1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 22, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 22, 2019

The Challenge of Big Data and Data Science

Abstract

Big data and data science are transforming the world in ways that spawn new concerns for social scientists, such as the impacts of the internet on citizens and the media, the repercussions of smart cities, the possibilities of cyber-warfare and cyber-terrorism, the implications of precision medicine, and the consequences of artificial intelligence and automation. Along with these changes in society, powerful new data science methods support research using administrative, internet, textual, and sensor-audio-video data. Burgeoning data and innovative methods facilitate answering previously hard-to-tackle questions about society by offering new ways to form concepts from data, to do descriptive inference, to make causal inferences, and to generate predictions. They also pose challenges as social scientists must grasp the meaning of concepts and predictions generated by convoluted algorithms, weigh the relative value of prediction versus causal inference, and cope with ethical challenges as their methods, such as algorithms for mobilizing voters or determining bail, are adopted by policy makers.

Keyword(s): artificial intelligence, automation, big data, causality, cyber-warfare, cyberinfrastructure, data science, internet, prediction, smart cities, text analysis
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229
2019-05-11
2025-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/22/1/annurev-polisci-090216-023229.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahlquist JA, Breunig C 2012. Model-based clustering and typologies in the social sciences. Political Anal 20:192–112
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Albus JS 1984. Robots and the economy. Futurist 18:638–44
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alvarez RM 2016. Computational Social Science: Discovery and Prediction (Analytical Methods for Social Research) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ansolabehere S, Hersh E 2012. Validation: what big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Anal. 20:4437–59
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Athey S 2018. Draft chapter, Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. Cambridge, MA: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c14009.pdf
  6. Atkins DE, Droegemeier KK, Feldman SI, Garcia-Molina H, Klein M et al. 2003. Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: report of the National Science Foundation blue-ribbon advisory panel on cyberinfrastructure Rep. Natl. Sci. Found. Washington, DC: https://stewardshipgap.net/node/17
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bail CA 2014. The cultural environment: measuring culture with big data. Theory Soc 43:3/4465–82
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Barberá P 2015. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Anal 23:76–91
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Beachy SH, Olson S, Berger AC 2015. Genomics-Enabled Learning Health Care Systems: Gathering and Using Genomic Information to Improve Patient Care and Research: Workshop Summary Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bennett WL, Segerberg A 2012. The logic of connective action. Inf. Commun. Soc. 15:5739–68
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Berk RA 2008. Statistical Learning from a Regression Perspective New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Berman F, Brady H 2005.Workshop on cyberinfrastructure for the social and behavioral sciences: final report. Rep., Natl. Sci. Found., Alexandria, VA. https://www.sdsc.edu/assets/docs/SBE-CISE-FINAL.pdf. Accessed Dec. 2, 2018
  13. Bishop CM 2011. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bohn R, Short J 2012. Measuring consumer information. Int. J. Commun. 6:980–1000
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bond RM, Fariss CJ, Jones JJ, Kramer AD, Marlow C et al. 2012. A 61-milllion-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489:7415295–98
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bond R, Messing S 2015. Quantifying social media's political space: estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:162–78
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bonica A 2013. Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. Am. J. Political Sci. 57:2294–311
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bonica A 2016. A data-driven voter guide for U.S. elections: adapting quantitative measures of the preferences and priorities of political elites to help votes learn about candidates. RSF Russell Sage Found. J. Soc. Sci. 2:711–32
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bonica A, Chilton A, Sen M 2016. The political ideologies of American lawyers. J. Legal Analysis 8:2277–335
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bonica A, Rosenthal H, Rothman DJ 2014. The political polarization of physicians in the United States: an analysis of campaign contributions to federal elections, 1991 through 2012. JAMA Intern. Med. 174:81308–17
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Boullier D 2015. The social sciences and traces of big data: society, opinion, or vibrations?. Rev. Française Sci. Politique 65:5–671–93
     [Google Scholar]
  22. boyd D, Crawford K 2012. Critical questions for big data: provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Inf. Commun. Soc. 15:5662–79
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Brady HE 2009. Causation and explanation in political science. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science R Goodin 217–70 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Brady HE, Grand SA, Powell MA, Schink W 2001. Access and confidentiality issues with administrative data. Studies of Welfare Populations: Data Collection and Research Issues Natl. Res. Counc. 220–74 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Brady HE, McNulty JE 2011. Turning out to vote: the costs of finding and getting to the polling place. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:1115–34
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Brady HE, Schlozman KL, Verba S 1999. Prospecting for participants: rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 93:1153–68
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Breiman L 2001. Statistical modeling: the two cultures. Stat. Sci. 16:3199–231
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Chen H, Chiang RHL, Storey VC 2012. Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Q 36:41165–88
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Christiano LJ 2012. Christopher A. Sims and vector autoregressions. Scand. J. Econ. 114:41082–104
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Clark WR, Golder M 2015. Big data, causal inference, and formal theory: contradictory trends in political science. PS Political Sci. Politics 48:165–70
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Clarke RA, Knake R 2011. Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It New York: HarperCollins
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Cleveland WS 2001. Data science: an action plan for expanding the technical areas of the field of statistics. Int. Stat. Rev. 69:121–26
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Conway D 2013. The data science Venn diagram. http://drewconway.com/zia/2013/3/26/the-data-science-venn-diagram
  34. Corbett-Davies S, Pierson E, Feller A, Goel S, Huq A 2017. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. Proceedings of 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Canada New York: ACM https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08230
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cukier K, Mayer-Schoenberger V 2013. The rise of big data: how it's changing the way we think about the world. Foreign Aff 92:328–40
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Deutsch KW 1963. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control New York: Free Press
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Donoho D 2017. 50 years of data science. J. Comput. Graphical Stat. 26:4745–66
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Dunlap CJ 2014. The hyper-personalization of war: cyber, big data, and the changing face of conflict. Georgetown J. Int. Aff. 15:108–18
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Dustdar S, Nastić S, Šćekić O 2017. Smart Cities: The Internet of Things, People, and Systems New York: Springer Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Dzau VJ, Ginsburg GS 2016. Realizing the full potential of precision medicine in health and health care. JAMA 316:161659–60
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Enos RD 2016. What the demolition of public housing teaches us about the impact of racial threat on political behavior. Am. J. Political Sci. 60:1123–42
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Evans P 2018. Harnessing big data: a tsunami of transformation. Opening Government137–44 Acton, ACT, Aust.: ANU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Farrell H 2012. The consequences of the internet for politics. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 15:35–52
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Glaeser EL, Cominers SD, Luca M, Naik N 2018. Big data and big cities: the promises and limitations of improved measures of urban life. Econ. Inq. 56:1114–37
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Goff PA, Lloyd T, Geller A 2016. The science of justice: race, arrests, and police use of force Rep. Cent. Policing Equity New York, NY:
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Gomez-Rodriguez M, Leskovec J, Krause A 2012. Inferring networks of diffusion and influence. ACM Trans. Knowledge Discov. Data 5:421
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Granato J, Scioli F 2004. Puzzles, proverbs, and omega matrices: the scientific and social significance of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models (EITM). Perspect. Politics 2:2313–23
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Gray J 2009. Jim Gray on eScience: a transformed scientific method. The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery T Hey, S Tansley, K Tolle xvii–xxxi Redmond, WA: Microsoft Res.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Grimmer J, Messing S, Westwood SJ 2012. How words and money cultivate a personal vote: the effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 106:4703–19
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Grimmer J, Stewart BM 2013. Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Anal 21:3267–97
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hanauer DA, Rhodes DR, Chinnaiyan AM 2009. Exploring clinical associations using ‘-omics’ based enrichment analyses. PLOS ONE 4:4e5203
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Harcourt BE 2007. Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hashem IAT, Chang V, Anuar NB, Adewole K, Yaqoob I et al. 2016. The role of big data in Smart City. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36:748–58
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J 2016. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Hersh ED 2013. Long-term effect of September 11 on the political behavior of victims' families and neighbors. PNAS 110:5220959–63
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Hilbert M, López P 2011. The world's technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science 332:60–65
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hochschild J, Sen M 2015. Genetic determinism, technology, optimism, and race: views of the American public. Ann. AAPSS 661:160–80
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Hopkins D, King G 2010. A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. Am. J. Political Sci. 54:1229–47
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hsiang SM, Burke M, Miguel E 2013. Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science 341:1235367
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hsiang SM, Meng KC, Cane MA 2011. Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate. Nature 476:438–41
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Jamieson K 2018. Cyber-War: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Jordan M 2018. Artificial intelligence—the revolution hasn't happened yet. Medium https://medium.com/@mijordan3/artificial-intelligence-the-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet-5e1d5812e1e7
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kalil T 2012. Big data is a big deal. Press release, The White House, Mar. 29. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/03/29/big-data-big-deal
  64. Kandel S, Paepeke A, Hellerstein Heer J 2011. Wrangler: interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts Paper presented at CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 7–12, Vancouver, BC
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kandel S, Paepeke A, Hellerstein Heer J 2012. Enterprise data analysis and visualization: an interview study. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 18:122917–26
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kaplan F 2017. Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War New York: Simon & Schuster
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Kim IS 2017. Political cleavages within industry: firm-level lobbying for trade liberalization. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Kim IS, Kunisky D 2018. Mapping political communities: a statistical analysis of lobbying networks in legislative politics Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol. http://web.mit.edu/insong/www/pdf/network.pdf. Accessed Dec. 2, 2018
    [Google Scholar]
  69. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2013. How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:2326–43
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kitchin R 2014. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 79:11–14
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Kitzes J, Turek D, Deniz F 2017. The Practice of Reproducible Research: Case Studies and Lessons from the Data-Intensive Sciences Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kleinberg J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S, Obermeyer Z 2015. Prediction policy problems. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 105:5491–95
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Knight W 2017. The dark secret at the heart of AI. MIT Technol. Rev. May/June. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Laney D 2001. 3D data management: controlling data volume, velocity, and variety. Application Delivery Strategies File 949, Feb. 6, META Group. https://blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controlling-Data-Volume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdf
  75. Lasswell HD 1951. The policy orientation. The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method D Lerner, H Lasswell 3–15 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Laver M, Benoit K, Garry J 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 97:2311–31
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Lazer D, Kennedy R, King G, Vespignani A 2014. The parable of Google flu: traps in big data analysis. Science 343:61761203–4
     [Google Scholar]
  78. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521:436–44
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Leskovec J, Backstrom L, Kleinberg J 2009. Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle Paper presented at 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, June 28–July 1, Paris, France
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Libicki MC 2014. Why cyber war will not and should not have its grand strategist. Strateg. Stud. Q. 8:123–39
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Lin H, Tegmark M, Rolnick D 2017. Why does deep and cheap learning work so well?. J. Stat. Phys. 168:61223–47
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Lugmayr A, Stockleben B, Scheib C 2016. A comprehensive survey on big-data research and its implications—What is really ‘new’ in big data?—It's cognitive big data!. PACIS 2016 Proceedings Abstr. 248. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2016/248
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Luks S, Brady HE 2003. Defining welfare spells. Coping with problems of survey responses and administrative data. Eval. Rev. 27:4395–420
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Lyman P, Varian HR 2003. How much information? Executive summary Rep. School Inf. Manag. Syst., Univ. Calif. Berkeley, CA: http://groups.ischool.berkeley.edu/archive/how-much-info-2003/execsum.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Maimon O, Roach L 2005. The Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Manjoo F 2016. A plan in case robots take the jobs: give everyone a paycheck. New York Times Mar. 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/plan-to-fight-robot-invasion-at-work-give-everyone-a-paycheck.html
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K 2014. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Mbadiwe T 2018. Algorithmic injustice. New Atlantis 54:3–28
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Mergel I 2016. Big data in public affairs education. J. Public Aff. Educ. 22:2231–48
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Miller K 2012. Big data analytics in biomedical research. Biomed. Comput. Rev. Winter 2011/2012:14–21. http://biomedicalcomputationreview.org/content/big-data-analytics-biomedical-research
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Mosco V 2014. To the Cloud: Big Data in a Turbulent World New York: Paradigm
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Mullainathan S, Spiess J 2017. Machine learning: an applied econometric approach. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:287–106
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Nagler J, Tucker JA 2015. Drawing inferences and testing theories with big data. PS Political Sci. Politics 48:184–88
     [Google Scholar]
  94. National Research Council. 2011. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  95. National Research Council. 2013. Frontiers in Massive Data Analysis Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Neumann R 2016. The Digital Difference: Media Technology and the Theory of Communication Effects Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Nickerson DW, Rogers T 2014. Political campaigns and big data. J. Econ. Perspect. 28:251–73
     [Google Scholar]
  98. NIST (Natl. Inst. Standards Technol.). 2015. Big data interoperability framework: Volume 1, definitions NIST Spec. Publ. 1500-1. https://bigdatawg.nist.gov/_uploadfiles/NIST.SP.1500-1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  99. NITRD (Netw. Inf. Technol. Res. Dev.). 2016. The federal big data research and development strategic plan Rep. Big Data Senior Steering Group, Subcomm. NITRD Washington, DC: https://www.nitrd.gov/PUBS/bigdatardstrategicplan.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Noble S 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism New York: New York Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Oussous A, Benjelloun FZ, Lahcen AA, Belfkih S 2018. Big data technologies: a survey. J. King Saud Univ.—Comput. Inf. Sci. 30:4431–48
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Picon A 2015. Smart Cities: A Spatialised Intelligence New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Pierson E, Simoiu C, Overgoor J, Overgoor J, Corbett-Davies S et al. 2017. A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. arXiv:1706.05678 [stat.AP]
  104. Pool IS 1983. Tracking the flow of information. Science 221:4611609–13
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Porche IR, Wilson B, Johnson EE, Tierney S, Saltzman E 2014. Barrier to benefiting from big data. Data Flood: Helping the Navy Address the Rising Tide of Sensor Information13–21 Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Powell J 2017. Identification and asymptotic approximations: three examples of progress in econometric theory. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:2107–24
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Pratt GA 2015. Is a Cambrian explosion coming for robotics?. J. Econ. Perspect. 29:51–60
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Prior M 2013. Media and political polarization. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 16:101–27
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Rid T 2012. Cyber war will not take place. J. Strateg. Stud. 35:15–32
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Ripley BD 1995. Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Roberts M, Stewart B, Tingley D, Lucas C, Leder-Luis J et al. 2014. Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:41064–82
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Rogers R 2013. Digital Methods Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Russell S, Norvig P 2009. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach New York: Pearson, 3rd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Salganik MJ 2017. Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Samuel A 1962. Artificial intelligence: a frontier of automation. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Social Sci. 340:10–20
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Sanger DE 2018. The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, and Fear in the Cyber Age New York: Crown
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Sarle W 1994. Neural networks and statistical models. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, Dallas, Texas, Aprl 10–13 Cary, NC: SAS Inst http://www.sascommunity.org/sugi/SUGI94/Sugi-94-255%20Sarle.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Schmidhuber J 2015. Deep learning in neural networks: an overview. Neural Netw 61:85–117
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Schroeder R 2018. Social Theory after the Internet: Media, Technology, and Globalization London: UCL Press
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Schudson M 2002. The news media as political institutions. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 5:249–69
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Scott JC 1999. Seeing Like a State London: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Shmueli G 2010. To explain or to predict. Stat. Sci. 25:3289–310
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Sims CA 1980. Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrics 48:11–48
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Smith G 2018. The AI Delusion New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Statistical Science. 2003. Tribute to John W. Tukey. Stat. Sci. 18:3)
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Stephens-Davidowitz S 2014. The cost of racial animus on a black candidate: evidence using Google search data. J. Public Econ. 118:26–40
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Tankersley J 2018. Democrats' next big thing: government-guaranteed jobs. New York Times May 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/us/politics/democrats-guaranteed-jobs.html
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Taylor GR 1951. The Transportation Revolution 1815–1860 New York: Rinehart
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Thagard P 1992. Conceptual Revolutions Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Theodoridis AG, Nelson AJ 2012. Of BOLD claims and excessive fears: a call for caution and patience regarding political neuroscience. Political Psychol 33:127–28
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Tinati R, Halford S, Carr L et al. 2014. Big data: methodological challenges and approaches for sociological analysis. Sociology 48:4663–81
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Titiunik R 2015. Can big data solve the fundamental problem of causal inference?. PS Political Sci. Politics 48:175–79
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Townsend AM 2013. Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia New York/London: W.W. Norton
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Tukey J 1962. The future of data analysis. Ann. Math. Stat. 33:11–67
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Turnbull N 2008. Harold Lasswell's “problem orientation” for the policy sciences. Crit. Policy Anal. 2:272–91
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Varian HR 2014. Big data: new tricks for econometrics. J. Econ. Perspect. 28:23–27
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Voigt R, Camp NP, Prabhakaran V et al. 2017. Language from policy body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect. PNAS 114:256521–26
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Ward JS, Barker A 2013. Undefined by data: a survey of big data definitions. arXiv:1309.5821 [cs.DB]
  139. Warner B, Misra M 1996. Understanding neural networks as statistical tools. Am. Statistician 50:40284–93
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Weil F 2012. The sinews of society are changing. Huffington Post, Apr. 17. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-a-weil/the-sinews-of-society-are_b_1277241.html
  141. White H 1992. Artificial Neural Networks: Approximation and Learning Theory Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Wickham H 2014. Tidy data. J. Stat. Softw. 59:101–24
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Wiedemann G 2013. Opening up to big data: computer-assisted analysis of textual data in social sciences. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 14:213 http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1949
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Wigner E 1960. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 13:11–14
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Wilkerson J, Casas A 2017. Large-scale computerized text analysis in political science: opportunities and challenges. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 20:529–44
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Williams BA, Brooks CF, Shmargad Y 2018. How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: challenges, solutions, and policy implications. J. Inf. Policy 8:78–115
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Yarkoni T, Westfall J 2017. Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: lessons from machine learning. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12:61100–22
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229
Loading
The Challenge of Big Data and Data Science
Annual Review of Political Science 22, 297 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-090216-023229
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error