Contextualizing realism: An analysis of acts of seeing and recording in Digital Twin datafication

Digital Twins are conceptualized as real-time digital representations of real-life physical entities or systems. They are explored for a wide array of societal implementations, and in particular to help address fundamental societal challenges. As accurate digital equivalents of their real-life twin, Digital Twins substitute their physical twin in knowledge production and decision-making processes. They raise high expectations: they are expected to produce new knowledge, expose issues early, predict future behavior, and help to optimize the physical twin. Data play a key role here because they form the building blocks from which the Digital Twin representation is created. However, data are not neutral phenomena but products of human-technology interaction. In this article, we therefore raise the question of how a Digital Twin data collection is created, and what implications does this have for Digital Twins? To answer this question, we explore the data collection process in three cases of Digital Twin development at a university. Connecting to Jasanoff's theoretical framework of regimes of sight, we approach the creation of a data collection as acts of seeing and recording that influence how reality is represented in data, as well as give a certain legitimacy and authority to the data collection. By examining the acts of seeing and recording and their respective roles in producing the data collection, we provide insight into the struggles of representation in Digital Twins and their implications.

[1]  Bas van Vliet,et al.  Digital twinning as an act of governance in the wind energy sector , 2022, Environmental Science & Policy.

[2]  S. Kloppenburg,et al.  Steering Representations—Towards a Critical Understanding of Digital Twins , 2021, Philosophy & Technology.

[3]  Ioannis N. Athanasiadis,et al.  Introducing digital twins to agriculture , 2021, Comput. Electron. Agric..

[4]  Huiyue Dong,et al.  Review of digital twin about concepts, technologies, and industrial applications , 2020 .

[5]  Louise Wright,et al.  How to tell the difference between a model and a digital twin , 2020, Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences.

[6]  Karen M. Wickett,et al.  Relational data paradigms: What do we learn by taking the materiality of databases seriously? , 2020, Big Data Soc..

[7]  U. Mejías,et al.  Datafication , 2019, Human Rights in the Age of Platforms.

[8]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Datafication and data fiction: Narrating data and narrating with data , 2018, Big Data Soc..

[9]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Virtual, visible, and actionable: Data assemblages and the sightlines of justice , 2017 .

[10]  Sandro Wartzack,et al.  Shaping the digital twin for design and production engineering , 2017 .

[11]  Martin Johnson,et al.  Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. , 2016, Journal of advanced nursing.

[12]  Rob Kitchin,et al.  The data revolution : big data, open data, data infrastructures & their consequences , 2014 .

[13]  J. Dijck Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology , 2014 .

[14]  Christine L Borgman,et al.  Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration , 2011, Social studies of science.

[15]  P. Godfrey‐Smith Theory and Reality , 2003 .