ICE is publishing data about the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge, but creating confusion in the process. An essay about data skepticism and a call for greater transparency.
As you point out at the beginning of your piece, data are collected and then reported to make an argument ("The numbers were intended to reflect—and some would say sensationalize—ICE’s surge in immigration enforcement activity."). Often the people collecting the data and those reporting them are different and may be making different arguments with them. Yes, the first thing to do in testing whether the data support the argument being made is to ensure they are correct and are sufficiently transparent so they can be fully understood. Then are they relevant and sufficient to making the argument persuasive. I suspect for some who want to believe that ICE under Trump is cracking down on undocumented individuals all they need to see are high numbers and the surge argument is persuasive. But, as you point out with the graph at the end, high numbers for one day hardly prove a surge. A graph showing similar numbers well before the change in administration and for a good period afterward is required. Further, how is the argument being interpreted? "See, we're getting rid of more criminals!" But, again, as you point out, more data are required to make the leap from "surge" to "criminal deportations." I do not envy your task, Austin, in trying to work so closely with data, as you must, and then carefully and sensitively communicating what they mean and how they relate to the arguments being made with them!
Well done, thank you for this. Semi-related, it made me think of a book by a Syracuse author, Mark Monmonier, "How to Lie with Maps." I read it when it first came out in 1991, but apparently it's been updated twice, most recently in 2018, to keep up with digital info. I wouldn't put it past Greg Abbott and his ilk to lie with maps, along with everything else.
As you point out at the beginning of your piece, data are collected and then reported to make an argument ("The numbers were intended to reflect—and some would say sensationalize—ICE’s surge in immigration enforcement activity."). Often the people collecting the data and those reporting them are different and may be making different arguments with them. Yes, the first thing to do in testing whether the data support the argument being made is to ensure they are correct and are sufficiently transparent so they can be fully understood. Then are they relevant and sufficient to making the argument persuasive. I suspect for some who want to believe that ICE under Trump is cracking down on undocumented individuals all they need to see are high numbers and the surge argument is persuasive. But, as you point out with the graph at the end, high numbers for one day hardly prove a surge. A graph showing similar numbers well before the change in administration and for a good period afterward is required. Further, how is the argument being interpreted? "See, we're getting rid of more criminals!" But, again, as you point out, more data are required to make the leap from "surge" to "criminal deportations." I do not envy your task, Austin, in trying to work so closely with data, as you must, and then carefully and sensitively communicating what they mean and how they relate to the arguments being made with them!
Well said Patrick! I’ll do my best to keep them honest about the numbers.
Well done, thank you for this. Semi-related, it made me think of a book by a Syracuse author, Mark Monmonier, "How to Lie with Maps." I read it when it first came out in 1991, but apparently it's been updated twice, most recently in 2018, to keep up with digital info. I wouldn't put it past Greg Abbott and his ilk to lie with maps, along with everything else.
Yes I almost gave Mark a mention! Excellent book, very good connection. We really have to keep our eyes on these folks.