This is the third and final part of three in our conversation. In Part 3, she described the skills and types of people necessary to build and assess artificial intelligence teams.
Dr. Gemma Galdon-Clavell is a leading voice on technology ethics and algorithmic accountability. She is the founder and CEO of Eticas, where her multidisciplinary background in the social, ethical, and legal impact of data-intensive technology allows her and her team to design and implement practical solutions to data protection, ethics, explainability, and bias challenges in AI. She has conceived and architected the Algorithmic Audit Framework which now serves as the foundation for Eticas’s flagship product, the Algorithmic Audit.
For my first interview in the Interview Series, I interviewed Astrid Countee. She is a business anthropologist and technologist with a background in anthropology, software engineering, and data science. She currently works as a user researcher at the peer-to-peer distributed company Holo, as a research associate at The Plenary, as an arts and education nonprofit, and as a co-founder of Missing Link Studios which distributes the This Anthro Life podcast.
If the audio does not play on your computer, you can download it here:
For my third interview in the Interview Series, I interviewed Priyanka Dass Saharia. Priyanka Dass Saharia is an anthropologist working in tech startups, mostly seed to early venture stage in their product development. These companies broadly fall under the rubric of tech-based initiatives that aim to accelerate positive social, environmental and governance change. To do this, she routinely employs a variety of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In addition to anthropology, she has also studied economics and sociology in both India, where she grew up, and the United Kingdom, where she currently resides.
Over our conversation, we discussed the following:
Priyanka’s experiences as an anthropologist in tech, including her current work in fintech
Strategies for socially and environmentally equitable entrepreneurial investment
Skills anthropologists might need when working in tech and suggestions for how to develop them
Recommendations for how anthropologists can cultivate their quantitative thinking
To learn more about Priyanka Dass Saharia, check these out:
For my fourth interview in the Interview Series, I interviewed Emi Harry. This is the first part of three of our conversation. Emi Harry is the co-founder of Naina Tech Inc., a New York-based tech startup that is poised to launch an adaptive learning platform for early childhood education in the U.S. and Nigeria’s underserved communities. As a highly skilled data scientist and social entrepreneur, Harry is also on the board of Alula Learning, an EdTech learning management systems provider, and Manna, a health and nutrition company, both in Nigeria. She has had a diverse professional experience, having worked in the food, oil and gas, entertainment, and fashion industries in Nigeria, as well as the entertainment, non-profit, and education industries in the United States. Currently, she balances her time between working in tech, creative writing, and fashion designing.
Her educational qualifications include B.S. in Mathematics, University of Lagos, Nigeria; Master’s in Social Entrepreneurship, Hult International Business School, San Francisco; M.Sc. in Data Analytics/Science, Fordham University, New York, and is on track to earn a M.Sc. in Computer Science from Pace University New York.
During this first part of our conversation, we discussed the data science company she founded and how she learned data science.
This is the second part of my interview with Emi Harry as part of my Interview Series. In it, she discusses her experiences of racial discrimination in data science as a black woman, how she manages her dual background in data science and fashion, and how she leverages her storytelling and communication skills as a data scientist. If you would like to start at the beginning of my interview with her, click here.
Emi Harry is the co-founder of Naina Tech Inc., a New York-based tech startup that is poised to launch an adaptive learning platform for early childhood education in the U.S. and Nigeria’s underserved communities. As a highly skilled data scientist and social entrepreneur, Harry is also on the board of Alula Learning, an EdTech learning management systems provider, and Manna, a health and nutrition company, both in Nigeria. She has had a diverse professional experience, having worked in the food, oil and gas, entertainment, and fashion industries in Nigeria, as well as the entertainment, non-profit, and education industries in the United States. Currently, she balances her time between working in tech, creative writing, and fashion designing.
Her educational qualifications include B.S. in Mathematics, University of Lagos, Nigeria; Master’s in Social Entrepreneurship, Hult International Business School, San Francisco; M.Sc. in Data Analytics/Science, Fordham University, New York, and is on track to earn a M.Sc. in Computer Science from Pace University New York.
This is the third part of my interview with Emi Harry as part of my Interview Series. In it, she discusses her dual identify as a data scientist and entrepreneur, including how what it takes to be an entrepreneur, her experiences starting a data science company and recommendations she has for any data scientists considering starting their own.
Emi Harry is the co-founder of Naina Tech Inc., a New York-based tech startup that is poised to launch an adaptive learning platform for early childhood education in the U.S. and Nigeria’s underserved communities. As a highly skilled data scientist and social entrepreneur, Harry is also on the board of Alula Learning, an EdTech learning management systems provider, and Manna, a health and nutrition company, both in Nigeria. She has had a diverse professional experience, having worked in the food, oil and gas, entertainment, and fashion industries in Nigeria, as well as the entertainment, non-profit, and education industries in the United States. Currently, she balances her time between working in tech, creative writing, and fashion designing.
Her educational qualifications include B.S. in Mathematics, University of Lagos, Nigeria; Master’s in Social Entrepreneurship, Hult International Business School, San Francisco; M.Sc. in Data Analytics/Science, Fordham University, New York, and is on track to earn a M.Sc. in Computer Science from Pace University New York.
I interviewed Olga Shiyan as part of my Interview Series. In it, she discusses her anti-corruption work in Kazakhstan with Transparency International. In particular, she highlights various projects that have integrated anthropology with data science and statistics.
Olga Shiyan is the Executive Director of the Transparency International’s chapter in Kazakhstan. She specializes in advocacy, legislation and draft laws, and democratic training programs. For this, she has developed research methods that combine anthropology and data science and statistics. In 2019, the Kazakhstan Geographic Society awarder for a medal for anti-corruption work.
To learn more about Olga, feel free to check out the following:
For Part 8 in my Interview Series, I interviewed Scarleth Herrera, a digital anthropologist and founder of Orez Anthropological Research. In it, we discuss her experiences as starting her own digital anthropology research company, transitioning into artificial intelligence-related work, and experiences conducting anthropological research outside of academia.
Scarleth lives in South Florida. Her Orez Anthropological Research is a non-profit dedicated to the exploration and advancing the research of digital anthropology. She is also a Research Scholar at the Ronin Institute in New Jersey. Her current research focus is on the implications artificial intelligence may have on society in general but particularly low-income communities, but she is also passionate about issues facing immigrant communities in the United States.
Earlier this week, Matt Artz, Astrid Countee, and I ran a workshop at the American Anthropological Association’s 2020 annual conference entitled “Breaking into Tech.” We discussed strategies for anthropologists interested in working in the tech world.
Here is the presentation for anyone who might find it useful but could not attend:
I suspect everyone has seen a bad graph, a mess of bars, lines, pie slices, or what have you that you dreaded having to look at. Maybe you have even made one, which you look at today and wonder what on earth you were thinking.
These graphs violate the most basic graph-making rule in data visualization:
A graph is like a sentence, expressing one idea.
This rule applies to all uses of graphs, whether you are a data scientist, data analyst, statistician, or just making graphs for your friends for fun.
In grade school, your grammar teachers likely explained that a sentence, at its most basic, expresses on thought or idea. Graphs are visual sentences: they should state one and only one thought or idea about the data.
When you look at a graph, you should be able to say, in one sentence, what the graph is saying: such as “Group A is greater than Group B,” or “Y at first improved but is now declining.” If you cannot, then you have yourself a run-on graph.
For example, the above graph is trying to say too many statements: trying to depict the immigration patterns of twenty-two different countries over the course of nearly a century. There are likely useful statements in this data, but the representation as one graph prevents a viewer/reader from being able to easily decipher them.
Likewise, this graph shows way too many lens sizes to meaningfully express a single, coherent idea, leaving the reader/viewer struggling to determine which fields to focus on.
Potential Objection #1: But I have more to say about the data than a single statement.
Great! Then provide more than one graph. Say everything you need to say about the data; just use one graph for each of your statements.
Don’t fall into the One-Graph-to-Rule-Them-All Fallacy: trying to use one graph to express all your statements about the data that ends up a visual mess of incomprehensibility. Create multiple easy-to-read graphs where each graph demonstrates one of your points at a time. Condensing everything into one graph just prevents your viewers from determining what you have to say at all.
One-Graph-to-Rule-Them-All Fallacy: Trying to use one graph to express all your thoughts about the data that ends up a visual mess of incomprehensibility
Instead, use one graph for each of your points
Potential
Objection #2: I want the viewers to interpret the findings for themselves, not
just impart my own ideas/conclusions.
Fair point. When presenting/communicating data, there is a time for showing your own insights and a time to open-endedly display the information for your viewers/readers to interpret for themselves. Graphs are tools for the former, and for the latter, use tables. Tables, among other potential uses, convey a wide scope of information for the reader/viewer to interpret on their own.
Remember that first example above about U.S. immigration from various parts of Europe? A table (see below) would convey that information much more easily and allow readers to track whatever places, patterns, or questions they would to learn about. Are you in a situation where you would like to report a large amount of information that your readers can use for their own purposes? Then tables are a much better starting point than graphs.
Some situations require that I lean towards sharing my insights/analysis and others towards encouraging my readers/viewers to form their own conclusions, but since most situations require a combination of the two, I generally combine graphs and tables. I try, when I can, to put smaller tables in the document or slides themselves and, when I cannot, include full tables in an Appendix.
Potential Objection #3: My main idea/point has multiple subpoints.
Many sentences have multiple subpoints needed to express the single idea as well, which does not prevent the sentence structure from meaningfully capturing those ideas. The fancy grammar word for such a subpoint is a claus. Even though some sentences are simple and straightforward with only one subject and predicate, many (like this very sentence) require multiple sets of subjects and predicates to express its thought.
Likewise, some graphical ideas require multiple subordinate or compounded subpoints, and there are types of graphs that allow this. Consider Joint Plots, like the one below. To present the relationships and combined distribution between the two variables adequately, they also display each variable’s individual distributions above and to the right. That way, the viewer can see how both distributions might be influencing the combined distribution. Thus, it displays each variable’s distribution on the side like a subordinate clause.
The darker colors in this graph signify a higher density of data points, showing the combined joint distribution of the variables.
These are advanced graphs to make, since like with multi-part sentences, one must present the subpoints carefully to make clear what the main point is. Multi-part sentences, likewise, require carefulness in how to organize multiple clauses cohesively. I intend to write a post later describing how to develop these multi-part graphs in more detail.
The general rule still applies for these more complicated graphs:
Can you summarize what the graph is saying in one coherent sentence?
If you cannot, do not use/show that graph. Our brains are very good at intuiting whether a sentence carries one thought, so use this to determine whether your graph is effective.
