Call for Papers: The Politics of Metadata
Issue 1/2021, Digital Culture & Society, http://digicults.org
Edited by: Anna Dahlgren, Karin Hansson, RƔmon Reichert and Amanda Wasielewski
Abstract submission: June 28, 2020
Author submission: July 1, 2020
Full paper submission: October 1, 2020
Final version: December 30, 2020
This special issue of the Digital Culture & Society journal invites theoretical
and methodological contributions discussing the politics of metadata. The
transformation of image collections from files and boxes to digital interfaces
has had implications for the way images are annotated and ordered. In
particular, new issues arise in relation to the practices of and policies for
creating descriptive metadata. The first generation of digitization in the
1990s sparked a lively debate around images and their credibility, which played
out in the news media, political circles, and in relation to history writing
(Mitchell, 1994; Ritchin, 1990). Despite the fact that photographic
manipulation is as old as the medium itself, the ease and availability of
software that allowed consumers to āphotoshopā images on their personal
computers ushered in an era of digital distrust. Yet, as pointed out by
Rubinstein and Sluis, āIn the past, concerns about manipulation of pixels
caused people to doubt the veracity of the digital image; however, manipulation
of metadata can have much more dramatic and far-reaching consequences and they
indicate that the construction and design of metadata inflicts archiving and
classification practices yet also the conditions of useā (Rubinstein and Sluis,
2013). In other words, while many people worry about the consequences of
digital image manipulation, the data we collect on our data, which is used to
order and recall a vast array of digital material, can also be subject to
biases and manipulations that are just as insidious and often more difficult to
detect.
The design and use of metadata is therefore always culturally, socially and
ideologically inflected (Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017;
Pollen, 2016). Indeed all metadata situate the images they furnish
historically, geographically, politically and organizationally. The actors and
their agendas and interest, whether these are institutions (museums, archives,
libraries, corporate image suppliers) or individuals (image producers, social
media agents, researchers) affect the character of metadata (Schwartz, 1995;
Schwartz and Cook, 2002). If, for example, nationality is an important founding
rationale for a museum their images will be tagged with national origin which
in itself is a historical construct and sometimes quite problematic (Rodini,
2018). Such interest may also vary over time. While the gender of the image
producer is of vital concern in memory institutions today the issue whether an
image or art work is produced by a woman or a man has not always historically
been of interest for collections managers (Pierce, 2019). Thus the available
metadata is the result, and also part of, negotiations between conflicting
interests accumulated and transformed over time (Baca, 2016). In sum these are
examples of the politics of metadata.
When it comes to big data and data-driven research, we have to pay particular
attention to the effects of the interfaces we use. Metadata and the archiving
practices that produce it are increasingly important for collecting
institutionsāand for visual culture at largeāas a means to navigate the rapidly
growing volume of data, situating them historically, socially, and locally
(Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017; Pollen, 2016). The fact
that images today are copied and redistributed in infinite numbers as well as
modified, manipulated, and placed in new contexts raises question about how
images are furnished with descriptive metadata and by whom. Metadata not only
affects the searchability and visibility of images but, by extension, how they
are used and interpreted.
Image collections today create descriptive metadata in three major ways: by
employing professional cataloguers within the institution that governs the
collection, by enlisting the help of the general public via online interfaces,
or by automation using algorithm based tools and machine learning, like pattern
recognition.
In this special issue we seek to address the ideological and political aspects
of metadata practices within image collections from an interdisciplinary
perspective. The overall aim is to consider the implications, tensions, and
challenges involved in the creation of metadata in terms of content, structure,
searchability, and diversity.
We invite proposals including, but not limited to, the following topics:
ā¢ The relationship and systemic tensions between professional and amateur
taggers, between metadata standards and folksonomies. What are the decisive
differences between descriptive metadata produced by professional cataloguers
and amateurs through crowdsourcing in terms of content, structure, and
usability? What are the differences between private and public metadata? The
numerous metadata standards, which govern much of the professionalās metadata
production display a heterogenous field (Margulies, 2017; Mayernik, 2020;
Riley, 2017, 2009). Simultaneously many institutions are not using any of the
established standards (Waldron et al., 2017). Folksonomies, in turn, have been
studied and implemented as ways to bridge between expert and non-expert
vocabularies (Cairns, 2013), and potentially to feed into the creation of
formal taxonomies or ontologies (Gil et al. 2017).
ā¢ The issue of anonymity and social identity in relation to metadata
production.
What are the implications of anonymity for metadata producers within cultural
heritage institutions, corporate image suppliers, or public crowdsourcing
platforms? How can this be understood and/or challenged in the context of
social media practices where a particular userās reputation and output history
is often the determining factor in gauging the trustworthiness of the
information produced? (Esteve, 2019)
ā¢ The challenge in creating metadata that is coherent and reflects diverse
perspectives
In order for images to be searchable, reliable, and usable, collections need to
create metadata standards for accuracy and uniformity (Zhang et al., 2019).
Simultaneously, there is an increasing demand for descriptive metadata to be
inclusive, i.e. encouraging participation and heterogeneity in representation.
Given that these two objectives might contradict or come into conflict with one
another, how can cultural heritage institutions strike a balance between them?
ā¢ Issues of standards, centrality, and networks in relation to metadata
production
For example, what is the relationship between metadata standards and their
institutional, geographical settings? Who are the major agents in the field of
metadata production and what are the implications of this? How might we develop
more horizontal systems for the production of descriptive metadata?(Piotrowski,
2009)
Paper proposals may relate to, but are not limited to, the following questions
concerning the metadata paradigm. Interdisciplinary contributions, such as
those from science and technology studies or the digital humanities, are
particularly encouraged. When submitting an abstract, authors should make
explicit to which of the following categories they would like to submit their
paper:
1. Field Research and Case Studies (full paper: 6000-8000 words)
We invite articles that discuss empirical findings from studies that approach
the relationships between data science, digital humanities, digital histories,
computational intelligence, cultural studies, art history, gender studies,
science and technology studies. These may include practices of circulating or
collecting data as well processes of production and evaluation.
2. Methodological Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words)
We invite contributions that reflect on the methodologies employed when
researching the practices of the new tendencies of metadata production. These
may include, for example, the specificities of methodological reflection of
scientific fieldwork in online/offline environments; challenges and
opportunities faced when qualitatively researching quantifiable data and vice
versa; approaches using mixed methods; discussions of mobile and circulative
methods; and reflections of experimental forms of research.
3. Conceptual/Theoretical Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words)
We encourage contributions that reflect on the conceptual and/or theoretical
dimension of the metadata paradigm, and discuss or question how the data-driven
research on metadata can be defined, what it can describe, and how it can be
differentiated.
4. Entering the Field (2000-3000 words; experimental formats welcome)
This experimental section presents initial and ongoing empirical work in
digital media studies. The editors have created this section to provide a
platform for researchers who would like to initiate a discussion concerning
their emerging (yet perhaps incomplete) research material and plans as well as
methodological insights.
Deadlines and contact information
ā¢ Initial abstracts (max. 300 words) and a short biographical note (max. 100
words) are due on: June 28, 2020.
ā¢ Authors will be notified by July 10, 2020, whether they are invited to
submit a full paper.
ā¢ Full papers are due on: October 01, 2020.
ā¢ Notifications to authors of referee decisions: November 20, 2020
ā¢ Final versions due: December 30, 2020
ā¢ Please send your abstract and short biographical note to:
<email obscured><mailto:anna.dahlgren@arthistory.su.se>,
<email obscured><mailto:khansson@dsv.su.se>,
<email obscured><mailto:ramon.reichert@univie.ac.at>
Issue 1/2021, Digital Culture & Society, http://digicults.org
Edited by: Anna Dahlgren, Karin Hansson, RƔmon Reichert and Amanda Wasielewski
Abstract submission: June 28, 2020
Author submission: July 1, 2020
Full paper submission: October 1, 2020
Final version: December 30, 2020
This special issue of the Digital Culture & Society journal invites theoretical
and methodological contributions discussing the politics of metadata. The
transformation of image collections from files and boxes to digital interfaces
has had implications for the way images are annotated and ordered. In
particular, new issues arise in relation to the practices of and policies for
creating descriptive metadata. The first generation of digitization in the
1990s sparked a lively debate around images and their credibility, which played
out in the news media, political circles, and in relation to history writing
(Mitchell, 1994; Ritchin, 1990). Despite the fact that photographic
manipulation is as old as the medium itself, the ease and availability of
software that allowed consumers to āphotoshopā images on their personal
computers ushered in an era of digital distrust. Yet, as pointed out by
Rubinstein and Sluis, āIn the past, concerns about manipulation of pixels
caused people to doubt the veracity of the digital image; however, manipulation
of metadata can have much more dramatic and far-reaching consequences and they
indicate that the construction and design of metadata inflicts archiving and
classification practices yet also the conditions of useā (Rubinstein and Sluis,
2013). In other words, while many people worry about the consequences of
digital image manipulation, the data we collect on our data, which is used to
order and recall a vast array of digital material, can also be subject to
biases and manipulations that are just as insidious and often more difficult to
detect.
The design and use of metadata is therefore always culturally, socially and
ideologically inflected (Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017;
Pollen, 2016). Indeed all metadata situate the images they furnish
historically, geographically, politically and organizationally. The actors and
their agendas and interest, whether these are institutions (museums, archives,
libraries, corporate image suppliers) or individuals (image producers, social
media agents, researchers) affect the character of metadata (Schwartz, 1995;
Schwartz and Cook, 2002). If, for example, nationality is an important founding
rationale for a museum their images will be tagged with national origin which
in itself is a historical construct and sometimes quite problematic (Rodini,
2018). Such interest may also vary over time. While the gender of the image
producer is of vital concern in memory institutions today the issue whether an
image or art work is produced by a woman or a man has not always historically
been of interest for collections managers (Pierce, 2019). Thus the available
metadata is the result, and also part of, negotiations between conflicting
interests accumulated and transformed over time (Baca, 2016). In sum these are
examples of the politics of metadata.
When it comes to big data and data-driven research, we have to pay particular
attention to the effects of the interfaces we use. Metadata and the archiving
practices that produce it are increasingly important for collecting
institutionsāand for visual culture at largeāas a means to navigate the rapidly
growing volume of data, situating them historically, socially, and locally
(Baylis, 2014; Bunnik et al., 2016; Loukissas, 2017; Pollen, 2016). The fact
that images today are copied and redistributed in infinite numbers as well as
modified, manipulated, and placed in new contexts raises question about how
images are furnished with descriptive metadata and by whom. Metadata not only
affects the searchability and visibility of images but, by extension, how they
are used and interpreted.
Image collections today create descriptive metadata in three major ways: by
employing professional cataloguers within the institution that governs the
collection, by enlisting the help of the general public via online interfaces,
or by automation using algorithm based tools and machine learning, like pattern
recognition.
In this special issue we seek to address the ideological and political aspects
of metadata practices within image collections from an interdisciplinary
perspective. The overall aim is to consider the implications, tensions, and
challenges involved in the creation of metadata in terms of content, structure,
searchability, and diversity.
We invite proposals including, but not limited to, the following topics:
ā¢ The relationship and systemic tensions between professional and amateur
taggers, between metadata standards and folksonomies. What are the decisive
differences between descriptive metadata produced by professional cataloguers
and amateurs through crowdsourcing in terms of content, structure, and
usability? What are the differences between private and public metadata? The
numerous metadata standards, which govern much of the professionalās metadata
production display a heterogenous field (Margulies, 2017; Mayernik, 2020;
Riley, 2017, 2009). Simultaneously many institutions are not using any of the
established standards (Waldron et al., 2017). Folksonomies, in turn, have been
studied and implemented as ways to bridge between expert and non-expert
vocabularies (Cairns, 2013), and potentially to feed into the creation of
formal taxonomies or ontologies (Gil et al. 2017).
ā¢ The issue of anonymity and social identity in relation to metadata
production.
What are the implications of anonymity for metadata producers within cultural
heritage institutions, corporate image suppliers, or public crowdsourcing
platforms? How can this be understood and/or challenged in the context of
social media practices where a particular userās reputation and output history
is often the determining factor in gauging the trustworthiness of the
information produced? (Esteve, 2019)
ā¢ The challenge in creating metadata that is coherent and reflects diverse
perspectives
In order for images to be searchable, reliable, and usable, collections need to
create metadata standards for accuracy and uniformity (Zhang et al., 2019).
Simultaneously, there is an increasing demand for descriptive metadata to be
inclusive, i.e. encouraging participation and heterogeneity in representation.
Given that these two objectives might contradict or come into conflict with one
another, how can cultural heritage institutions strike a balance between them?
ā¢ Issues of standards, centrality, and networks in relation to metadata
production
For example, what is the relationship between metadata standards and their
institutional, geographical settings? Who are the major agents in the field of
metadata production and what are the implications of this? How might we develop
more horizontal systems for the production of descriptive metadata?(Piotrowski,
2009)
Paper proposals may relate to, but are not limited to, the following questions
concerning the metadata paradigm. Interdisciplinary contributions, such as
those from science and technology studies or the digital humanities, are
particularly encouraged. When submitting an abstract, authors should make
explicit to which of the following categories they would like to submit their
paper:
1. Field Research and Case Studies (full paper: 6000-8000 words)
We invite articles that discuss empirical findings from studies that approach
the relationships between data science, digital humanities, digital histories,
computational intelligence, cultural studies, art history, gender studies,
science and technology studies. These may include practices of circulating or
collecting data as well processes of production and evaluation.
2. Methodological Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words)
We invite contributions that reflect on the methodologies employed when
researching the practices of the new tendencies of metadata production. These
may include, for example, the specificities of methodological reflection of
scientific fieldwork in online/offline environments; challenges and
opportunities faced when qualitatively researching quantifiable data and vice
versa; approaches using mixed methods; discussions of mobile and circulative
methods; and reflections of experimental forms of research.
3. Conceptual/Theoretical Reflection (full paper: 6000-8000 words)
We encourage contributions that reflect on the conceptual and/or theoretical
dimension of the metadata paradigm, and discuss or question how the data-driven
research on metadata can be defined, what it can describe, and how it can be
differentiated.
4. Entering the Field (2000-3000 words; experimental formats welcome)
This experimental section presents initial and ongoing empirical work in
digital media studies. The editors have created this section to provide a
platform for researchers who would like to initiate a discussion concerning
their emerging (yet perhaps incomplete) research material and plans as well as
methodological insights.
Deadlines and contact information
ā¢ Initial abstracts (max. 300 words) and a short biographical note (max. 100
words) are due on: June 28, 2020.
ā¢ Authors will be notified by July 10, 2020, whether they are invited to
submit a full paper.
ā¢ Full papers are due on: October 01, 2020.
ā¢ Notifications to authors of referee decisions: November 20, 2020
ā¢ Final versions due: December 30, 2020
ā¢ Please send your abstract and short biographical note to:
<email obscured><mailto:anna.dahlgren@arthistory.su.se>,
<email obscured><mailto:khansson@dsv.su.se>,
<email obscured><mailto:ramon.reichert@univie.ac.at>
