The paper makes the argument that what is forgotten in the celebration of big data is history. Big data is presented as if it were disconnected from the past, removed from issues or problems that went before. I argue in this short commentary that the past remains potent for big data and that proponents ignore it at their peril. Rather than being a brand new approach, big data brings a series of problematic assumptions and practices first criticised 40 years ago by opponents of geography’s quantitative revolution. Those assumptions, practices and criticisms are reviewed in the paper.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trevor J. Barnes (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: