The dangers of Big Data and the biases of interpretation

Health services in South West London are in the process of being reconfigured. Which means the A&E department and maternity ward at my local hospital could soon close.

Residents have been told not to worry as it will only take 13 minutes to travel to the reallocated wards in Tooting.

How was the 13 minutes calculated? We aren’t told. Cut the data by traffic-dodging, siren-blazing ambulances and perhaps it is an accurate reflection. But does it factor in peak-time traffic? Does it accurately reflect the travel-time for visiting relatives or women in labour who have no sirens or means of dodging traffic?

The data has been cut to show what it needs to show and interpreted with underlying biases.

Which is why we should be welcoming Big Data with open arms and a healthy dose of critical thinking.

The risk of human bias in both the cutting and analysing of Big Data remains just as real – as does the danger of attributing cause to effect.

Take, for example, the Twitter and Foursquare data captured around Hurricane Sandy. In a recent article for Harvard Business Review, Kate Crawford, dissects a study into the real-world implications of social data. Crawford reveals that the data captured during Hurricane Sandy indicated a grocery shopping peak the night before the storm – no doubt people stocking up – with a peak in nightlife the night after – perhaps people letting off tension.

The data also indicated that Manhattan was at the centre of the disaster – with significantly more tweets about the storm coming from the city. What this data doesn’t factor in is the higher level of smartphone ownership or Twitter uptake in Manhattan, comparative with other, worse hit locations.  Or the impact that power blackouts, battery outages and limited phone access had on the ability for those worst hit to convey their experience of the storm on social media.

In short, data can and does often paint part of a picture. It’s up to the interpreter whether he chooses to accept that portrait as conclusive, or whether he continues searching for the bigger picture.

 

Latest Posts

Yep – it’s a 101 for finding out if your B2B social campaigns and content are delivering. Think you know it all? Think again. The sands of marketing are shifting…again. Aligning metrics and business objectives. Most B2B marketers can tell you the engagement rate. And they certainly know the level…
Read More
Meta has started rolling ads into Threads timelines globally from late January 2026. That’s the moment Threads stops being a side app and becomes a paid, recommendation-led public square. Threads has passed 400 million monthly active users, and Meta has put daily actives at around 150 million. The strategic implication for B2C and B2B is the same; distribution gets easier to buy, credibility gets harder to earn. Threads rewards coherence in public conversation, how you answer, how you sound, how specific you are. Treat it as a trust surface, because that’s where decisions get shaped now.
Read More
Feeds are getting tired of “perfect”. A lot of the most interesting work going into 2026 is reacting against hyper-digital polish with visuals that feel more handled: scanned textures, mismatched elements, collecting layouts, and deliberate “imperfections” that make the human hand visible again. That matters for social, because audiences clock…
Read More