“We called that a behavior”: The making of institutional data

Abstract

Predictive uses of data are becoming widespread in institutional settings as actors seek to anticipate people and their activities. Predictive modeling is increasingly the subject of scholarly and public criticism. Less common, however, is scrutiny directed at the data that inform predictive models beyond concerns about homogenous training data or general epistemological critiques of data. In this paper, I draw from a qualitative case study set in higher education in the United States to investigate the making of data. Data analytics projects at universities have become more pervasive and intensive to better understand and anticipate undergraduate student bodies. Drawing from 12 months of ethnographic research at a large public university, I analyze the ways data personnel at the institution—data scientists, administrators, and programmers—sort student data into “attributes” and “behaviors,” where “attributes” are demographic data that students “can’t change.” “Behaviors,” in contrast, are data defined as reflective of what students can choose: attending and paying attention in class, studying on campus, among other data which personnel categorize as what students have control over. This discursive split enables the institution nudge students to make responsible choices according to behavior data that correlate with success in the predictive model. In discussing how personnel type, sort, stabilize, and nudge on behavior data, this paper examines the contingencies of data making processes and implications for the application of student data.