A Database is not a Strategy
I’m amazed at the skepticism folks have about Big Data despite their enthusiasm for data silos of every conceivable form of human experience. An archive is an accumulation of historical records, a site for the storage and retrieval of data- it is a resource, not a message strategy. What is message strategy? Or, more pointedly, why do messages require strategy? Because raw data is insufficient to influence behavior! This was the first lesson we learned in this program, which is why we’re studying how data can be shaped and presented to achieve an intended effect. If such an effect (say, interest in US interventions) is already present or near-present in an audience, then an archive of data that supplements this feeling may appear to be effective by observed audience engagement, when in fact that engagement is a result of the viewer and not the data, which may be entirely devoid of strategic framing.
A few weeks ago I mentioned a quote by Milan Kundera to describe rational/digital development in human history, and it seems useful to recall a part of it here. Kundera writes, “The rise of the sciences propelled man into the tunnels of specialized disciplines. The more he advanced in knowledge, the less clearly could he see … the world as a whole….” From codified language to papyrus to the Gutenberg press to the internet, the ability to amass formerly unthinkable amounts of information has impressed many. So much so, in fact, that we’ve often been led to pursue form over function, since organizing things and building hierarchies feels like helpful work. But if we lose sight of the purpose for such work, we end up with Kafkaesque taxonomies and piles of data without useful application.
Take, for example, the parade of “theories” we have encountered in communications studies so far. Now compare this to the use of the term ‘theory’ within the sciences, where its proper definition is more rigorously defended. Scientific theories offer self-sufficient paradigms to generally guide and explain thinking within a field. ‘Theory’ in communications studies seems to be used simply as a naming convention for new ideas, to the extent that one must account for a profusion of dependent ‘theories’ in order to get anything done. The lesson here is that at some point, dividing and giving new names for things ceases to be of organizational assistance, and actually begins to impede visibility and progress. As for taxonomy, so, too, with data- though some information may be valuable, that value does not increase geometrically ad infinitum as more information is piled on.
Digital culture’s emphasis on subdividing, naming, and amassing data has led us far afield. We’ve done enough- now we need synthesis. Consumers need a way to find meaningful data, and it’s our job to facilitate that process by providing content divested of noise. Anything consumers don’t use is noise, so let’s get rid of it.
Leave a Reply