I noted the word “data” being used in different ways throughout the paper. My understanding of “data” is research data” which the analyst seems to be using initially. However, then, esp. during the ethnographic aspects, the language of “data” becomes used for internet data bundles. This slippage is not analyzed or discussed.
The analysts note: “purchasing software and hardware was usually the responsibility of the individual instead of the institution. This raises an important concern: the inability to regularly update research hardware and software places researchers in a position in which they are unable to effectively make use of online resources.” It was unclear how / why they note this as unique or different from anywhere else in the world. Are there locations where computers and software/hardware are the responsibility of the institution? Perhaps this is a disciplinary difference since all graduate students in my department (anthro) are responsible to buy and own their own hardware and software. If someone cannot afford a computer, the university, so far as I know, does not do anything about it. Is this perhaps not the case in Europe? This lack of clarity on my part might also be partly because it is unclear who the “who” is in this paper. Students? Staff? Employees?
Underlying assumption that tackling these challenges to usage of data will help to “generate more innovative and productive solutions for the publics and public health settings within its reach”
