Podcasts about data feminism

Technology has surpassed religion as the central focus of our lives, from our dependence on smartphones to the way that tech has infused almost every aspect of our lives including our homes, our relationships, and even our bodies. Beyond these practical matters, Tech has become a religion with multiple sects who follow their own beliefs, practices, hierarchies, and visions of heaven and hell. There are zealous prophets and humble servants, messiahs and visions of a coming apocalypse.  In Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation (MIT Press, 2024), Harvard and MIT's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein approaches Tech with the perspective of a critical thinker who is fascinated by technical innovation and also questions the worth of those advancements in human terms. He places the current faith in Tech in historical and personal context by examining the skeptics, mystics, heretics, and whistleblowers who embody the reform mindset he believes we desperately need.  Epstein argues for demanding that technology serve the development of human lives that are worth living rather than the extreme "up and to the right" transactional approach that is often rewarded in our current age of capitalism.  In this age of global technology worship, Greg Epstein presents the case for taking an agnostic view, one that can both appreciate the benefits of Tech and also remain skeptical about some of the more outlandish claims and seductive promises. Author recommended reading: Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Technology has surpassed religion as the central focus of our lives, from our dependence on smartphones to the way that tech has infused almost every aspect of our lives including our homes, our relationships, and even our bodies. Beyond these practical matters, Tech has become a religion with multiple sects who follow their own beliefs, practices, hierarchies, and visions of heaven and hell. There are zealous prophets and humble servants, messiahs and visions of a coming apocalypse.  In Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation (MIT Press, 2024), Harvard and MIT's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein approaches Tech with the perspective of a critical thinker who is fascinated by technical innovation and also questions the worth of those advancements in human terms. He places the current faith in Tech in historical and personal context by examining the skeptics, mystics, heretics, and whistleblowers who embody the reform mindset he believes we desperately need.  Epstein argues for demanding that technology serve the development of human lives that are worth living rather than the extreme "up and to the right" transactional approach that is often rewarded in our current age of capitalism.  In this age of global technology worship, Greg Epstein presents the case for taking an agnostic view, one that can both appreciate the benefits of Tech and also remain skeptical about some of the more outlandish claims and seductive promises. Author recommended reading: Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Technology has surpassed religion as the central focus of our lives, from our dependence on smartphones to the way that tech has infused almost every aspect of our lives including our homes, our relationships, and even our bodies. Beyond these practical matters, Tech has become a religion with multiple sects who follow their own beliefs, practices, hierarchies, and visions of heaven and hell. There are zealous prophets and humble servants, messiahs and visions of a coming apocalypse.  In Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation (MIT Press, 2024), Harvard and MIT's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein approaches Tech with the perspective of a critical thinker who is fascinated by technical innovation and also questions the worth of those advancements in human terms. He places the current faith in Tech in historical and personal context by examining the skeptics, mystics, heretics, and whistleblowers who embody the reform mindset he believes we desperately need.  Epstein argues for demanding that technology serve the development of human lives that are worth living rather than the extreme "up and to the right" transactional approach that is often rewarded in our current age of capitalism.  In this age of global technology worship, Greg Epstein presents the case for taking an agnostic view, one that can both appreciate the benefits of Tech and also remain skeptical about some of the more outlandish claims and seductive promises. Author recommended reading: Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Technology has surpassed religion as the central focus of our lives, from our dependence on smartphones to the way that tech has infused almost every aspect of our lives including our homes, our relationships, and even our bodies. Beyond these practical matters, Tech has become a religion with multiple sects who follow their own beliefs, practices, hierarchies, and visions of heaven and hell. There are zealous prophets and humble servants, messiahs and visions of a coming apocalypse.  In Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation (MIT Press, 2024), Harvard and MIT's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein approaches Tech with the perspective of a critical thinker who is fascinated by technical innovation and also questions the worth of those advancements in human terms. He places the current faith in Tech in historical and personal context by examining the skeptics, mystics, heretics, and whistleblowers who embody the reform mindset he believes we desperately need.  Epstein argues for demanding that technology serve the development of human lives that are worth living rather than the extreme "up and to the right" transactional approach that is often rewarded in our current age of capitalism.  In this age of global technology worship, Greg Epstein presents the case for taking an agnostic view, one that can both appreciate the benefits of Tech and also remain skeptical about some of the more outlandish claims and seductive promises. Author recommended reading: Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Technology has surpassed religion as the central focus of our lives, from our dependence on smartphones to the way that tech has infused almost every aspect of our lives including our homes, our relationships, and even our bodies. Beyond these practical matters, Tech has become a religion with multiple sects who follow their own beliefs, practices, hierarchies, and visions of heaven and hell. There are zealous prophets and humble servants, messiahs and visions of a coming apocalypse.  In Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation (MIT Press, 2024), Harvard and MIT's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein approaches Tech with the perspective of a critical thinker who is fascinated by technical innovation and also questions the worth of those advancements in human terms. He places the current faith in Tech in historical and personal context by examining the skeptics, mystics, heretics, and whistleblowers who embody the reform mindset he believes we desperately need.  Epstein argues for demanding that technology serve the development of human lives that are worth living rather than the extreme "up and to the right" transactional approach that is often rewarded in our current age of capitalism.  In this age of global technology worship, Greg Epstein presents the case for taking an agnostic view, one that can both appreciate the benefits of Tech and also remain skeptical about some of the more outlandish claims and seductive promises. Author recommended reading: Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Technology has surpassed religion as the central focus of our lives, from our dependence on smartphones to the way that tech has infused almost every aspect of our lives including our homes, our relationships, and even our bodies. Beyond these practical matters, Tech has become a religion with multiple sects who follow their own beliefs, practices, hierarchies, and visions of heaven and hell. There are zealous prophets and humble servants, messiahs and visions of a coming apocalypse.  In Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation (MIT Press, 2024), Harvard and MIT's humanist chaplain Greg Epstein approaches Tech with the perspective of a critical thinker who is fascinated by technical innovation and also questions the worth of those advancements in human terms. He places the current faith in Tech in historical and personal context by examining the skeptics, mystics, heretics, and whistleblowers who embody the reform mindset he believes we desperately need.  Epstein argues for demanding that technology serve the development of human lives that are worth living rather than the extreme "up and to the right" transactional approach that is often rewarded in our current age of capitalism.  In this age of global technology worship, Greg Epstein presents the case for taking an agnostic view, one that can both appreciate the benefits of Tech and also remain skeptical about some of the more outlandish claims and seductive promises. Author recommended reading: Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

What isn't counted doesn't count. And mainstream institutions systematically fail to account for feminicide, the gender-related killing of women and girls, including cisgender and transgender women. Against this failure, Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action (MIT Press, 2024) brings to the fore the work of data activists across the Americas who are documenting such murders—and challenging the reigning logic of data science by centering care, memory, and justice in their work.  Drawing on Data Against Feminicide, a large-scale collaborative research project, Catherine D'Ignazio describes the creative, intellectual, and emotional labor of feminicide data activists who are at the forefront of a data ethics that rigorously and consistently takes power and people into account. This book is also a forceful intervention that challenges hegemonic data science by exploring the possibilities and limitations of counting and quantification and drawing lessons for a restorative and transformative data science. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What isn't counted doesn't count. And mainstream institutions systematically fail to account for feminicide, the gender-related killing of women and girls, including cisgender and transgender women. Against this failure, Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action (MIT Press, 2024) brings to the fore the work of data activists across the Americas who are documenting such murders—and challenging the reigning logic of data science by centering care, memory, and justice in their work.  Drawing on Data Against Feminicide, a large-scale collaborative research project, Catherine D'Ignazio describes the creative, intellectual, and emotional labor of feminicide data activists who are at the forefront of a data ethics that rigorously and consistently takes power and people into account. This book is also a forceful intervention that challenges hegemonic data science by exploring the possibilities and limitations of counting and quantification and drawing lessons for a restorative and transformative data science. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

What isn't counted doesn't count. And mainstream institutions systematically fail to account for feminicide, the gender-related killing of women and girls, including cisgender and transgender women. Against this failure, Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action (MIT Press, 2024) brings to the fore the work of data activists across the Americas who are documenting such murders—and challenging the reigning logic of data science by centering care, memory, and justice in their work.  Drawing on Data Against Feminicide, a large-scale collaborative research project, Catherine D'Ignazio describes the creative, intellectual, and emotional labor of feminicide data activists who are at the forefront of a data ethics that rigorously and consistently takes power and people into account. This book is also a forceful intervention that challenges hegemonic data science by exploring the possibilities and limitations of counting and quantification and drawing lessons for a restorative and transformative data science. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

What isn't counted doesn't count. And mainstream institutions systematically fail to account for feminicide, the gender-related killing of women and girls, including cisgender and transgender women. Against this failure, Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action (MIT Press, 2024) brings to the fore the work of data activists across the Americas who are documenting such murders—and challenging the reigning logic of data science by centering care, memory, and justice in their work.  Drawing on Data Against Feminicide, a large-scale collaborative research project, Catherine D'Ignazio describes the creative, intellectual, and emotional labor of feminicide data activists who are at the forefront of a data ethics that rigorously and consistently takes power and people into account. This book is also a forceful intervention that challenges hegemonic data science by exploring the possibilities and limitations of counting and quantification and drawing lessons for a restorative and transformative data science. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What isn't counted doesn't count. And mainstream institutions systematically fail to account for feminicide, the gender-related killing of women and girls, including cisgender and transgender women. Against this failure, Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action (MIT Press, 2024) brings to the fore the work of data activists across the Americas who are documenting such murders—and challenging the reigning logic of data science by centering care, memory, and justice in their work.  Drawing on Data Against Feminicide, a large-scale collaborative research project, Catherine D'Ignazio describes the creative, intellectual, and emotional labor of feminicide data activists who are at the forefront of a data ethics that rigorously and consistently takes power and people into account. This book is also a forceful intervention that challenges hegemonic data science by exploring the possibilities and limitations of counting and quantification and drawing lessons for a restorative and transformative data science. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

What isn't counted doesn't count. And mainstream institutions systematically fail to account for feminicide, the gender-related killing of women and girls, including cisgender and transgender women. Against this failure, Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action (MIT Press, 2024) brings to the fore the work of data activists across the Americas who are documenting such murders—and challenging the reigning logic of data science by centering care, memory, and justice in their work.  Drawing on Data Against Feminicide, a large-scale collaborative research project, Catherine D'Ignazio describes the creative, intellectual, and emotional labor of feminicide data activists who are at the forefront of a data ethics that rigorously and consistently takes power and people into account. This book is also a forceful intervention that challenges hegemonic data science by exploring the possibilities and limitations of counting and quantification and drawing lessons for a restorative and transformative data science. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

What isn't counted doesn't count. And mainstream institutions systematically fail to account for feminicide, the gender-related killing of women and girls, including cisgender and transgender women. Against this failure, Counting Feminicide: Data Feminism in Action (MIT Press, 2024) brings to the fore the work of data activists across the Americas who are documenting such murders—and challenging the reigning logic of data science by centering care, memory, and justice in their work.  Drawing on Data Against Feminicide, a large-scale collaborative research project, Catherine D'Ignazio describes the creative, intellectual, and emotional labor of feminicide data activists who are at the forefront of a data ethics that rigorously and consistently takes power and people into account. This book is also a forceful intervention that challenges hegemonic data science by exploring the possibilities and limitations of counting and quantification and drawing lessons for a restorative and transformative data science. This book is available open access here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/digital-humanities

TRANSCRIPTThis month, Shobita and Jack reflect on the recent COP meeting in the United Arab Emirates, recent AI news including the Biden Administration's Executive Order, the UK summit, and the fates of the two Sams: Altman and Bankman-Fried. And they chat with Sarah de Rijcke, Professor in Science, Technology, and Innovation Studies and Scientific Director at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands.References:- D'Ignazio, C. and L. F. Klein.Data Feminism. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2020. - Andreessen, M. (2023, October 16).The Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Andreessen Horowitz. - de Rijcke, S. (2023). Does science need heroes? Leiden Madtrics blog, CWTS, Leiden University.- Pölönen, J., Rushforth, A.D., de Rijcke, S., Niemi, L., Larsen, B. & Di Donato, F. (2023). Implementing research assessment reforms: Tales from the frontline.- Rushforth, A.D. & de Rijcke, S. (2023). Practicing Responsible Research Assessment: Qualitative study of Faculty Hiring, Promotion, and Tenure Assessments in the United States. Preprint. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/2d7ax- Scholten, W., Franssen, T.P., Drooge, L. van, de Rijcke, S. & Hessels, L.K. (2021). Funding for few, anticipation among all: Effects of excellence funding on academic research groups. Science and Public Policy, 48(2), 265-275. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab018 https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/48/2/265/6184850- Penders, B., de Rijcke, S. & Holbrook, J.B. (2020). Science's moral economy of repair: Replication and the circulation of reference. Accountability in Research, first published online January 27, 2020. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1720659.- Müller, R. & De Rijcke, S. (2017). Thinking with indicators. Exploring the Epistemic Impacts of Academic Performance Indicators in the Life Sciences. Research Evaluation. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvx023. Study Questions:1. What is techno-optimism, and how does it apply in the case of AI?2. How might we think about the strengths and weaknesses of current efforts to address AI governance by the U.S. government?3. What are some negative consequences of simplistic performance metrics for research assessment, and why do such metrics remain in use?4. How do large companies like Elsevier now extend their domain beyond publishing? How might this shape the trajectory of research assessment methods?5. What hopes exist for better performance metrics for research assessments?More at thereceivedwisdom.org

Guests Amanda Casari | Julie Ferraioli | Juniper Lovato Panelist Richard Littauer Show Notes In today's episode of Sustain, Richard is joined by guests, Amanda Casari, devrel engineer and open source researcher at Google Open Source Programs Office, Julie Ferraioli, an independent open source strategist, researcher, practitioner, and Partner at Open Chapters, and Juniper Lovato, Director of partnerships and programs at the Vermont Complex Systems Center at UVM and Data Ethics researcher. Amanda, Julia, and Juniper join the discussion, bringing a wealth of expertise in the open source domain. The conversation gravitates towards an article co-authored by the guests, striking a balance between open source software and open source ecosystems research. The episode dives deep into the “10 simple things” format of the article, the crucial importance of collective conversations, and a keen exploration of open source researchers. Hit download now to hear more cool stuff! [00:01:29] Richard tells us why he invited our three guests today and he talks about their previous accomplishments and backgrounds. [00:02:17] Our discussion moves to the title of a new article co-authored by the guests. We hear about the intended audience of the article and the distinction made between open source software and open source ecosystems research. [00:03:31] Richard brings up where the article fits in the academic landscape, and it's revealed to be more editorial than research. [00:04:17] There's a conversation about the “10 simple things” format, its origin, and the motivation behind it. They put an emphasis on the need for collective conversation and the value of sharing experiences and knowledge. [00:07:28] Richard brings up the idea of open source researchers and mentions various figures and institutions involved in open source research. Juniper clarifies the target audience for the article and its intentions, Julie shares her perspective from the industry side and the importance of a critical framework, and Amanda expresses her emotional response to some researchers' approach towards the open source community. [00:12:03] Julie discusses the emotional challenges that inspired the paper's best practices emphasizing not repeating negative behaviors, and Juniper notes tension in research between benefits for the community and for the researchers emphasizing understanding norms and values for studying open source communities. [00:13:52] Richard mentions there are nine principles in the paper and asks about the principle regarding treating open source ecosystems as systems “in production.” Amanda highlights the importance of considering the real-world impact of research in open source and mentions an incident where a university was banned from the Linux kernel due to disruptive changes. [00:16:33] Julie emphasizes the potential broader impact on industry systems when modifying open source systems and she raises the point that tampering with open source systems might inadvertently affect critical infrastructure. Amanda comments on the increasing cybersecurity concerns around open source. [00:19:18] Richard brings up a real-world example of a university introducing bugs to the Linux kernel and points out the need for considering ethical implications beyond just production systems. [00:20:59] Richard draws parallels between addressing these issues and addressing racism, and Juniper adds that the scientific process is ongoing and should evolve with technology and societal values. [00:21:53] Julie describes the complexity of open source funding and compensation and points out the challenge in understanding motivations and expectations of open source participants. [00:24:07] Amanda emphasizes the difficulty of summarizing each section, noting that each one could be a chapter or book and she expresses her concerns about not just individual equity but organizational equity. [00:25:59] Juniper raises the issue of invisible labor in open source. [00:26:39] Julie highlights the importance of recognizing that open source repository data might not capture all the activity and contributions made by community members. [00:27:37] Amanda discusses the challenges and importance of capturing data, especially when it may put individuals at risk. Juniper stresses the importance of involving communities in the research process and gaining their consent, ensuring their dignity, security, and privacy. [00:29:49] Julie discusses the complexities of identity within the open source community, highlighting that individuals can hold multiple identities in this space. [00:31:10] Richard adds that the insight shared are not just for open source researchers but also for anyone involved in the open source ecosystem. He emphasizes the need to be aware of biases and the importance of understanding the data one works with. [00:32:22] Richard prompts a summary of the main points in the paper, which are read by our guests. [00:34:48] Find out where you can learn more about our guests and their work online. Quotes [00:20:08] “Production as the end line for ethical values leads to a lot of really thorny edge cases that are going to ultimately hurt the communities of people who aren't working on production ready systems.” [00:21:20] “Just as open source is always in production, so is the scientific process.” [00:23:24] “Even having the privilege of time to dedicate to open source is not available to all.” [00:24:26] “It's just not individual equity but organizational equity.” [00:25:47] “We can't ignore the very large industry that is open source that has all that money moving around and where it's going is a question we should all be asking.” [00:26:00] “There's a lot of invisible labor in open source.” [00:28:32] “Leaving out communities from the scientific process of the research process leaves open these vulnerabilities without giving them a voice to what kind of research is being done about them without their consent.” [00:29:17] “What we are starting to consider acceptable surveillance in public is really being challenged.” [00:29:33] “It's really important for us to make sure that we're maintaining people's dignity, security, and privacy while we're doing this kind of research.” Spotlight [00:35:45] Richard's spotlight is The Long Trail that he's going to hike. [00:36:17] Amanda's spotlight is contributor-experience.org and the PyPI subpoena transparency report. [00:37:20] Julie's spotlight is the book, Data Feminism. [00:38:09] Juniper's spotlight is a new tool called, XGI. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) podcast@sustainoss.org (mailto:podcast@sustainoss.org) SustainOSS Mastodon (https://mastodon.social/tags/sustainoss) Open Collective-SustainOSS (Contribute) (https://opencollective.com/sustainoss) Richard Littauer Twitter (https://twitter.com/richlitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Amanda Casari Twitter (https://twitter.com/amcasari) Amanda Casari Mastodon (https://hachyderm.io/@amcasari) Google Open Source (https://opensource.google/) Open Source Stories (http://opensourcestories.org/) Julia Ferraioli Twitter (https://twitter.com/juliaferraioli) Julia Ferraioli Website (https://www.juliaferraioli.com/) Open Chapters (https://openchapters.tech/) Juniper Lovato Website (https://juniperlovato.com/) Juniper Lovato Twitter (https://twitter.com/juniperlov) Vermont Complex Systems Center-UVM (https://www.complexityexplorer.org/explore/resources/75-vermont-complex-systems-center) Sustain Podcast-Episode 111: Amanda Casari on ACROSS and Measuring Contributions in OSS (https://podcast.sustainoss.org/111) XKCD (https://xkcd.com/) Beyond the Repository: Best practices for open source ecosystems researchers by Amanda Casari, Julia Ferraioli, and Juniper Lovato (https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3595879) Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures (scientific data) (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00892-0) The Long Trail (https://www.greenmountainclub.org/the-long-trail/) Welcome to the Contributor Experience Handbook (https://contributor-experience.org/) Contributor experience-Why it matters (SciPy 2023) (https://blog.pypi.org/posts/2023-05-24-pypi-was-subpoenaed/) PyPI was subpoenaed by Ee Durbin (https://blog.pypi.org/posts/2023-05-24-pypi-was-subpoenaed/) Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein (https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262547185/data-feminism/) The CompleX Group Interactions (XGI) (https://xgi.readthedocs.io/en/stable/index.html) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guests: Amanda Casari, Julia Ferraioli, and Juniper Lovato.

At the 2023 UK Evaluation Society presentation, we synthesised our experience with national and international non-governmental organisations, focusing on the pragmatic application of Kimberlé Crenshaw's intersectionality and the Data Feminism principles of Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein while addressing ethical considerations and strategies. Our presentation, Negotiating Feminist Principles and Approaches in Complex Contexts, underscores that traditional feminist and anti-racist perspectives often overlook the complexities of multi-dimensional identities. Get Premium Content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Was ist data feminism und was hat das mit Macht zu tun? Diese Folge heißt "data feminism", was gleichzeitig der Titel des Buches ist, über das wir reden werden. "Data Feminism" wurde von Catherine D'Ignazio und Lauren F. Klein geschrieben. Laut den Autorinnen ist Data Science eine Form von Macht mit der sowohl Gutes, als auch Schlechtes getan werden kann. Und wie das mit der von den Autorinnen präsentierten Perspektive des intersektionellen Feminismus zusammenhängt, werden wir uns näher ansehen. Dafür haben wir uns 3 Kapitel des Buches genauer angesehen und werden darüber reden, welche Beobachtungen, Beispiele und Anmerkungen wir dabei vorfinden.

How can we create artificial intelligence technologies that build a better world? When Lauren Klein, Emory professor and author of Data Feminism, imagines the future of computational analysis, she envisions an ethical approach with justice at the center. Kimberly Jacob Arriola, dean of Emory's Laney Graduate School, sits down with Klein to discuss how to make that future a reality. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The authors of Data Feminism (2020), Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren Klein, along with Catherine Ahearn, Content Lead at PubPub, discuss the value and process of open peer review, share experiences and best practices, and explore issues surrounding peer review transparency. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

The authors of Data Feminism (2020), Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren Klein, along with Catherine Ahearn, Content Lead at PubPub, discuss the value and process of open peer review, share experiences and best practices, and explore issues surrounding peer review transparency. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this captivating and insightful episode, Teia shares her upcoming three-week clinical trial adventure with listeners. As she embarks on this unique journey, Lauren and Teia discuss the challenges and benefits of participating in clinical trials, emphasising the importance of staying informed and asking questions about one's health. They also delve into the dynamics of hierarchy, gender, and power in the medical field, drawing insights from resources such as "Invisible Women" and "Data Feminism." With a blend of humour, personal experience, and critical discussions on health and empowerment, this episode offers a fresh perspective on the world of clinical trials and the necessity of being an advocate for one's own health.Things we mention: Smarter Faster Better by Charles Duhigg"Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men" by Caroline Criado Perez"Data Feminism" by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein"Grey's Anatomy" - TV Show"The Undiscussed Trauma of COVID-19" - Article (source to be provided)Thalidomide tragedymRNA technology and COVID vaccineFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) and power dynamics in the aviation industryPositivity bias in research and evaluationFollow us:Instagram: @jrnypodcastTwitter: @jrnypodcastEdited by Teia Rogers Music by Praz Khanal Get Premium Content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In dieser Folge spricht Mareike mit Anja Gerber und Tessa Gengnagel von der DHd-AG Empowerment. Das Tagungsthema der DHd2023 “Open Humanities, Open Culture” ist der AG sehr wichtig, denn es ist noch viel zu tun, was die Offenlegung und Sichtbarmachung der Digital Humanities-Forschung in anderen Ländern und auch von nicht-weißen, nicht-männlichen, nicht-westlichen Forschenden betrifft. Außerdem hat die AG das Tagungsthema zum Anlass genommen, ein Panel auszurichten, in dem die Offenheit der Forschung in den Digital Humanities hinterfragt und diskutiert wird. Die AG bündelt in ihrer Arbeit Bestrebungen der Dekolonialisierung und des Abbaus von Diskriminierungen sowohl im Bereich der Forschungsgegenstände (z. B. bei Archivbeständen und Repositorien) als auch im Bereich der Forschung und ihrer sozialen Strukturen der Digital Humanities. Anlass zur Gründung der AG war ein Blogartikel mit dem Titel The Computational Humanities and Toxic Masculinity aus dem Jahr 2020 von Sarah Lang auf ihrem Blog LaTeX Ninja, in dem sie die Digital Humanities aus feministischer Perspektive hinterfragt. Es folgte ein Workshop auf der vDHd2021 und schließlich die Gründung der AG. Die AG beteiligt sich an der DHd2023 mit zwei Veranstaltungen: Zum einen mit einem Workshop “Data Feminism in DH: Hackathon und Netzwerktreffen”, zum anderen mit dem bereits erwähnten Panel “Open DH? Mapping Blind Spots”. “Data Feminism” bedeutet hierbei, die kritische Be- und Durchleuchtung von männlich dominierten wissenschaftlichen Narrativen in den DH. Die AG freut sich sehr über neue Mitglieder und lädt alle Interessierten zum Mitmachen ein!

Welcome back, for another episode of the “22 Lessons on Ethics and Technology” series. In this episode, I speak with Dr. Lauren Klein about the complicated relationship between data, race, and gender, and what she calls “data feminism.” What is the relationship between data visualizations, representation, and construction of categories—and difference? How have visualizations constructed race and gender? And how can a feminist data science approach help in constructing a more just and equal world? Dr. Lauren Klein is an associate professor in the Departments of English and Quantitative Theory & Methods at Emory University. She received her A.B. from Harvard University and her Ph.D. from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). Her research interests include digital humanities, data science, data studies, and early American literature. Before arriving at Emory, Klein taught in the School of Literature, Media, and Communication at Georgia Tech where she directed the Digital Humanities Lab. She is currently at work on two major projects: the first, Data by Design, is an interactive book on the history of data visualization. Awarded an NEH-Mellon Fellowship for Digital Publication, Data by Design emphasizes how the modern visualizing impulse emerged from a set of complex intellectually and politically-charged contexts in the United States and across the Atlantic. Her second project, tentatively titled Vectors of Freedom, employs a range of quantitative methods in order to surface the otherwise invisible forms of labor, agency, and action involved in the abolitionist movement of the nineteenth-century United States. Dr. Klein is the author of An Archive of Taste: Race and Eating in the Early United States (University of Minnesota Press, 2020). This book shows how thinking about eating can help to tell new stories about the range of people, from the nation's first presidents to their enslaved chefs, who worked to establish a cultural foundation for the United States. Klein is also the co-author (with Catherine D'Ignazio) of Data Feminism (MIT Press, 2020), a trade book that explores the intersection of feminist thinking and data science. With Matthew K. Gold, she edits Debates in the Digital Humanities (University of Minnesota Press), a hybrid print/digital publication stream that explores debates in the field as they emerge. The most recent book in this series is Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019.

Lauren is on a lifelong journey to understanding racism and her own role in causing harm. From swimming to festivals, examples of racism, misogyny, and exclusion are everywhere. All this attunement has left Lauren with some questions. Who better to ask, than Teia!? This episode asks questions like, how do you call out racism in a meeting room? What if you notice there are no people of colour or minority groups invited to a meeting you have just turned up to? Is it ever appropriate to where another group's cultural dress? The questions you were too afraid to ask...We would love to hear from you! Send us an email at jrnypodcast@gmail.com or a message on Instagram with your questions and we'll read them out in a future episode.Things we talk about:Book: Data Feminism by By Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. KleinPodcast: Visible women by Caroline Criado PerezWant more?Get Premium Content on Patreon.Follow us:Instagram: @jrnypodcastwitter: @jrnypodcastEdited by Teia RogersMusic by Praz Khanal Get Premium Content on Patreon Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Whether it's putting adverts into your Facebook feed for items you recently Google searched, or helping to filter out applicants for a job you're advertising, based on the key words in their CV, algorithms are everywhere. They affect us all, sometimes even when we least expect it! The trick is to arm yourself with knowledge; learn more about how they work, why they can be forces for good, not just bad, and how they can be good for business. Alix is Head of Curriculum and Expertise at Singularity Education Group, and lets us in on how brand reputation can easily be harmed by bad algorithms. She shares how businesses need to look for blind spots within the system and consider all variables, case studying recruitment in particular.  They discuss Data Feminism; the impact of GDPR legislation on marketing and sales; why complacency with tech evolution is dangerous; and the importance of keeping a human eye on the process of developing new AI. Alix is a great example of how curiosity can get you a long way – and how that's enough to get you where you want to be. Go where the friction is; that's where the interesting things are happening. Her insight into the future of AI and her predications for a Ready Player One style world are fascinating. Her passions and career have been diverse, and she blasts onto the podcast with the force of the Terminator itself! It's not to be missed.  GET IN TOUCH! Leave us a voice note here, we would love to hear your thoughts on today's episode, and you might even feature in our next episode! You can also email us on podcasts@larking-gowen.co.uk You can also watch us now on YouTube too! Click here to watch this week's episode. Thank you to our sponsors Larking Gowen, Chartered Accountants and Business Advisors – check out their website to see how they could help your business www.larking-gowen.co.uk Show notes: Alix on LinkedIn Singularity Group  DuckDuckGo  Ecosia  Damian Horner Impromptu Business Chat  Sue Liburd and Andy Nicol Impromptu Business Chat  Books: Data Feminism - Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren Klein Race After Technology – Ruha Benjamin Sensemaking: The Power of the Humanities in the Age of the Algorithm - Christian Madsbjerg © Larking Gowen LLP

In this episode, we talk to Miloney Thakrar, Founder and Principal of Mind the Gender Gap. This episode covers:

Guest Amanda Casari Panelists Richard Littauer | Ben Nickolls | Eric Berry Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain! The podcast where we talk about sustaining open source for the long haul. We are very excited for today's podcast. Our guest is Amanda Casari, who is a Developer Relations Engineer and Open Source Researcher at Google Open Source Programs Office (OSPO). Today, we learn about some open source work Amanda is doing with her research team at the University of Vermont Complex Systems Center, she tells us about a project called ACROSS, and a paper that was written by her team that was actively looking at contributions that are measured for code centric repositories. Amanda goes in depth about what open source is to her, she shares advice if you're looking to collaborate more effectively with people in open source, she talks more about how we can support projects financially to other parts of the world and mentions some great groups she worked with. Go ahead and download this episode to learn more! [00:02:00] Amanda fills us in on the open source work that she started working on with the University of Vermont Complex Systems Center. [00:06:43] Amanda explains the “assumptions we have that aren't verified,” as well as a paper that came from their research team and what they examined. [00:09:52] We learn more about how people interface with closed decisions behind doors and open source. [00:13:30] Ben asks Amanda to tell us what kind of behaviors and differences she sees between communities that emerge and continue to exists off of platforms like GitHub and GitLab. [00:15:50] Amanda tells us about a project their team is working on called ACROSS, and a paper that won a FOSS award last year that was about actively looking at contributions that are measured for code centric repositories. [0019:18] Eric wonders what type of responsibility Amanda sees that would come from GitHub and if that's going to affect us long term. [00:23:01] Amanda explains working as a Control Systems Engineer, and she explains how she sees open source as blocked diagrams and feedback loops. [00:27:53] We hear some great advice from Amanda if you are someone who wants to make the world of open source a more complex and beautiful place with what you have to offer. [00:32:08] We hear some thoughts from Amanda for people working in open source who don't have a huge amount of privilege to have the ability to share their energy and find it harder to think laterally. [00:35:27] Ben wonders what we can do to support projects financially and what we can do to support the next generation from the different parts of the world who haven't had the opportunity to benefit yet. Amanda shares her thoughts and mentions some really great groups she worked with such as Open Source Community Africa, PyCon Africa, and Python Ghana. [00:39:24] Find out where you can follow Amanda online. Quotes [00:09:01] “A lot of open source decision making is really behind proprietary or closed doors.” [00:19:59] “When it feels like there is only one option for any kind of tool, infrastructure, or access, that's when I always start getting concerned.” [00:24:58] “Open source is a ___ system.” [00:29:59] “Open source is not one thing, it's many interactive parts that fit together in different ways.” Spotlight [00:40:10] Eric's spotlight is an article Amanda submitted on “Open source ecosystems need equitable credit across contributions.” [00:40:39] Ben's spotlight is a shout out to Jess Sachs and the maintainers of Faker.js. [00:41:22] Richard's spotlight is Red Hen Baking in Vermont. [00:41:47] Amanda's spotlights are two books: Data Feminism _and _The Data-Sitters Club that she found on The Executable Books Project. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) Amanda Casari Twitter (https://twitter.com/amcasari?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Amanda Casari LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/amcasari/) Open Source Stories (https://www.opensourcestories.org/) The penumbra of open source: projects outside of centralized platforms are longer maintained, more academic and more collaborative (https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15611) Getting the Giella source code for your language (https://giellalt.uit.no/infra/GettingStarted.html) Julia Ferraioli Blog (https://www.juliaferraioli.com/blog/) What contributions count? Analysis of attribution in open source (article) (https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=VRBk-q8AAAAJ&citation_for_view=VRBk-q8AAAAJ:qjMakFHDy7sC) ACROSS Taxonomy-GitHub (https://github.com/google/across) RubyConf 2021- Black Swan Events in Open Source-That time we broke the Internet (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1g9UDReu80wo14H8beoAJ6n69ZorBYhLjKxOU1ngegeY/edit#slid) All Contributors bot-GitHub App (https://github.com/all-contributors/app) All Contributors (https://allcontributors.org/) Open Source Community Africa (https://oscafrica.org/) PyCon Africa (https://pycon-africa-stage.us.aldryn.io/) Python Ghana (https://www.pythonghana.org/) Open source ecosystems need equitable credit across contributions (article) (https://bagrow.com/pdf/casari2021.pdf) Faker (https://github.com/faker-js/faker) Red Hen Baking Co. (https://www.redhenbaking.com/) Data Feminism (https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/) The Executable Books Project (https://executablebooks.org/en/latest/) The Data-Sitters Club (https://datasittersclub.github.io/site/index.html) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Associate Producer Justin Dorfman (https://www.justindorfman.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Transcript by Layten Pryce (https://www.fiverr.com/misstranscript) Transcript Richard [00:11]: Hello, and welcome to Sustain, the podcast where we're talking about sustaining open-source for the long haul. Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What are we going to talk about today? Very excited for today's podcast. We have an amazing guest. One of the few guests from the state I am in, which is really fun for me. I just feel like saying that first before anything else, because I don't know why, but before we introduce her, I want to make sure we also talk about the other people you're going to be hearing on today's podcast. So I am Richard [name]. Hello everyone. And then we also have Benjamin Nichols, sometimes known as Ben, how are you? Ben [00:48]: I'm good. I'm a bit enjoying the sun. Thank you. Richard [00:51]: Cool. Okay, great, Eric, how are you doing? Eric [00:54]: No sun, but I'm really happy to be here. I'm very well caffeinated. Richard [00:58]: That is very good. I'm going with apple ciders today. I don't know why, I think it's because I already have caffeine. Great. So that's the little tiny stuff at the beginning to set the mood for the show. And now the actual content. Our guest today is the amazing Amanda Casari. Amanda Casari is a lot of things. She doesn't like titles very much, which is cool. So I'm just going to say what she wrote down in the prep doc, DevRel engineer, plus open source researcher at Google open-source programs office, which we're going to shorten to the Google OSPO for the rest of this conversation, because that's just too much of a word. She also lives in Vermont and has a long and storied career. Amanda, how are you doing? Amanda [01:39]: Hi, I'm doing great. It's so good to be here today. And I'm also absolutely thrilled Richard, that you also live in Vermont. Richard [01:47]: I know we have this small thing in Vermont where we really like talking about being in Vermont. I think it's because we're in a little man's complex because it's a very small state and so it's just nice to be like, oh, someone else, Amanda, actually that might be a good intro. So you've been active in open source communities for over a decade. You've organized local community groups. You've filed issues. You've cleaned the documentation, you've tested fixes or fixed tests. You've done all the things. You move chairs around, but like you're really a systems level person. [02:14] You're all about thinking about what open-source is and how can we make sure that the entirety of open-source regenerates builds better, is more sustainable, is more resilient, is more better for the people inside of it. Part of that work has been working directly with UVM, which is confusingly, the University of Vermont and it's based in Burlington. And it now has, I believe some sort of OSPO. Can you talk about what that is and how that happened? Amanda [02:40]: Yeah, so as brief as I can make it, because otherwise I will spend the next 45 minutes talking about this. I switched into the Google OSPO office because I started and worked on a partnership and a research group with the University of Vermont complex system center. So we started to look within Google and understand how can we really begin to picture, strategize, think about, learn from open-source, like you said, from a systems and ecosystems and networks perspective, which is in line with my background. [03:16] So in the way, way before, I'm a actually a control systems engineer. So problems that are dull, dangerous or dirty fit right with that robotics line of thinking and examining infrastructures and legacy infrastructures and how things interconnect and where they need support and where they don't, is absolutely aligned with what I used to work on. And then I did go to the University of Vermont and I was a fellow at the complex system center. When I was studying power systems and I actually looked at electrical engineering and applied mathematics. [03:48] And so a lot of that is fundamental for the reason why, like my brain is really shaped to examine and look at things, as to what scales and what doesn't, but not from some of the software perspective of how do you scale things, but where do you actually, and can you find rules that may or may not apply at different scales and may not work? So we may try to apply things that work at a smaller group, at a larger scale and they break down and that's when they actually don't scale. So working with the University of Vermont, we started in early 2020, which was a really interesting time to get a new research line started, especially when one of your core researchers is an infectious disease modeler. But I would say the benefit from starting at that time is that we really got lucky in a few places. [04:37] So one of the places that we got lucky in early 2020, is we took everything that we were thinking about for the next two years of life. And we said, this is probably going to change. And we fundamentally moved some of the money and the grant money around to start instead examining who needs support now, what can we do now? So if we're not going to be able to travel, we're not going to be able to hold community workshops. We're not going to be able to invite open-source people together to talk to us, what should we be doing instead? [05:08] One of the things that we did is we hired another researcher. So we took some of the travel money and some of the budget for commuting. We moved that into a position at the time and that, one, was wonderful because that person is brilliant. But second, it really worked out well because I don't remember if everyone remember early 2020 academic institutions were shutting budget and roles and department shut down. And it was really a crisis mode, but we were sheltered from a lot of that because of the structure we set up. [05:33] But there's been a lot of great research coming out of that group and that team. One of the fundamental things we've been just trying to figure out is where's the information you would need to understand and what's happening at open-source at a large scale level? And we found there are a lot of assumptions that are made that we can't verify. So we find that we are looking for information always in a way that respects individuals and respects people in open-source as humans. And doesn't observe them in a way that is without their consent, but it's very hard to find the information you need that doesn't just result from conveniently available information on the internet. [06:12] But for the OSPO perspective at the University of Vermont, UVM is a recent recipient of a Sloan tech grant that is going to be establishing an open-source programs office and also has a research component to understand and look at open-source communities as they emerge, especially as they emerge in local communities who have a directive to really support local effects rather than maybe like a global effect or a corporate good Richard [06:36]: So much in there. Most interesting was there were assumptions that we have that aren't verified. What assumptions are you talking about regarding open-source and what have you looked at? Amanda [06:47]: So I rant a lot amongst researchers and groups of people, Richard, as you know, and I don't have time to verify all of my ranting or all of my hypothesis. But one of the research lines that I am most excited about learning and exploring more. There's a paper that came out from our team and I will add it to the show notes late,r is called the penumbra of open-source. And so the research team and I was not on this paper, but the research team examined whether or not the sample that we used from GitHub is actually representative of the larger open-source ecosystem. [07:24] And so they went about looking for individual hosted, but public and open Git servers to be able to start to look at whether or not, if you choose not to be on a platform like GitHub or GitLab or any other hosted platform repository, does your open-source project organization, metadata, community, organization, decision making, does that look like what's hosted on GitHub? And they found that it wasn't. So GitHub itself, they called the convenient sample. It's something that's used because it's easy for researchers to get to, which I would also challenge the convenience and ease of getting specifically that data access, because most of that data is accessed by researchers, by aggregated collections like the GitHub archive, or there's a few other aggregation projects, but they're all open-source or research projects. [08:15] They are funded by groups like Google or groups like Microsoft. But if you actually wanted to do aggregated research of what is happening in open-source and trends in time. That's something that is a huge data engineering project. And the best that we can do right now is samples off of those aggregated platforms. But it's not clear in a way that it used to be. So if you look at a lot of the studies that are coming out, they may look at something like the Linux kernel, or they may look at something like projects from the Apache software foundation, because all of the tools that those developers use are in a much more aggregated and less distributed format and also less proprietary systems. [08:57] So that data is actually accessible and is more transparent. Otherwise, a lot of open-source decision making is really behind proprietary or closed doors. And that might be the decision of the community. They may not also realize that like the effects of those decisions. Richard [09:12]: I don't know of a lot of projects that are outside of GitHub. I used to know of one, I just checked and Gela Techno Finn minority language documentation has now moved to GitHub, which seems to happen a lot, I assume. And so it's always shocking to me to hear that people have projects elsewhere and they think about it elsewhere. One of the things I want to focus on though, besides that, which always blows my mind, is you talked about open source decision making happening behind doors. And it seems to me to be at ends with what we think of as open-source naively when we begin learning about open=source, we think, oh, open-source, everything's out in the open. [09:50] It's great. freedom of speech, freedom of everywhere. I want to know more about how people interface with closed decisions behind doors and open-source, and whether everyone knows that, and we're just not talking about it openly, or whether that's something that actually causes fractures in communities when they realize that the power is elsewhere. I'm just curious about your opinion on this. Amanda [10:13]: So to be perfectly frank and clear, decisions about open-source have always been behind closed doors. So there is an illusion of access, but not everybody has always been invited to those meetings. So talking with folks who have been involved in open-source even much longer than I have, we've talked about these different kinds of cyclic patterns and community and transparency and in governance, different kinds of governance models. So it used to be that folks would show up a few days before a conference, ahead of time or stay afterwards for a few conferences. [10:49] And if you were invited to those meetings, you were part of that decision making group. But I would like to point out that the first person that became a core dev programmer contributor for the Cython kernel is actually Mariatta Wijaya. And she just joined that a few years ago. So she was the first person who identified as a female who was even invited for this programming language that's been around for 20 years. And I will say, I feel like that community's done a wonderful job in understanding their limitations and where they have and have not been transparent and open. [11:21] And Guido van Rossum has the creator of the language has also been one of the staunch supporters, allies, and movers of change for that. But it took a long time for that to happen. So the idea that there are these close off areas where decision are making is nothing new. However, there was always this idea that at least conversations and decisions and communication happen as something as open as a mailing list, and everybody had access to something like the mailing list. Maybe it was cell hosted or maybe it was hosted on a centralized platform, but at least you could see it. That's not the same case anymore. [11:54] We have a ton of developer platforms now that people choose to have conversations on. Sometimes those communications get centralized with things like repositories. And that is for trying to make communication and understanding more atomic, which is totally understandable. And every community gets to make these decisions for themselves. And if you are trying to piece together all of this information, it's a huge data archeology problem. This is something that Julia Farole and I talk about a lot, is if you just want to understand what's happening in a community, who is making decisions, who has access, who is even doing any of the work, like if we just want to understand what work is even visible or valued in a community that's very challenging to see right now. And that's another one of our core research areas that we're working on, is just making labor visible across open-source. Ben [12:47]: So I just wanted to kind of pick up and extend Richards question to a degree. And just, if you can talk a little bit about the difference that you see in communities that are based on more kind of some might say modern traditional platforms, like GitLab, maybe [13:06 inaudible] to a certain degree, but versus those projects that exist kind of, I would say off-platform and behind kind of mailing list and so on, because I think a lot of people would say that some communication methods like mailing list, mailman and so on could be argued to be less accessible than say, like GitHubs, that's now got a lot more kind of discussion based features and so on. So I was just wondering like what kinds of behaviors you see and what kind of difference do you see between communities that emerge and continue to kind of exist off of platforms, like GitHub and GitLab? Amanda [13:43]: So I will say, I feel like the differences between centralized platform centric communities and non platform centric communities. I feel like that actually is still an open research question because of the fact that again, like the data collection for it is pretty hard to do, so you have to start like adding layers at a time. So you can look at things at just like maybe how the repositories are structured, but that may or may not be indicative of how decisions are made, which may or may not be indicative of communication layers. [14:12] But when we start thinking about this in terms of how do you model that? These are all actually separate modeling techniques that you use for each of these different kinds of layers. And I think that is something our team is actively interested in and working on. I have a lot of theories that are not founded on that right now. I would love to start looking at what kinds and if any, are there heard cultural norms, values, but I would really love to start understanding and seeing when a decision is made to choose one technology over the other for dev tool stacks for a community, because there's a lot of porting that's happened in the last few years. [14:51] How has that worked out? So not even like the initial choice to choose that dev tool or that infrastructure stack may have been made five years ago for different reasons that they would be made now. Has that worked out to meet the community's goals? Has it changed who has access and who has voice? Has it changed who's work is visible or is that something that's still an unsolved problem for the community? And are there ways that we need to think about focusing on that so that they get more visibility and transparency regardless of their decision? Ben [15:21]: I kind of feel like those latter points about whose contributions are recognized and valued and so on is a little bit of a, hidden nugget of another point, because I would say that my opinion, which is also not based on fact, but my experience to date has been communities that are based around platforms like GitHub are maybe a little bit more code centric and communities that aren't are possibly a little bit more interpersonal. And I think that there's a whole load of issues that we could potentially unpack there. Do you see any of that already? Is that something that you are already kind of thinking about or working on? Amanda [15:56]: Yes. So our team has been working on, we call it the across project and I always forget what the acronym stands for, but it basically comes to like better attribution and credit in open source. So we have done research on that. The paper actually won the Fass award at Minimg Software Repositories conference last year. And it was actively looking at contributions that are measured for code centric repositories, as you said, because this is what we're really trying to show, is that when you're only looking at code and acknowledging that a lot of people are trying to shove a lot of things into repos these days that maybe they weren't intentionally designed for, for, but again, going along with that idea of atomic information, about a project or about a community or about an ecosystem. [16:38] So looking at a repository centric view, we evaluated the difference between how GitHub contributors shows actions and gives attribution how the events API does it. There's a tool that one of my colleagues, Katie McLaughlin wrote called octohatrack, which looks at a code repo on GitHub and produces a list of contributors for anybody who's ever interacted with that repository, which is different than what the GitHub API shows. And then we also compared that against repositories that were using the all contributors bot. So the all contributors bot for those listening who are not familiar with this, the bot it is a way that you can manually add in or add in through different actions. So it's, auto plus manual. [17:19] Ways that you can start to give people credit and attribution for things that may not be reflected by a change in the repo. So we started to look at the difference between for communities and projects, what kind of things were getting added manually versus what automatic contributions would show. And we were able to see that folks that were using manual additions were giving credit from more of the kind of work that would never show up in an API. And so part of this is really starting to think about what kind of mixed methods tooling, changes to tooling we should be thinking about as a community to really start to give that visibility into all of the work that happens like this podcast itself, unless it's in a repo is not going to be showing up as a part of the open-source community if you're doing archeology around open-source contributions. [18:12] But I would argue that discourse and thought and community should be something that would be recognized. And so we held some workshops. I mean, we're going to have some more results coming out from that. But one of the things that we did find, which we can talk about is that getting everybody in open-source to agree on what a project is, an organization is, or an event is a very hard problem. So standardized definitions is not something that carries across as a global ecosystem level. And so when we talked earlier about examining different projects, I think drawing boundaries and open-source is a very challenging problem. So you have to be very distinct when you talk about where the boundaries around people are or around technology is as opposed to being able to say open source is like this big, broad thing. Ben [19:01]: I was wondering the role of GitHub. And I'm curious your thoughts on how much control we actually have as an open-source community to make really effective changes when the tool that basically we all kind of go to for open source is a private company with their own interests. I was wondering what type of responsibility you see that would come from GitHub and is that going to affect us long term and how so? Amanda [19:26] : I mean, obviously I work for a for-profit company. I don't work for a nonprofit, I don't work for, I'm not an independent consultant or contractor. So for me, I do look at the question of what is the goal of a community to moving to a centralized platform at any time. And I think that when done intentionally and if always done with a feeling of independence and autonomy, that's the right decision for that team to be able to move and choose which dev tools and platforms work best for them. When it feels like there are only one option for any kind of tool or infrastructure or access, that's when I always will start getting concern. [20:10] So for me, when we think about centralized platforms, I think the trade offs for that is considering whether or not this is serving the community, or is this serving the platform and the product? And always taking the perspective and understanding that whenever you choose to be on a product, even if it's a free tier, it's not that are giving nothing in response for getting everything. So in the before, like before I used to, I had this job, I think one of the jokes I used to have with my friends is, if you would like me to tear down your terms and conditions from a data perspective, I'm happy to do that for you to talk about what kind of things the data teams may be working with based on what you sign off as a user. [20:51] It's something I've been highly aware of my entire career, but I don't know if everybody else views it that way. So I also know that when I talk with folks about doing productivity studies of open-source, it makes people feel a little bit nervous. Nobody wants to observed in a way that they are not opting into. So when I try to think about the work that we're doing and where we encourage and think about transparency, not just as a cultural communal trait, but as a source of representation and census. [21:21] So when we hear or think or talk about the larger effects that open-source has in the world, who gets to be represented in that, how is their work represented in that? Your decisions around transparency and proprietary information, how is that influencing or changing the way that larger view has? How does it change the conversation? How does that change the global business and how investments are made? And I think that we can want to pretend that all of those analogies and realities don't exist, but the fact is that they do, and individual efforts can add up to collective and cumulative effects. [22:04] But that's when we really have to start talking as to who does it serve and why. And so I think for me, when I think about centralized platforms and whether or not that gives access, or it removes access, as long as communities are understanding that and understanding who it leaves out and who it includes, that's really the decision that I look for when I'm trying to see why and how people are choosing to be on different kinds of managed services. Richard [22:33]: I'm really enjoying this conversation and I'm really enjoying listening to you, but it's been difficult for me to formulate a question effectively, partially because a lot of the words you are using are not things that I have here on autopilot. A lot of our guests, no offense to them, they're wonderful guests, but I can just be like, cool, where is your business model coming from? How's that going? How are you making things better? And with you, the concepts that you're throwing out during the conversation are ones that I don't regularly wrestle with, using this verbiage which I find very effective. One of the things that I know we've talked about before is open-source as different types of systems, open-source X kind of a system. You mentioned earlier that you worked as a control. I, don't even remember the term because I don't really know what it is, like a control engineer or something I'm guessing that's more like low level. Amanda [23:22]: Okay. I will give you a little bit of a break Richard in that, control systems engineer comes up on exactly zero drop menus. Anytime I've ever had to input. So I don't even know how many programs have that, but it is what's on my bachelor's degree and it's not something that is, and to be quite fair, it's weapons and control systems engineering. Because I went to the United States Naval academy. So that definitely not on there, but my focus while I was there was robotic systems and environmental engineering, which at the time was why are microgrids not yet feasible and how much does solar cost? So totally fine. If that doesn't didn't originally. Richard [24:05]: That's excellent. Thank you for explaining, what did that mean again? Amanda [24:10]: Well, okay. So the TLDR control systems is how do you take what could be inoperable systems and actually make them work together, in a way where you can abstract enough of the way the physics that you can understand where they interconnect. And for me basically it's how do I now see the world as block diagrams and feedback loops? Richard [24:29]: So how do you see open-source as block diagram and feedback loops? What is open-source then to you? Amanda [24:34]: Okay. So I have a full list of these kinds of things and I will say like I have open documents in writing that I have not yet pushed out. And Julie and I do did touch on this in our Ruby comp talk. So we gave a talk last year called black swans of open-source. And that's a research line we're still working on because we're so fascinated by this issue. But the way that we talk about it is open-source. Like you said, open-source is a blank system. And then it's all these different layers and lenses and views that we are looking at this system as. [25:07] And so talking about, I think we talked about before that open-source is a complex system, which is why Vermont complex systems work so well, then I can go through complexity theory or drop some links into the show notes for folks who need to be able to work on that. But we also view the lens that open-source is a sociotechnical system that you cannot divorce the human and social elements and constructs from the technical decisions and effects that it has. Open-source is distributed. It's cooperative. It's an economic system that we don't talk about enough what that means and the effects that it has again on people in it and how it evolves over time. [25:40] And most recently I've also been trying to parse out in my brain that if we view open-source as a legacy system. The concept of open-source as a legacy system, what does that mean for me and a Jing, like an aging global system construct while still keeping it running and then evolving it moving forward. Where are the magnetic tape mainframes of open-source that we just stick these clients and these things on top of? And then build fatter clients on top of, and then we look at it and we're like, well, everything's fine, right? [26:20] But then we start to have things like critical vulnerabilities that are deep down in these older infrastructures and it strikes us by surprise. So I think this is where the black swans area moves into is because Julie and I really try to parse apart and understand what are the analogies and assumptions that we use to describe open-source and are those valid, do they exist? Are they just constructs in our minds that we've used as either recruiting tales or onboarding tales or based on life experience, but don't really exist outside of our own time-frame. [26:56] So this is, I think for me trying to like really take a step back and understand not to is based off of my experience, people ,I know what I can see online, and this was the Genesis for our open-source stories project too. So for those who don't know, Julie and I run a Story Corp project where we are gathering stories from folks in open-source and making them visible in public. And the purpose of that isn't even to talk about people's journeys in open source, it's just to talk about them as humans so that we really start bringing that cultural perspective together, especially before some folks just decide they no longer want to be involved. [27:31] So these are all the different ways that like, let's say background, current work, everything kind of blends together. How are we actually thinking about this and how does the world that we all love and are apart of work and how can we describe it better so that we could better support it? Richard [27:46]: I couldn't hard agree more with everything that you're saying around different ways of viewing open-source. One of the main question I have personally, and I'm going to try to phrase it in a way that's not just about Richard, is what advice would you give to someone who has these thoughts about open-source? You seem to be very and looking at a complex system and finagling other people to pay you to work on that complex system and then be able to actually effectively get your ideas about that system out there into the world. [28:14] I'm curious for those who are doing other open-source projects, for those who want to try a different economic system in their project, who want to talk about open-source is an ethics system, who want to collaborate more effectively with other people about whether open-source is even the term they want to use anymore, et cetera, et cetera. How would you suggest that they make the world of open-source a more complex and beautiful place with what they offer? What should they do? Amanda [28:41]: First of all, call me maybe, because I love co conspirator and people to talk to and work with. And I would say we talked earlier about how I'm not a fan of titles. Part of that is because so much of my career has been really non-linear, job titles, experiences, roles. And this even goes into, when I talk about thinking of representing labor and open source, I really try to avoid nouns and focus on verbs because it's less about what a person is called and more about the work that they do based on what's needed at the time or required. And so I think one of my verbs I would turn into a noun Richard is professional nerd sniper, and that's hard. [29:16] I don't want sniper in there. So it needs to be like snippet, maybe professional nerd snippet, because going back to the XKCD comic, I am very good in conversations at picking up on what brings people energy and then trying to examine in my like mind map of files, where is there a gap that I see in the world or in my projects or interests or someone else's interests and how can I help this energetic person fit with the thing that gives them energy? [29:48] So for other people, I would say that first of all, if you do have the idea that open source is a complex system, keeping in mind that then open source is not one thing. It's many interacting components and parts that interact together in multiple ways, which also tells us that there are local rules you can look at so that there's no one way to go about being in open-source, doing open-source, contributing to open-source, leading in open-source. So giving yourself, first of all, the permission to examine what is it that brings you energy and where can you put that, versus trying to follow someone else's path or pattern to what it is that they think being a leader in open-source looks like. I mean, I started being a data scientist in 2009. Nobody knew what being a data scientist would look like in 2021, 12 years ago. [30:46] So for people who are trying to examine what to do with their time, energy, talent, is really looking at, I try to view things as we're working in an emergent system. There's no map for what's happening next, especially now. There's so much chaos in what's happening in so many different things that we're working on that if you're trying to move things forward in a linear, like exponential scale, you will probably fail right now. But if instead you're viewing and looking at your work, your contributions, what you want to have as really kind of interacting and nudging things in a way where greater things can emerge from it, I feel like you'll get more satisfaction. [31:28] So I feel like a lot of that disconnect that folks have who view things either as a system or from a complexity point, is that they feel like they keep being shoved into these other expectations and these other expectations of time or scale or the way things work. And I would say if you draw back to the things that you really think to be true and examine that and find other people who value that you'll be much more satisfied. Richard [31:53]: I know you're a huge fan of DEI work in open source. A lot of what you said strikes me as very easy to accomplish if you're privileged, not saying that was intentional about what you said, I'm just saying that's how it struck me. And one of the things I'm curious about is, how would you ask people who are less privileged in open-source to be able to have the ability to do that and to share that energy and to open those doors. What would you suggest for people working open-source who don't have a huge amount of privilege and may find it harder to laterally? Amanda [32:23]: So, first of all, I do want to say, I think working in open-source isn't always going to be recognized as a centralized platform contribution profile. So when we're trying to say who and how do we actually recognize that work, please do not use that as the measurement for your own contributions, which is why I talk a lot about how some of my main contributions in open-source have been making pies for people because it makes me happy and it makes them happy. And that just makes general community good. [32:48] One of the questions I have is when we are looking at understanding what is best and what's next and needed in open-source, I am concerned that we have an increasingly weird bias. And so weird in that case would be categorized as Western educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. I mean, it's something I'm aware of. I talk to people about, and like incognizant of when we are trying to understand the future, are we increasing that or are we decreasing that? [33:15] And for me that means a lot more connection, outreach and learning from people who don't grow up or contribute or form communities that look like that. And I'll say, I have a ton of work to do there. And I'm very excited to meet more folks who create community, contribute to technology, who don't fit that profile and learning more about what engages them, what keeps them there and what challenges they face, because we know what challenges some folks face. We know that some folks work at technology companies and are extremely talented and rich, but none of their work ever shows up in a public place. And then when they get home, they have other things that they have to do and they will never have anything it's in a public place, but it doesn't make them any less of a contributor in the world. [34:02] Or maybe even a contributor towards asking questions and clarifications and making documentation improved in a way that their name will never show up. But I do think the centralized idea of finding and connecting with community is universal and ensuring that everyone has access to information and communication networks is a human right. And so making sure that people all have access to global communication regardless of where they live and the devices that allow them those communication is something we should all be concerned with and that we should make sure that we are in a way that increases equity and not in a way that actually separates us even more. Ben [34:39]: I love this conversation. There have been so many touch points for me that I'm just massively interested in. And to be honest, a little bit obsessed by, and I think there is a moment, an intersection here between kind of a philosophical kind of view of open-source. You kind of get to decide whether it is about the peopl or it's about the code, which for me is kind of like the discussions that you sometimes hear about market economics, is demand and supply actually decided by the demand side or by the supply side, because the supply side creates the demand side? [35:14] I was wondering with that in mind, and talking about the privilege that people have at the moment to be able to use their free time to contribute to open-source software versus those that necessarily don't, what are your thoughts on kind of emerging ways of being able to support projects financially and things that we can do to support that, to bring the next generation from the developing world, from the global [35:38 inaudible], from however you want to kind of refer to the parts of the world where people just haven't really had the opportunity to benefit yet. Amanda [35:45]: So I think one of the best things we can think about doing is technology companies can start building more offices in places that are not the United States and Europe and certain countries in Asia. So encouraging, not just offshore or remote job. And I know that the idea of offices right now still feels like perhaps either a scary thing. But the reason I bring that up is because very concretely that also changes tax structures and incentives and benefits for companies. [36:11] So there's a big difference between being able to hire someone as a contract, which is fine. That's sometimes the job structure that some people want, but that's a very different benefit structure for other people than sometimes being a full-time employee. So when I think about equity, one of the first things I started thinking about is where are you investing in offices? Where are you investing in incorporating your company? Where are you invested in hiring people from? And the very clear economics of link communities in those countries and countries that are not places that other companies do business is sometimes it can be very challenging as you well know, to get money transferred across borders. [36:47] And in a way where it respects regulatory requirements and actually understands all of those tax incentives. So sometimes one of the hard problems in open-source is getting resources to the groups. If you have resources and someone else needs them moving the thing you have to the thing in need can be very challenging because we only have so many systems that are set up to be able to do that. And being able to do that at scale is an entirely different problem. So when I start thinking about growing places, first of all, I do think about also asking the people who are already there and who are already creating those groups and those challenges. [37:25] So I really have learned a lot and I absolutely love working with the folks from open-source community Africa, and also from Python, Africa and Python, Ghana or some really interesting groups. Python, Ghana is interesting for me because is a countrywide Python community. It's both distributed and centralized in the same way that seems to be working well for folks that they work with. And it incorporates a lot of other kind of groups. Open-source community Africa, I had a chance to go to their open-source festival right before the shutdown in 2020. [37:56] And they had, I think they were expecting like a few hundred people. And by the final day it was over a thousand. I mean, it was tons of students and people brought together and it was absolutely wonderful. When I think also too, about another thing I'm working on now, I would love to improve documentation transparency and reporting around sponsorships for open-source of just making it more clear, what organizations need in a way that is discoverable accessible and able to be found by groups. [38:30] I would love the people who have resources to give, to cast wider nets and have better places to be able to connect with those they depend on and in return, I would love transparency reporting for those sponsorships and the impacts of those sponsorships to be accessible in ways that when we see organizations or foundations or very small projects, be recipients of sponsors, giving them the support and the tools they need to be able to show what impact that had also for holding each other more accountable. There's a lot of money moving around in these ecosystems. And the questions that I constantly have is, are those the right places they should be moving? Richard [39:15]: I think that's probably a really good place to wrap up because it was just so succinct and perfect. So thank you so much, Amanda, for people who want to get in touch with you on the internet to learn more how they can collaborate and get these things done with your help, if you're available, where can they find you online? Amanda [39:30]: Twitter is the best place to contact me, which I know is a closed platform, but it's the easiest way for me to go through all of the direct contact. If you're curious about the open-source stories project, we are on GitHub, but we also have a website with links to be able to contact there as well. Richard [39:49]LThank you so much. And Twitter will also be in the show notes for those of you who want to reach her on Twitter. Amanda this has been excellent, but don't go yet. This is the part of the show where we talk about people, projects or things, which we think we should shed light on and or that need more love, that's right. It's spotlight, Eric Barry, what is your spotlight today? Eric [40:11]: First I got to say, I'm just overwhelmed on how amazing the show has been. So thank you, Amanda. Absolutely incredible podcast episode. I'm a big fan boy. So what I'd like to spotlight is actually an article you had submitted on open-source ecosystems, which need equitable credit across all of the contributions and stuff. I read through that, it was just really fascinating. I recommend anybody to read it. The link will be in the show notes. Richard [40:35]: Thank you so much. Excellent. Ben Nichols. Ben [40:38]: This is incredibly timely. So excuse me if it doesn't age too well, but I just wanted to give a big shout out to Jess Sax and the maintainers of [inaudible] JS that have picked up the project and are kind of providing a huge value to the community that depend on that project. We've been working with them over the course of the last week and the way that they have acted to try to kind of set things up in the best interests of all of the users, all of the kind of contributors, the previous maintainers and everything. Like it's just, it's been great to work with them. So I just wanted to kind of call out Jess specifically, but all of the new maintainers of [inaudible] JS. Richard [41:18]: Awesome. Thank you. In a left turn, I'm going to just give a shout out to Red Hen baking. If you're in Vermont and you want to go to a really nice bakery, there's a place in Middlesex, which is really nice. It's called Red Hen. If you don't have a local baker, I'd suggest looking around because if you're in the United States, there's probably a bakery near you somewhere that makes really good bread. This is mine. So Red Hen baking is excellent. Really like their mad river loaf, highly suggest. Amanda, what is your spotlight today? Amanda [41:47]: Yeah. So for those who don't know, I'm also a complete library and book nerd. And so I get really excited about the open-access projects and books. And so my recommendation, I couldn't narrow it down. So I'm going to say my recommendations today. I love the data feminism book that came out in 2020. It is available via open-access. I recently found a project called the data sitters club, which attracted to me because I found it on the executable book project, which is a whole community around Jupiter book, open-access and computational publishing. [42:16] The data sitters club is this group of people who are helping to explain computational text analysis and open data using open-access, open data and actual exploring fair use. And it is completely fair use of the babysitters club that I grew up with. And I absolutely adore the way that they've adopted that. They have a lovely debt of public health posters for the pandemic that they created in 2020 that still bring me joy to read. Richard [42:46]: Love it. Awesome, Amanda, thank you. Once again, it was great having you on, look forward to talking to you further in the future and best of luck with everything. Thanks. Amanda [42:55]: Thank you. This is great. Special Guest: Amanda Casari.

In this episode, Allen and Sarah (fangirl and boy) chat with the authors of , Lauren Klein and Catherine D'Ignazio. They talk about their career journeys, and the importance of applying intersectional feminist thought when analysing data. Lauren and Catherine are serious badasses, sharing how the Data Feminism journey started with a conference paper. Join us in this episode as they share how their journey began with a leap of faith, leading them to team up to write a book inspiring new generations of data feminists.   

Museums have many facets, but one of their key functions is to serve as repositories for histories, cultures, and information. In more recent years, our field has begun to re-evaluate the specific stories museums have collected, and more importantly, amplify those that have been excluded. On February 1st we explored diversifying our data with Frances Lloyd-Baynes, Head of Collections Information Management at Minneapolis Institute of Art.   Additional Resources: AAMC Artist Demographics Consortium   Judith Pineiro, Executive Director   AAMC & AAMC Foundation   judith.pineiro@artcurators.org   Slack: TMS Artists Questionnaire Group Jaye Melino, MoMA (Host) jaye_melino@moma.org "Decolonizing Digital Preservation", Monica Montgomery, Founder of Museum Hue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgU3HhzvJuY On Feb 10, 2021 there was a "DAMS and Museums" one-day virtual conference focusing on digital asset management (images, videos, etc.) in the museum sector. Monica Montgomery, Founder of Museum Hue, gave a really great presentation on "Decolonizing Digital Preservation", which I think is applicable to everyone working in the cultural heritage space, not just folks managing digital assets. The session is now available to watch on the Henry Stewart DAMS YouTube channel. I highly recommend it.   This presentation appears to be available only via the TMS List-Serv (TMSUSERS@SI-LISTSERV.SI.EDU) through an informal sharing via email. Folks might be best-placed to contact the authors directly. "Building an Inclusive Database: Cataloging Race, Gender, Sexuality and Other Identities", Terri Anderson and Emily Houf, Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, Collective Imagination 2016 conference   Resources: "Documenting Diversity: How should museums identify art and artists?" Frances Lloyd-Baynes, March 27, 2019.  https://www.aam-us.org/wire/medium/documenting-diversity/ Data Feminism. Catherine D'Ignazio, Lauren F. Klein. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020   Digital Transgender Archives  https://www.digitaltransgenderarchive.net/ Ethical Questions in Name Authority Control, Jane Sandberg, ed. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press, 2019 Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000 Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities. Elizabeth Losh and ‎Jacqueline Wernimont. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2018 Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies, How We Collect Data Determines Whose Voice Is Heard (2020)  https://www.schusterman.org/blogs/rella-kaplowitz/how-we-collect-data-determines-whose-voice-is-heard

We are joined by DFN's very own Jade Greer, Director of Strategic Initiatives at Data Feminism Network. In this episode, Jade and Ali discuss a range of annoying, infuriating, and, at times, hilarious data fails. From the automobile industry, to recruiting tools, to child welfare systems, we explore the unintended consequences of data gaps, algorithmic bias, and systemic racism. Whether you're an expert or completely new to the realm of data feminism, this episode is for you! REGISTER: Invisible Women Book Club Series BOOK: Invisible Women by Caroline Criado-Perez  BOOK: Weapons of Math Destruction by Cathy O'Neil  BOOK: Automating Inequality by Virginia Eubanks WEBSITE: Algorithmic Justice League  ARTICLE: 10,000 Women Die each year because of bad design 

Episode 78 - Steph Topic: Data Feminism & Disney Princesses Ever said to yourself: "I want to show my daughter movies with strong female role models and songs that are 68% bops but have always heard that Disney Princess movies are lame and weak and only about romance?" Well have I got the presentation for you! Join me as we take a look at seven Disney Princesses through the lens of Data Feminism, and then stick around to find out which combination of Prince/Princess/Sidekick each of the hosts is! Steph's Slideshow We Show Some Love: Disney... and sisters.

Hello and welcome to CHAOSScast Community podcast, where we share use cases and experiences with measuring open source community health. Elevating conversations about metrics, analytics, and software from the Community Health Analytics Open Source Software, or short CHAOSS Project, to wherever you like to listen. Today, we have three amazing guests with us, Amanda Casari, Katie McLaughlin, and John Meluso. Amanda is a Developer Relations Engineer and researcher at Google at the Open Source Programs Office, Katie is a Developer Relations Engineer at Google, and John is the OCEAN Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Vermont. They are with us to talk about Project OCEAN (Open-Source Complex Ecosystems And Networks), how it came to be, where it is now, and what they hope to accomplish going forward. We also learn more about what they see as an open source ecosystem, and they go in depth about contributions and taxonomy. Download this episode now to find out much more, and don't forget to subscribe for free to this podcast on your favorite podcast app and share this podcast with your friends and colleagues! [00:03:44] John, Amanda, and Katie tell us their backgrounds and how they got involved in open source. [00:07:23] We learn more about OCEAN, how it came to be, and where it's at now. [00:11:25] Amanda and John explain a bit more about ecosystems. [00:15:52] Georg wonders what they have realized early on or over time that they want to make sure everyone who looks at open source takes away from their work. [00:19:59] Amanda brings up a question to the panelists concerning the idea of atomic information around software projects and balancing how much do they keep with a repo versus how do you allow for information to be distributed in many places that many people work, but it doesn't get lost and you don't lose somebody's attribution for the work they do. [00:28:58] Georg brings up the Types of Contributions metrics link CHAOSS uses that helps show how people can contribute to open source, and Katie shares her thoughts on it. [00:32:13] Sophie talks about “Which contributions count? Analysis of attribution in open source” report and what this research explores. John explains how they balance things by varying the kinds of methodologies they use. [00:38:49] Find out where you can follow Amanda, Katie, and John online. Value Adds (Picks) of the week: [00:39:45] Georg's pick is LifeTime wellness and fitness center. [00:40:31] Matt's pick is places to visit in Colorado: Rocky Mtn. National Park, Great Sand Dunes, and Gunnison National Park. [00:41:08] Sophia's pick is emergent property. [00:41:57] Amanda's pick is trading Vermont Golden Dome books with her oldest child. [00:43:10] Katie's pick is the book, CPython Internals by Anthony Shaw. [00:44:03] John's pick is the book, Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein. Request from our Guests: Open Source Folks: Take (and share!) this anonymous survey about receiving credit for tasks in open source! Conducted by researchers at the University of Vermont in partnership with Google Open Source. [https://qualtrics.uvm.edu/jfe/form/SV_1zUs19oVcZJ0SPA](https://qualtrics.uvm.edu/jfe/form/SV_1zUs19oVcZJ0SPA) Panelists: Georg Link Sophia Vargas Matt Germonprez Guests: Amanda Casari Katie McLaughlin John Meluso Sponsor: SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) Links: CHAOSS (https://chaoss.community/) CHAOSS Project Twitter (https://twitter.com/chaossproj?lang=en) CHAOSScast Podcast (https://podcast.chaoss.community/) podcast@chaoss.community (mailto:podcast@chaoss.community) Project OCEAN (https://vermontcomplexsystems.org/partner/OCEAN/) Amanda Casari Twitter (https://twitter.com/amcasari?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Open Source Stories-Amanda Casari Website (https://www.opensourcestories.org/) Amanda Casari Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/amcasari/) Katie McLaughlin Twitter (https://twitter.com/glasnt) Katie McLaughlin Website (https://glasnt.com/) John Meluso Twitter (https://twitter.com/johnmeluso) John Meluso Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jmeluso/) John Meluso, PhD Website (https://www.johnmeluso.com/) John Meluso Email (mailto:john.meluso@uvm.edu) ACROSS Taxonomy-GitHub (https://github.com/google/across) CHAOSS Types of Contributions metrics (https://chaoss.community/metric-types-of-contributions/) Which contributions count? Analysis of attribution in open source-Jean-Gabriel Young, Amanda Casari, Katie McLaughlin, Milo Z. Trujillo, Laurent Hébert-Dufresne, James P. Bagrow (https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.11007) Open source ecosystems need equitable credit across contributions-Amanda Casari, Katie McLaughlin, Milo Z. Trujillo, Jean-Gabriel young, James P. Bagrow, & Laurent Hébert-Dufresne (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-020-00011-w) Nadia Eghbal Website (https://nadiaeghbal.com/) Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure by Nadia Eghbal (https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-reports/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/) Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software by Nadia Eghbal (https://www.amazon.com/Working-Public-Making-Maintenance-Software/dp/0578675862) A Place to Hang Your Hat- Leslie Hawthorn's Hat Rack blog post (https://hawthornlandings.org/2015/02/13/a-place-to-hang-your-hat/) Octohatrack-GitHub (https://github.com/LABHR/octohatrack) A tool for tracking non-code GitHub contributions-Katie McLaughlin (https://opensource.com/life/15/10/octohat-github-non-code-contribution-tracker) Recognize All Contributors (https://allcontributors.org/) CHAOSScast Podcast- Episode 39: Leaderboards and Metrics at Drupal.org with Matthew Tift and Tim Lehnen (https://podcast.chaoss.community/39) LifeTime (https://www.lifetime.life/) Rocky Mountain National Park (https://www.nps.gov/romo/index.htm) Great Sand Dunes (https://www.nps.gov/grsa/index.htm) Black Canyon Of The Gunnison (https://www.nps.gov/blca/index.htm) What Are Emergent Properties? (https://sciencing.com/emergent-properties-8232868.html) Vermont Golden Dome Books (https://libraries.vermont.gov/services/children_and_teens/book_awards/vtgdba) CPython Internals by Andrew Shaw (https://realpython.com/products/cpython-internals-book/) Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio (https://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Strong-Ideas-Catherine-DIgnazio/dp/0262044005/) Special Guests: Amanda Casari, John Meluso, and Katie McLaughlin.

We are joined by co-author of Data Feminism Lauren F. Klein. Data Feminism presents a new way of thinking about data science and ethics - one that is informed by intersectional feminist thought. Today, data science is a form of power. It has been used to expose injustice, improve health outcomes, and topple governments. But it has also been used to discriminate, police, and surveil. This potential for good, on the one hand, and harm, on the other, makes it essential to ask: Data science by whom? Data science for whom? Data science with whose interests in mind? In this episode, Lauren talks about her background, walks us through the writing process, and provides advice on how to implement the principles of data feminism. FREE Data Feminism book access  Follow: @laurenfklein Data Do No Harm Guide

In Episode 129, Quinn tries to better understand data privacy, data stewardship, and what it means for Indigenous cultures in the future of biotech, how we design equity into genetic research, and who gets to make those decisions. His guest is Krystal Tsosie, a geneticist, bioethicist, and—first and foremost to her—a person Indigenous to the southwestern United States, specifically the Navajo nation. She is the co-founder and Ethics and Policy Director at the Native BioData Consortium, the first Indigenous-led biological data repository for tribes in the US. “Representation” is just the first step (and so much more than who shows up on screen in the latest Disney movie (though even things there are still embarrassingly bland).  Next up is inclusivity: It's about who's in the room writing and building the future of technology, it's about asking who makes the rules, and who benefits from them?  But the real goal is equity, and benefit. And biotech in particular is one sector that could get out of hand real fast unless we approach it in a more inclusive and cooperative way. Krystal started her career with one question: Why don't Indigenous people generally participate in genetic studies? And the dominoes fell from there. Representation, inclusivity, equity, benefit – we can achieve these, and also uncouple DNA from identity. Have feedback or questions?http://www.twitter.com/importantnotimp ( Tweet us), or send a message to questions@importantnotimportant.com New here? Get started with our fan favorite episodes athttp://podcast.importantnotimportant.com ( podcast.importantnotimportant.com). Important, Not Important Book Club: https://bookshop.org/a/8952/9780816665860 (Native American DNA) by Kim TallBear https://bookshop.org/a/8952/9780262044004 (Data Feminism) by Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein https://bookshop.org/shop/importantnotimportant (https://bookshop.org/shop/importantnotimportant) Links: https://nativebio.org/ (nativebio.org) Twitter: https://twitter.com/kstsosie (@kstsosie) Connect with us: Subscribe to our newsletter at http://importantnotimportant.com/ (ImportantNotImportant.com)! Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ImportantNotImp (twitter.com/ImportantNotImp) Follow Quinn: http://twitter.com/quinnemmett (twitter.com/quinnemmett) Follow Brian: https://twitter.com/beansaight (twitter.com/beansaight) Like and share us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/ImportantNotImportant (facebook.com/ImportantNotImportant) Intro/outro by Tim Blane: http://timblane.com/ (timblane.com) Important, Not Important is produced by http://crate.media/ (Crate Media) Support this podcast

In this episode, Ali and Jade reflect on DFN's three-part Data Feminism Book Club Series, hosted in collaboration with Toronto Womxn in Data Science. This episode serves as a recap, for those of you who weren't able to attend the event live, and a reflection, for those of you who did attend but want to dive deeper. We feature snippets of our Q&A with co-author Lauren F. Klein and comments from our partner, Kishawna, Founder and Executive Director of Toronto Womxn in Data Science. FREE Data Feminism Study Guide  Data collection, femicides and policy change: Lessons from Mexico (Article by Brenda González) Follow: @laurenfklein  Follow: @WomxnDSTO 

We are joined by the wonderful Naomi Nyamweya. Naomi is the Research Officer for Malala Fund where she conducts data-driven research and policy analysis to support Malala Fund's advocacy for girls' education. She's also taken on an advisory role at DFN as one of our board members as she's passionate about bringing more women and minorities into the world of data. In this episode, we introduce the principles of data feminism, illustrate how standard practices in data science reinforce existing inequalities, and explores how we can leverage data to challenge and change unequal distributions of power.

Welcome to the Data Feminism Network. We are a community-hub for individuals who are passionate about leveraging data for gender equality, and for those who are keen to learn more. At DFN, we work to promote equitable and gender-sensitive data systems for better, more inclusive decision-making. Whether you're a data science and technology expert, a social justice advocate, or completely new to the realm of data feminism, DFN is the perfect place to deepen your knowledge. Follow our podcast and other events on social media @DataFeminismNetwork on Instagram and @DataFemNetwork on Twitter.

Where does cultural innovation come from? Histories often simplify the complex, shared work of creation into tales of Great Men and their visionary genius — but ideas have precedents, and moments, and it takes two different kinds of person to have and to hype them. The popularity of “influencers” past and present obscures the collaborative social processes by which ideas are born and spread. What can new tools for the study of historical literature tell us about how languages evolve…and what might a formal understanding of innovation change about the ways we work together?Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I'm your host, Michael Garfield, and every other week we'll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.This week we talk conclude our two-part conversation with Emory University researcher Lauren Klein, co-author (with Catherine D'Ignazio) of the MIT Press volume Data Feminism. We talk tracing change in language use with topic modeling, the role of randomness in Data Feminism, and what this work ultimately does and does not say about the hidden seams of power in society…Subscribe to Complexity wherever you listen to podcasts — and if you value our work, please rate and review us at Apple Podcasts and/or consider making a donation at santafe.edu/give.You can find numerous other ways to engage with us — including books, job openings, and open online courses — at santafe.edu/engage.Thank you for listening!Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast theme music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInRelated Reading & Listening:Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio & Lauren Klein“Dimensions of Scale: Invisible Labor, Editorial Work, and the Future of Quantitative Literary Studies” by Lauren Klein“Abolitionist Networks: Modeling Language Change in Nineteenth-Century Activist Newspapers” by Sandeep Soni, Lauren Klein, Jacob EisensteinOur Twitter thread on Lauren's SFI Seminar (with video link)“Disentangling ecological and taphonomic signals in ancient food webs” by Jack O Shaw, Emily Coco, Kate Wootton, Dries Daems, Andrew Gillreath-Brown, Anshuman Swain, Jennifer A DunneMore resources in the show notes for Part 1: Surfacing Invisible Labor.

When British scientist and novelist C.P. Snow described the sciences and humanities as “two cultures” in 1959, it wasn't a statement of what could or should be, but a lament over the sorry state of western society's fractured intellectual life. Over sixty years later the costs of this fragmentation are even more pronounced and dangerous. But advances in computing now make it possible for historians and engineers to speak in one another's languages, catalyzing novel insights in each other's home domains. And doing so, the academics working at these intersections have illuminated hidden veins in history: the unsung influence and cultural significance of those who didn't write the victors' stories. Their lives and work come into focus when we view them with the aid of analytic tools, which change our understanding of the stories we've inherited and the shape of power in our institutions. One strain of the digital humanities called data feminism helps bring much-needed rigor to textual study at the same time it reintroduces something crucial to a deeper reconciliation of the disciplines: a human “who” and “how” to complement the “what” we have inherited as fact.Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I'm your host, Michael Garfield, and every other week we'll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.This week we talk to Emory University researcher Lauren Klein, co-author (with Catherine D'Ignazio) of the MIT Press volume Data Feminism. In Part 1 of a two-part conversation, we discuss how her work leverages the new toolkit of quantitative literary studies and transforms our understanding of historical dynamics — not just in the past, but those in action as we speak…For Part 2 in two weeks, subscribe to Complexity wherever you listen to podcasts — and if you if you value our research and communication efforts, please rate and review us at Apple Podcasts and/or consider making a donation at santafe.edu/give.You can find numerous other ways to engage with us — including job openings and open online courses — at santafe.edu/engage.Thank you for listening!Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast theme music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedIn Related Reading & Listening:Data Feminism by Catherine D'Ignazio & Lauren Klein“Dimensions of Scale: Invisible Labor, Editorial Work, and the Future of Quantitative Literary Studies” by Lauren KleinOur Twitter thread on Lauren's SFI Seminar (with video link)Cognition all the way down by Michael Levin & Daniel DennettComplexity 34 - Better Scientific Modeling for Ecological & Social JusticeComplexity 42 - Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West on Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven WorldComplexity 45 - David Wolpert on the No Free Lunch Theorems and Why They Undermine The Scientific MethodComplexity 64 - Reconstructing Ancient Superhighways with Stefani Crabtree & Devin White Mentions Include:Ruha Benjamin, Joy Buolamwini, Julia Lefkowitz, Ted Underwood, Derrick Spires, David Wolpert, Farita Tasnim, Stefani Crabtree, Devin White, Donna Haraway, Carl Bergstrom, Joe Bak-Coleman, Michael Levin, Dan Dennett

Catherine D'ignazio is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Data + Feminism Lab at the MIT. She is also an artist and software developer who focuses on feminism and data literacy.  Catherine has also co-authored a super interesting and eye-opening book, Data Feminism, about what I call the female data gap.   I found our conversation super inspiring, touching upon subjects of culture, history and religion, digging deep into the roots of gender data and its biases, inaccuracies, and even its non-existence.

[Dr. Karina Rider](https://twitter.com/kaareeenah) joins us to talk about research they've done focused on civic tech organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area. We'll talk through their findings, the way systems around us impact involvement in civic tech, and more. ### Resources and Shoutouts: - [The Slow Professor](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26367751-slow-professor) - [The New Spirit of Capitalism](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1166150.The_New_Spirit_of_Capitalism?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=0NLmUVekqw&rank=1) - [Venture Labor](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13697468-venture-labor?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=KIjv0voZqg&rank=1) - [Data Feminism](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51777543-data-feminism?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=pIjupL7Mw2&rank=1) - - [Dr. Rider's website](https://karinarider.wordpress.com/) ##### Music Credit: [Tumbleweeds by Monkey Warhol](http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Monkey_Warhol/Lonely_Hearts_Challenge/Monkey_Warhol_-_Tumbleweeds)

Podcast: Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas (LS 68 · TOP 0.05% what is this?)Episode: 156 | Catherine D'Ignazio on Data, Objectivity, and BiasPub date: 2021-07-19How can data be biased? Isn't it supposed to be an objective reflection of the real world? We all know that these are somewhat naive rhetorical questions, since data can easily inherit bias from the people who collect and analyze it, just as an algorithm can make biased suggestions if it's trained on biased datasets. A better question is, how do biases creep in, and what can we do about them? Catherine D'Ignazio is an MIT professor who has studied how biases creep into our data and algorithms, and even into the expression of values that purport to protect objective analysis. We discuss examples of these processes and how to use data to make things better.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Catherine D'Ignazio received a Master of Fine Arts from Maine College of Art and a Master of Science in Media Arts and Sciences from the MIT Media Lab. She is currently an assistant professor of Urban Science and Planning and Director of the Data+Feminism Lab at MIT. She is the co-author, with Lauren F. Klein, of the book Data Feminism.Web siteMIT web pageGoogle Scholar publicationsData + Feminism LabWikipediaTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Sean Carroll | Wondery, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

How can data be biased? Isn't it supposed to be an objective reflection of the real world? We all know that these are somewhat naive rhetorical questions, since data can easily inherit bias from the people who collect and analyze it, just as an algorithm can make biased suggestions if it's trained on biased datasets. A better question is, how do biases creep in, and what can we do about them? Catherine D'Ignazio is an MIT professor who has studied how biases creep into our data and algorithms, and even into the expression of values that purport to protect objective analysis. We discuss examples of these processes and how to use data to make things better.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Catherine D'Ignazio received a Master of Fine Arts from Maine College of Art and a Master of Science in Media Arts and Sciences from the MIT Media Lab. She is currently an assistant professor of Urban Science and Planning and Director of the Data+Feminism Lab at MIT. She is the co-author, with Lauren F. Klein, of the book Data Feminism.Web siteMIT web pageGoogle Scholar publicationsData + Feminism LabWikipediaTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we chat to Catherine D'Ignazio, Assistant Professor of Urban Science and Planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT and Director of the Data + Feminism Lab, about data feminism, what that means and why feminism matters in data science. We talk applying programming skills to social justice work, the tension between corporate and social good, and how technology can be oriented towards the feminist project of shifting power. D'Ignazio explains what would be needed to reshape the model of accountability in AI and why ‘better' technology might not be less harmful. She argues that data work can be most effective at producing better outcomes when grounded in feminist scholarship and practice. We hope you enjoy the show. Content Warning: This episode contains a brief discussion of femicide. 

As data are increasingly mobilized in the service of governments and corporations, their unequal conditions of production, their asymmetrical methods of application, and their unequal effects on both individuals and groups have become increasingly difficult for data scientists–and others who rely on data in their work–to ignore. But it is precisely this power that makes it worth asking: “Data science by whom? Data science for whom? Data science with whose interests in mind? These are some of the questions that emerge from what we call data feminism, a way of thinking about data science and its communication that is informed by the past several decades of intersectional feminist activism and critical thought. Illustrating data feminism in action, this talk will show how challenges to the male/female binary can help to challenge other hierarchical (and empirically wrong) classification systems; it will explain how an understanding of emotion can expand our ideas about effective data visualization; how the concept of invisible labor can expose the significant human efforts required by our automated systems; and why the data never, ever “speak for themselves.” The goal of this talk, as with the project of data feminism, is to model how scholarship can be transformed into action: how feminist thinking can be operationalized in order to imagine more ethical and equitable data practices.

Vicki and Geraldine talk to Lauren Klein, co-author of Data Feminism, about what's wrong with data collection, its presentation and ethics.Talking points:What doesn't get counted?Nobody can fit their whole self into a form: can datasets ever reflect the way things really are?Are emotion and data, far from being opposites, actually inextricably linked?

Vores mulighed for at opsamle information i digital form er eksploderet.Men data er ikke neutralt, hverken når det opsamles, analyseres eller bruges - og både sexisme, racisme og andre typer diskrimination dukker op i data produkter. Ikke desto mindre bruges og fremstilles data ofte som sandhed i en tid, hvor vi falder i svime over Big Data's samfundsændrende potentialer.Det er én af hovedpointerne fra bogen Data Feminism, som udkom i år. Marie Høst taler med den ene forfatter til bogen, Lauren F. Klein.

Meet the Author! In this episode, we speak with one of the authors of Data Feminism, Professor Catherine D'Ignazio, Director of the Data + Feminism lab at MIT. We talk about the difficulty of "converting life experience into data," about putting the humanity and emotion back into data, and "how we can use data to remake the world." This episode is cross-posted on the GBVIMS podcast. Thanks to Megan O'Brien for production support on this episode. Learn more about Data Feminism: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/data-feminism

Vores mulighed for at opsamle information i digital form er eksploderet. Men data er ikke neutralt, hverken når det opsamles, analyseres eller bruges - og både sexisme, racisme og andre typer diskrimination dukker op i data produkter. Ikke desto mindre bruges og fremstilles data ofte som sandhed i en tid, hvor vi falder i svime over Big Data's samfundsændrende potentialer. Det er én af hovedpointerne fra bogen Data Feminism, som udkom i år. Marie Høst taler med den ene forfatter til bogen, Lauren F. Klein. Links Data Feminism: http://datafeminism.io Lauren F. Klein: https://lklein.com Seren Williams-sagen: https://www.facebook.com/watch/SerenaWilliams/

Business Book Movement - Notion360. Revisión Online del Libro: Data Feminism - Catherine D'Ignazio y Lauren F. Klein. Invitado: Beto Saavedra. Únete a nuestra comunidad en Discord a través del siguiente enlace: https://bookmovement.co/discord See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How can feminist thinking be operationalized into more ethical and equitable data practices? As data are increasingly mobilized in the service of governments and corporations, their unequal conditions of production, asymmetrical methods of application, and unequal effects on both individuals and groups have become increasingly difficult for data scientists—and others who rely on data in their work—to ignore. But it is precisely this power that makes it worth asking: “Data science by whom? Data science for whom? Data science, with whose interests in mind?” These are some questions that emerge from what we call data feminism; a way of thinking about data science and its communication that is informed by the past several decades of intersectional feminist activism and critical thought. This talk draws on insights from the authors' collaboratively crafted book about how challenges to the male/female binary can challenge other hierarchical (and empirically wrong) classification systems; how an understanding of emotion can expand our ideas about effective data visualization; and how the concept of “invisible labor” can expose the significant human efforts required by our automated systems. About the Speakers Catherine D'Ignazio (she/her) is a hacker mama, scholar, and artist/designer who focuses on feminist technology, data literacy and civic engagement. She has run women's health hackathons, designed global news recommendation systems, created talking and tweeting water quality sculptures, and led walking data visualizations to envision the future of sea level rise. Her book from MIT Press, Data Feminism, co-authored with Lauren Klein, charts a course for more ethical and empowering data science practices. D'Ignazio is an assistant professor of Urban Science and Planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT where she is the Director of the Data + Feminism Lab. More information about Catherine can be found on her website at www.kanarinka.com. Lauren F. Klein (she/her) is a scholar and teacher whose work crosses the fields of data science, digital humanities, and early American literature. She has designed platforms for exploring the contents of historical newspapers, recreated forgotten visualization schemes with fabric and addressable LEDs, and, with her students, cooked meals from early American recipes—and then visualized the results. In 2017, she was named one of the “rising stars in digital humanities” by Inside Higher Ed. She is the author of An Archive of Taste: Race and Eating in the Early United States (University of Minnesota Press, 2020) and, with Catherine D'Ignazio, Data Feminism (MIT Press, 2020). With Matthew K. Gold, she edits Debates in the Digital Humanities, a hybrid print-digital publication stream that explores debates in the field as they emerge. Klein is an Associate Professor of English and Quantitative Theory & Methods at Emory University, where she also directs the Digital Humanities Lab. More information can be found on her website: lklein.com. About Databites Data & Society's “Databites” speaker series presents timely conversations about the purpose and power of technology, bridging our interdisciplinary research with broader public conversations about the societal implications of data and automation.  

In the two years since Catherine D'Ignazio last spoke with our Jen Ashman, she has co-authored a fascinating book called *[Data Feminism* and started a new gig as an Assistant Professor of Urban Science and Planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT. This time, their dialogue touches on the global benefits of teaching data feminism—“a way of thinking about data, both their uses and their limits, that is informed by direct experience, by a commitment to action, and by intersectional feminist thought," write D'Ignazio and her co-author Lauren F. Klein—remotely. Listen and learn about how our interdependence might lead to co-liberation, edible pie charts, and the idea of situated knowledge. There are multiple sides to this delightfully intelligent conversation, which makes sense because, as D'Ignazio says: “Data can be many things. Data could be images. They could be stories. They could be responses to a question.” Stand by for a number of thoughtful questions and wise responses… Host: Macy Donaway Editor: Kip Pilalas Producer: Ken Gordon

What we measure and the way we measure it has significant impacts on our programming. In this episode, Kelsey Simmons and Michelle Wong, both M&E specialists at IRC, walk us through the meaning of a feminist approach to monitoring, evaluation and learning. They discuss how does that work practically in humanitarian settings and through the project cycle. Resources referenced in the podcast (and a few extras): - We All Count https://weallcount.com/ - Center for Culturally Responsive Evaluation and Assessment https://crea.education.illinois.edu/ - Data Feminism https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/data-feminism - American Evaluation Association Feminist Issues in Evaluation https://comm.eval.org/feministissuesinevaluation/home - Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men - Feminist Evaluation and Research: Theory and Practice. Edited by Sharon Brisolara, Denise Seigart, and Saumitra SenGupta. New York: The Guilford Press, 2014. - Feminist Evaluation: Explorations and Experiences. Edited by Sharon Brisolara and Denise Seigart. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 96, 2002. - Seigart, Denise. “Feminist Evaluation.” By Denise Seigart. Encyclopedia of Evaluation, ed. Sandra Mathison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005. - “Feminist Evaluation and Gender Approaches: There's a Difference?” By Donna R. Podems. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6:14, 2010. - “Capturing changes in women's lives: the experiences of Oxfam Canada in applying feminist evaluation principles to monitoring and evaluation practice.” By Carol Miller and Laura Haylock. Gender & Development, 22:2, 2014.

The impact of leaving women's bodies out of research ranges from phones that are too big for female hands, to women being more likely to die if they're in a car accident. Kim Chakanetsa talks to two women investigating the data gender gap and how to resolve it. Caroline Criado Perez says a ‘one-size-fits-men' approach to design, technology and research has resulted in a myriad of instances where women have been overlooked: from cars that are safer for men driving them to stab vests that don't work as well for women's bodies. In her book, Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men she examines the impact on women of a world that has largely been built for and by men and looks at why data and statistics are far from 'gender-blind'. Lauren Klein says part of the solution lies in the lessons learned by intersectional feminism. The Associate Professor at Emory University has co-authored a book called Data Feminism with Catherine D'Ignazio. It looks at data science and data ethics and their impact on parts of society that are often overlooked and discriminated against. IMAGE L: Caroline Criado-Perez (credit: Rachel Louise Brown) R: Lauren Klein (credit: Tamara Gonzalez)