by Angela Guess
Jeff Stranger recently commented on the distinction between data and information. He notes, “We are obsessed with data — big data, open data, linked data, personal data, government data, visualized data. And rightly so. Data carry enormous potential. But that’s all they are — potential. It’s important that we don’t confuse “data” for “information.” Data are only the raw material of information. Unlike data alone, information carries meaning, relevance and utility. So how do we get from data to information? Last summer I explored the distinction in an online piece that argued that communication is what transforms data into useful information, and that this communication process has been fundamentally altered by the latest wave of digital technology. The underlying message is even more relevant now as we seem to be moving from Big Data to Bigger Data.”
Stranger continues, “Data don’t just materialize. They are the result of research — measuring something quantitatively or qualitatively, formally or informally; usually involving a question, a purpose, and by necessity a methodology and instrument. This process produces data broadly defined, whether numeric, textual, or audio-visual, structured or unstructured. (See, for example, Lucy Bernholz’s What Kind of Data are we Talking About? and a video interview explaining ‘data’ as anything that can be digitized.) All data depend on measurement, even data as common and seemingly objective as the weather. I could conduct research by walking outside and gathering the data points ‘hot’ and ‘humid.’ Or I could collect the data ‘90 degrees’ and ‘90% humidity’ from the same set of circumstances using a thermometer and a hygrometer. Same reality, different data. Why? Different research.”
Read the rest of the article here.
photo credit: Patrick Hoesly
