This week, we learned about digital tools to make our projects better. Hooray! Of course, one thing about learning a tool is thinking critically about said tool, and that means you have to see both the negatives and the positives about it. One thing we consistently hit was that most of these tools were very Western-centric, right down to the code itself. We kept asking- how would someone else in a non-English speaking country use this? It requires English, and that means you obviously have to learn some of that to use it. That sucks if you don’t have access to a decent education system, and it basically continues to make access to digital scholarship a lot harder than it should be for poorer countries. Once again, we need to reflect on our privilege as Americans that we can afford to be taught the coding and have it be in our native language, and then walk upstairs and pick up a decent paycheck for learning that.
We also discussed how even maps tend to have an agenda. I pointed out that there’s no perfect way to draw a real map since you can’t flatten a globe without distorting it- it’s geometrically impossible. Really, each map has its own purpose, and it depends on what you need to use it for. There’s no such thing as an unbiased source, no matter how hard you try to be one or look for it. However, you can think and admit that the source has drawbacks, and try to compensate for it with a source that builds on those drawbacks to balance it out. It takes time and additional research, but I’m in a cohort of six strong, intelligent women. I think we can do it.
-Britt
I think at the very least, addressing that bias exists is often enough. Most users aren’t even aware of biases, so just bringing them to the surface is great. We need standards, and we can’t be anarchists in everything, so sometimes you just need to run with what you have.