There is a great deal to take in from this reading but here are some of my initial impressions which are subject to change as all of it settles. There were some interesting issues raised throughout the discussion in terms of agency, advocacy, roles and creation.
BB and NJ bring up some good points in terms of understanding the context of any data. We need data on the data. Context is data. Then we need data on the data’s data. Repeat ad naseum. We are in the era of data pollution where anything can be argued through “objective” data and however it is framed can be made irrelevant. As such, it has become important to understand how data has been made oppressive and how one can subvert data against the data oligarchy.
With the shift to ubiquitous and pervasive computing an avenue has opened up which many people can use to generate data. In fact I believe that BB & NJ propose that we collect our own data, with our own agendas. I believe it to be true that people will rarely act unless it is in their self-interests and what better interest than our own health. We forget how closely our health may be tied to the environment and therefore we should care about the environment.
Through the Environmental Health Clinic we see how one can appropriate an established role of reverence (in an almost yesmen vein) to serve as a vehicle for action. Perhaps it is through these types of actions that the general public may be mobilized to take action on making the changes that directly affect them.