1. How, for boyd and Crawford, do automating research and using Big Data change the definition of knowledge? And what specific ethical issues does Big Data raise for these authors? Why?

2. boyd and Crawford quote Bruno Latour, who notes, “Change the instruments, and you will change the entire social theory that goes with them” (paragraph 8). What does Latour mean? How does it relate to boyd and Crawford’s stance at this point in the selection and throughout their argument? What sort of causal argument is this? (Chapter 11 discusses the forms of causal argument that we usually encounter.)

3. As in much academic writing, definitional arguments play an important role in boyd and Crawford’s discussion. Examine how the authors define the following terms and how they use them to further their own argument: Big Data (paragraphs 1–3), apophenia (paragraph 3), Fordism (paragraphs 7–8), self-injury (paragraph 11), and accountability (paragraph 15). How do boyd and Crawford both offer a definition or characterization of the concept and then employ that notion to support or explain a point they wish to make? By the way, note that in none of these situations do the authors quote Webster’s or some other dictionary; instead, they construct their definitions in other ways. (Chapter 9 on arguments of definition may prove useful in helping you answer this question.)

4. Another interesting (and common) feature of boyd and Crawford’s academic writing style is the use of figurative language. What sort of figurative language is being used in these examples?
Will it transform how we study human communication and culture, or narrow the palette of research options and alter what “research” means? (paragraph 1)
Data is increasingly digital air: the oxygen we breathe and the carbon dioxide that we exhale. (paragraph 4)
The twentieth century was marked by Fordism at a cellular level: it produced a new understanding of labor, the human relationship to work, and society at large. (paragraph 7)