straightforward to outsource business processes to anyone, anywhere, that has a digital connection. This session aims to bring together scholarship that explores the human labour of this digital work. Who carries it out? How does it effect the livelihoods of workers? What sorts of political and organisational governance regimes bring it into being? And what are the ethical, spatial, social, and economic implications of a world in which human labour is increasing disembedded into digital networks?

The digital labour of being human

Discussant: Gillian Rose

image

Digital technologies are now embedded in many aspects of everyday life in many places, mediating everyday experiences of embodiment, mobility, and communication.  It is clear that many of these mediations are reproducing existing ways and forms of ‘being human’, but it is also clear that new forms of (post)humanities are emerging, co-produced with, for example, VR headsets, big data, and social media platforms.  This session aims to bring together scholarship that addresses these monadic emergences.  What new forms of distributed agency, performative gestures and navigational orientations could and should be mapped?  What are their temporalities and spatialities, and what hierarchies of power and difference do they enact?

The algorithmic labour of being

Discussant: Jim Thatcher

image

Alongside the rise in access to internet technologies and the quotidian uses of said technologies, has come an entwined rise in the analysis and manipulation of digital information through algorithms. Just as new technologies introduce interfaces, mediations, and affordances to (re)produce representations of self, so too do the algorithms which sort, select, and present information constrain what can be done and known through the use of said devices. Similarly, even as the very real geography of the labor of digital work shifts and extends across the globe, algorithms increasingly insert themselves betwixt and between laborers, customers, and corporate interests, altering traditional employment relations through the mediation of technology. Building from the themes of the previous two sessions, this session aims to bring together research on the many ways in which algorithms and quantification function in the world. Questions of interest include, but are not limited to: What sorts of new spatial relations are possible through the algorithmic mediation of labor relations? Where is the work of algorithms done? What are the historical roots of this process? What new forms of knowledge and power have been enabled (and constrained) by these systems?

If you have any additional questions, please contact Jim Thatcher (jethatch@uw.edu), Mark Graham (mark.graham@oii.ox.ac.uk) or Gillian Rose (gillian.rose@open.ac.uk).

For consideration of inclusion, please submit abstract to jethatch@uw.edu by October 15th, 2016.  Please format your abstract in a text file of no more than 250 words, including a title, your name, institutional affiliation and email address in the document.

Historicizing Big Data and Geo-information

I was asked by my colleague and friend Oliver Belcher to act as a discussant in a session that he put together at the 2016 meeting of the Association of American Geographers: ‘Historicizing Big Data and Geo-information’.


The session contained a set of truly excellent and provocative talks by Louise Amoore, Matthew Hannah, Patrick McHaffie, and Eric Huntley. I’ve now had a chance to type up my discussant notes (although apologies for the hastily-put-together nature of the text).

I think that this has been a much-needed set of papers at a moment in which we’re awash with hype about ‘big data’. We hear that we’re at a significant moment of change; that there’s a big data revolution that will transform science, society, the economy, security, politics, and just about everything else.


And so, it’s important that these sorts of conversations are brought together. To allow us to think about continuities and discontinuities. To allow us to think about what is and what isn’t truly new here. And to do that in order to hone our responses as critical scholars.

One way to start - perhaps - is to recognize, as all of the papers in this session have, that while ‘big data’ may not be new, we’re in, have been in, or at least have long been moving towards, what Danny Hills refers to as an Age of Entanglement. I think it is maybe useful as a starting point for me to quote him here.


He says “We are our thoughts, whether they are created by our neurons, by our electronically augmented minds, by our technologically mediated social interactions, or by our machines themselves. We are our bodies, whether they are born in womb or test tube, our genes inherited or designed, organs augmented, repaired, transplanted, or manufactured. We are our perceptions, whether they are through our eyes and ears or our sensory-fused hyper-spectral sensors, processed as much by computers as by our own cortex. We are our institutions, cooperating super-organisms, entangled amalgams of people and machines with super-human intelligence, processing, sensing, deciding, acting.”

In other words, while big data may not be new, we do now undoubtedly live in a digitally infused, digitally-augmented world. One in which we’re entangled in complex digital ecosystems; hybrid complex ecosystems in which it is increasingly hard to disentangle agency and intent.


Why’s my phone telling me to go left and not right? Why is the supermarket creating some personalized economic incentives for me and not others? Why is the search engine prioritizing some knowledge and not others? As researchers, it is hard to address questions like these because there is often no straightforward way of knowing the answers. Do we look to the code embedded within algorithms? Do we look to the people or institutions who created the algorithms? Do we look to the databases? Do we look to the people who manage the databases? Or do we look to the people, processes, and places emitting the data?

What today’s talks have all usefully done is point to the fact that we need to be addressing some combination of all of those questions. 


So, let me just pick up with a few general reflections and concerns about what the histories of big data mean for the futures of big data - that emerge from listening to these talks. Like all of the speakers, what I’ll especially focus on here is what geography can bring to the table.

First, is a thought about our role as geographers. Many geographers, me included, spend a lot of time thinking about the geographies of the digital; thinking about how geographies still matter.


We probably do a lot of this to counter some of the ongoing, relentless, Silicon Valley narratives of things like the cloud. Narratives that claim that - provided they are connected - anyone can do anything from anywhere at any time. So, we end up spending a lot of our energy pushing back: arguing that there is no such thing as the cloud. That there are just computers. Computers all in other places.

But I wonder if we’re missing a trick, by not also asking more questions about the contextual, specific, but likely present ways in which some facets of geography might actually matter less in a world of ever more digital connectivity. Not as a way of ceding ground to the breathless ‘distance is dead’ narrative - but in a critical and grounded way. Are there any economic, social, and political domains is distance, or spatial context actually becoming less relevant? 


Second, when we speak about big data, or the cloud, or the algorithms that govern code-spaces, we often envision the digital as operating in a black box. In many cases, that is unavoidable.

But we can also draw more on the work from computational social science, critical internet studies, human computer interaction, and critical GIS. In all of those domains, research is attempting to open the black boxes of cloud computing; of big data; of opaque algorithms. Scholars are asking and answering questions about the geographies of the digital. Where is it; who produces it; who does it represent; who doesn’t it represent; who has control; to whom is it visible.


There is much more that clearly needs to be done, and this work needs to be relentless, ongoing, and - of course - critical. But, one hope for the future is to see more cross-pollination with those communities who are developing tools, methods, and strategies to empirically engage with geography in a more data-infused world. So, yes – there are black boxes. But those boxes are sometimes hackable.

Third, and relatedly. A key critique of ‘big data’ - that I see - in the critical data studies community, is the one about correlative reasoning (in other words, if your dataset is big enough, you no longer need theory; no longer need to understand context; and can just look for correlations in the dataset). And relatedly a lack of reflexivity within those data practices of data analysis. But I wonder if we aren’t also overplaying our hand a little here. Some big data practitioner work does stop at correlations, but a fair amount of it can be quite reflexive and aware of its limitations.


These researchers are still building or doing multi level models, social network analytics, community detection models, influence analysis, predictive analytics, and machine learning. My point here, is that whilst a lot of ‘big data’ work is undoubtedly naïve, let’s also not underestimate the power that those with access to the right datasets, the computing resources to analyse those datasets, and the methods to analyse those datasets - have.

My broader point is that we really need to find the balance of not understating and not overstating the work being done by governments and corporations in the domain of big data. Yes, some big data practices out there are naïve and dumb. And yes, some are terrifyingly precise in the ways that they can anticipate human behavior.


To get that balance, I think we need a few things. The first is to pay attention to what has been called the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics: That, the amount of energy required to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than required to create it. Let’s make sure our energy is wisely spent.

To get the right balance, it also seems clear that all of us need to not just try to better understand the nuances of key techniques and methods being employed.  But also to think about what we can specifically add to the debate as geographers – and on this latter point, this is something that I think the papers in this session did very well.


Fourth, when thinking about the political economy of data, it’s becoming ever more clear that we need a full throated response to reclaim our digital environments (a point that Agnieszka Leszczynski has been forcefully making). Privacy and security scholars and activists have been especially vocal here. But let’s again think about what our role as geographers can be in this debate.

The way in which my colleague Joe Shaw and I are thinking about this is (and – my advertising pitch here is that this is something we’re speaking about in three sessions we’ve organized on the topic on Friday morning) - is to argue that we need to translate some of the ongoing ‘right to the city’ debate into the digital sphere. The point being that if places we live in are bricks, mortar, and digital data - we need to think about rights of access, control, and use - in our digitally-infused world.


This is just one type of intervention; and I’m sure that building on the foundations of critical historicisations of big data can offer us fertile ground for reimagining what we actually want our data-infused futures to look like.

Fifth, something that I saw, and really appreciated, in all of the papers was a forceful reflection on how data are always political. Too often data, and especially ‘big data’, gets presented as a neutral and objective reflection of the object of its measurement. That big data can speak for themselves. That, big data are a mirror of the world around them. What a lot of today’s work has done is reflect on not just how data reflect the world, but also how they produce it; how they drive it. As we tread deeper into Danny Hills’ ‘Age of Entanglement’, this is something we’ll need much more of.


As Trevor Barnes, in the last session mentioned, the best kinds of papers leave you hungry for more detail – and a few more things I would have loved to have heard more about are:

From Louise –a bit more about what our vision of the cloud enables beyond the cloud; the cloud in many ways can make some facets of the cloud – or life - perceptible – the cloud being deployed to study life online. But how much of the cloud vision is about moving beyond the cloud – being deployed to study life offline; to study the facets of life that aren’t directly emitting digital data shadows? Also, the empirical work you spoke about sounds fascinating – and I hope the questions give you some more time to bring out ways in which you’ve gone behind the algorithms – and underneath the cloud – to look at how these knowledges are created.


From Matthew – it was interesting to see how some of our contemporary concerns about the power of big data to aid the surveillance powers of the powerful – are far from new. So what might protests against contemporary regimes learn from the earlier moments you spoke about? There are many of us who want to opt out; is this now less possible because of the more encompassing nature of contemporary data collection regimes?

From Eric - I wonder if the idea of the ‘world inventory’ in the 80s; the details of it; what it means in practice, were similar to large tech firm like Google’s vision of a world inventory of geospatial information today. Does a world inventory now mean something significantly different from what it used to?


From Patrick - You didn’t use the term ‘smart city’. But I wonder if you’ve looked into any so called ‘smart city’ initiatives – and if you could say more about how we should we should be honing our inquiry into the so-called ‘smart city’ based on what you’ve learnt here; based on what we know about the visions that brought the Cartographatron into being?

For all of us – scholars in this field – I wonder if we’re all speaking about the same thing in this session when we talk about ‘big data’. Are we taking about datasets that are a census rather than a sample of a population. Are we just using ‘big data’ as a proxy for ‘digital data’? Are we using that term to refer to the whole contemporary apparatus of data trails, shadows, storage, analysis, and use? Are we using it to refer to digital unknown unknowns – the digital black box? Is the term actually helping us as short-hand for something else? Or do we need more precise language if we want to make sure we’re genuinely having a conversation?


And finally, for all of us, I want to ask why this seems to continue to be such a male dominated field? In two sessions, seven speakers, and two discussants, we had only one female speaker. Are we reproducing the gendered nature of earlier computational scholarship? One of the dangers of telling these histories – is that it can end up being white men speaking about white men. This is not a critique of the organiser, as I know Oliver is well attune to these issues, but rather a question about how and why we might be re(producing) masuclinist knowledges.

So, to end – I want to again thank Oliver and the speakers for putting together this session on historicizing Big Data. We need more conversations like this; and we need more scholarship like this. And this is work that will have impacts beyond the boundaries of geography.


We know that we can’t go backwards; and I think the goal that many of us have is a more just, more democratic, more inclusive data-infused world. And to achieve that, one thing we all need to be doing is participating in ongoing debates about how we govern, understand, and make sense of our digitally-augmented contexts.


And perhaps one thing that we can all take away from this session is that if we want to take part in the debate - to influence it – we’ll need to understand big data’s history if we want to change its futures.
AAG 2015 CFP - From Online Sweat Shops to Silicon Savannahs: Geographies of Production in Digital Economies of Low-Income Countries


From Online Sweat Shops to Silicon Savannahs: 
Geographies of Production in Digital Economies of Low-Income Countries

AAG Annual Meeting, Chicago, April 21-25, 2015

Organizers:
Mark Graham, Nicolas Friederici, and Isis Hjorth University of Oxford

Throughout the early 21st century, Internet and mobile phone access in developing countries has skyrocketed, and today the majority of people on the planet are connected through information and communication technologies (ICTs). Yet, while basic ICT access is increasingly level across income groups and geographies, production in the global digital economy is still, and maybe increasingly, dominated by incumbent multinational technology corporations or fast-scaling web startups. These businesses tend to roll out their products (with some local adaptation) across the globe, but maintain their coordinating and creative activities in places like Silicon Valley, Tel Aviv, or London, exploiting both agglomeration and dispersion economies in digital production (Malecki & Moriset, 2007; Moriset & Malecki, 2009).


How does digital production in low-income countries fare in the face of this dominance? Policymakers and the private sector in several low-income countries (especially in Sub-Saharan Africa) have set out to transform their economies through ICTs, explicitly emphasizing local digital production. Two sectors that are often seen as promising are (1) low-skill/cost-competition, such as business process outsourcing and digital microwork, and (2) high-skill/entrepreneurial innovation, such as startups developing and commercializing mobile and online applications.


However, what are the concrete and realistic potentials and possibilities for low-income countries to become important hubs for digital production? What are palpable economic outcomes of Kenya’s status as the “Silicon Savannah” or Lagos as the “Silicon Lagoon,” and who are the winners and losers of local ICT entrepreneurship and innovation? Do ICTs really deliver economic inclusion and employment to remote geographies and low-income groups, or are we witnessing the rise of online sweatshops that further enhance exploitation of vulnerable populations?


This session will explore these themes, encouraging contributions from a variety of perspectives. We invite authors to consider digital production in low-income/developing countries through lenses such as:

  • Empirical or theoretical perspectives on digital production and its (uneven) geographies
  • Discourse around digital production and its promises and risks
  • Distributions of value creation and extraction across actor groups (winners/losers)
  • Tensions of scaling versus local adaptation in digital production, in application to geography and inclusion/exclusion effects
  • Uneven production geographies within countries, in particular, differences and divides between rural/peri-urban/urban clusters
  • Socio-demographic analyses of economic actors engaging in digital production
  • Case studies of low-skill/cost-competition digital production (e.g., business process outsourcing, microwork, etc.)
  • Case studies of high-skill/entrepreneurial innovation in digital production (e.g., mobile/online applications startups, technology innovation hubs)
  • Analyses and recommendations for local and international policy pertaining to digital production

To be considered for the session, please send your abstract of 250 words or fewer, to: mark.graham@oii.ox.ac.uk, nicolas.friederici@oii.ox.ac.uk, and isis.hjorth@oii.ox.ac.uk

The deadline for receipt of abstracts is October 1 2014. Notification of acceptance will be before October 7. All accepted papers will then need to register for the AAG conference at aag.org. Accepted papers will be considered for a special issue or edited volume edited by the organizers.
 


Malecki, E. J., & Moriset, B. (2007). The paradox of a “double-edged” geography: local ecosystems of the digital economy. In The Digital Economy: Business Organization, Production Processes and Regional Developments (pp. 174–198). New York, NY: Routledge.
Moriset, B., & Malecki, E. J. (2009). Organization versus Space: The Paradoxical Geographies of the Digital Economy. Geography Compass, 3(1), 256–274.