The influence of intention on the meaning of data: an exploration (dec 28 2009)

Summary 
The effect of context on the meaning of data is widely known and accepted. Two ways in which context influences meaning, get the most attention: time and place. We know and understand that the meaning of data depends on when and where the data were created. However there is another influence of context that is not widely known and has not been studied in great depth: intention. In this article I will show that the meaning of all data is influenced by the intention for creating these data. 

The influence of intention on meaning occurs in three ways:

1. The supplier of the data wants to influence the outcome by providing data that suit him well
2. There is implicit knowledge in data that is not taken into account by the receiver of the data
3. There is always a grey area where intention is used to decide what is. Intention plays a decisive role in this grey area to establish the facts (data).
   

The influence of intention on meaning is debated: we do not want our data to be dependent on the reason for creating these data. There is a lot of proof however, both theoretical (epistemological) and empirical, that intention does influence meaning. Still, we need to have meaning of data that is the same for different persons and at different moments in time: data should be objective. That's why we have developed the empirical method that attains truth-finding, independent of people and time. The truth obtained through the empirical method, is persistent. Still, the empirical method does not deny there is influence from intention on the meaning of data. The empirical method makes implicitly sure the influence of intention is dealt with. 

Data are meant to convey the truth. However, when data are sent, not only it's logical truth should be described but also the possibilities for applying these data. By communicating the possibilities of data, the intention of the data is communicated. This intention is indispensable for obtaining the meaning that is stored in the data.

1. Ways in which intention influences the meaning of data 
Intention influences the meaning of data in the following ways:

1. Certain outcome is more rewarding for the supplier of data than other outcome
   
2. The data contain implicit knowledge
   
3. For data that are not so clear, intention is used to decide whether the data belong to the class or not
   

Below I will describe both influences in more detail.

1.1 Data may have a rewarding effect 
In a lot of situations the supplier of data knows at least partially the effect the data. Some of these effects may be beneficial or punitive to the person responsible for the data. [example(s)] In these situations this person will be motivated to tweak the data when:

• the negative effects of tweaking the data are acceptable also when the person is aware that the same data are used for other purposes
• chances of getting caught are low
• the 'lying' is within the limits the person finds morally acceptable

It is a well known fact that people try to have it their way by tweaking the data. The dutch Tax Office is aware of this, studies this effect and organizes itself such that this effect does not hinder the assignment of the Tax Office. Therefor, I will not discuss this effect of intention on the meaning of data, any further. However, when reusing data, this effect needs to be understood and accounted for. 

1.2 Data contain implicit knowledge
That data contain implicit knowledge becomes apparent when data are reused. Take the following made up story:

"Me and my family recently moved. One morning, when I came downstairs, I saw a note lying on the table. The note says: "Height living room: 2 m 55" "Aha" I thought, "exactly what I needed. I just wanted to buy a new cupboard. These data come in handy." So I went off and bought a cupboard of 2 meters and fifty five centimeters. I put the cupboard together but... the cupboard didn't fit! Agitated I went to my wife, whose handwriting I recognized from the note. "You measured our living room wrongly!" I said to her. "Well," she responded "it depends on how you look at it. I want to paper the walls in the living room. When papering the walls you do not want to be a little short at the bottom of the wall. So I measured the living room at several places. From these measurements, I took the largest height. This height I rounded upwards so I won't run short on paper any place in the living room. This means the height of the living room I wrote down is suitable for wall papering but not for buying cupboards."

Facts that appear to be objective, turn out to be subjective. The meaning of the note was clear and valid to my spouse. However, the meaning of the note was not clear to me. The conclusion I took from the note, was not valid. I assumed that a measurement of the height can never be subjective. I wrongly supposed there could be other interpretations of these data. Here we see one of the conclusions I want to make in this article: "What appears to be subjective, is in fact the lack of understanding implicit knowledge." By making subjective assumptions explicit, the data are objective again. The issue of implicit knowledge always exists.  

All data, no matter how explicitly defined, still contain assumptions for certain other contexts.

This is, because no person is capable of overseeing and understanding all contexts, including all future contexts.

When you tell the other person for what reason the data exist, the data become a lot more clear. From the intention the receiver of data is capable of understanding the implicit meaning of the data. This is because people have the capability to place himself in the other person's position. Since the discovery of so-called mirror neurons, this capability has been established even at the neural level. 

The implicit knowledge of data becomes explicit by understanding the intention of the data. 

1.3 For situations that are not so clear, intention is used to decide upon the facts
Take for example data about wages. "How difficult can that be?", you might ask yourself. An employer pays money to an employee for performed duties. There is a contract, so this is wages. No doubt, right? Wrong, there is a lot of doubt. There are continuous discussions and changes in what we consider wages and what not. Sometimes the Tax Office considers money paid as wages, although there is not a contract between the employer and the employee. But if the employee doesn't act as an entrepreneur and the services are delivered regularly and there are not a lot of other principals (opdrachtgevers), the tax office decides these are wages. Also tickets to soccer games and other gifts are often considered wages for the Tax Office. You can imagine the gray area this creates in the data where you need to decide whether this is also wages or not. When you get bonus points for petrol tanked and the petrol is payed by the employer, are the bonus points wages? When the employer allows me to work from home and I do not spend money to travel, can the money I spare be seen as wages? For this, we use the intention of data to decide whether it is wages or not.  

All data contain a gray area when it comes to the interpretation of these data.

Exactly this is what judges do when they rule. During the court session they gather data on why something was done, the intention. Judges use the intention of the law to decide on the verdict. Sometimes the same situation is considered different because of intention. Take the administration of mileage. The administration of mileage is not mandatory by law. However, if you do not want your lease car to be added to your income, the Tax Office advices you to keep a mileage administration in order to prove you did not use the car for private use. There was this veterinarian who did not keep a mileage administration. His defense was: "Anybody can tell I use my Landrover for work. The car is dirty, it smells, it would be unwise to go in there with my good clothes and shoes. I have another car which I use privately". The judge allowed this reasoning and dismissed the claim from the Tax Office. However another man, who also claimed that he did not use his car privately but who could not show any mileage administration, was judged to pay the claim by the Tax Office. The same facts but another ruling, because the circumstantial facts gave rise to another intention and therefor to another interpretation.
 
2. Why objectivity and the influence of intention on meaning are not in conflict with each other


3. How the influence of intention on meaning can be dealt with