How dangerous data can cast global shadow
Social scientists warn about use of openly available research without questioning how it was collected and what it really means
In the fallout from The Washington Post publishing an incorrect map on global racial tolerance, Hong Kong's social scientists are issuing a caution: data is useful, but watch how you use it.
Last week, the US newspaper published the map purporting to show nations' racial tolerance using openly available information from the World Values Survey. The map made Hong Kong and Bangladesh out to be the most racist places on earth, with 71.8 per cent of Hongkongers and 71.7 per cent of Bangladeshis opposed to living next to people of a different race.
The real figures were closer to 27 per cent and 28 per cent respectively. The Washington Post wrote in its correction that it had used erroneous data posted on the World Values website.
"Open data in itself is very good," said Susanne Choi Yuk-ping, a sociologist with the Chinese University of Hong Kong. "It increases transparency and the capacity of citizens and civil society to monitor what's going on.
"Statistics are useful, but also dangerous. This [racial tolerance] was a seriously sensitive issue, [ The Washington Post] should have been more careful.
"NGOs and media organisations may not have first-hand knowledge about the data collection and the questionnaire design. They often don't have sufficient professional knowledge to judge [if the analysis is correct]."
She added: "This mistake is a good thing. Making data openly available has only become very common in Asia over the past 10 years. This will make researchers more careful with their data."