understanding of format (as distinct from medium) is in part indebted to Jonathan Sterne’s excellent work on the MP3 format, where he similarly writes that ‘some formats may offer completely different inroads into media history and may well show us subterranean connections among media that we previously thought separate’.24 Indeed, while ostensibly a book about the MP3 format, Sterne’s study opens onto a much longer history of sound compression and perceptual technics from which the MP3 format becomes possible as both cultural and technical artefact. In the pages that follow, I too give a lot of space over to historical discussion, to what I call format archaeology, charting a course across technological hosts of the dashboard format in different times and places.
Further commenting on the relationship between format and medium, Sterne writes, ‘Format denotes a whole range of decisions that affect the look, feel, experience, and workings of a medium’, and adds ‘it names a set of rules according to which a technology can operate’.25 He thus raises questions regarding the dependency of media on formats and wants to highlight their aesthetic, phenomenological and functional importance. Sterne’s ‘format theory’, as an alternative to established ‘media theory’ (and the other terms mentioned above), has been very helpful in thinking about dashboards for these reasons. However, my usage diverges in a number of ways and contains a number of different emphases. The object of Sterne’s analysis, the MP3 format, is much more strictly codified. It is a format to be read by software. Thus, when he writes about format as a set of rules for which a technology can operate, he means this in a rather strict sense as code. In this way, his working definition runs very close to the third definition given above, where format relates to computers and specifically to the storage and processing of (sound as) data. However, Sterne is also clearly drawing on yet another definition of format relating specifically to sound, which I did not include in the initial three common definitions: ‘the medium in which a sound recording is made available’.26 Obviously, this definition further muddies the waters regarding format and medium, but it clearly informs Sterne’s work, concerned as it is with sound. While Sterne’s ‘format theory’ is a conceptual elaboration on this (fourth) definition of format, my own account draws more on the other three and especially the first, most general one: ‘the way in which something is arranged or set out’.
As software, a dashboard may very well contain coded elements, but the notion of format that informs this study (that is, the dashboard as format) is generally looser, as likely to be a matter of interpretation as of technical rules for operation. As format, a dashboard is a way of arranging or setting things out. Exactly what is arranged, how and for what purpose changes over time. The development of a format weaves a history across different technologies (horse and carriage, car, reports, computer systems, among others); some elements of the arrangement persist, either in terms of function or connoting a ‘look, feel [or] experience’, while others fall away.
Format also has an interesting ontological status, seemingly as a thing in itself and as a kind of container for other things, which, when formatted, take on specific qualities yet without losing their prior identity. To put it another way, the same thing can be formatted differently. Data can be formatted in different ways, in a table, in a graph, scribbled in a field diary or displayed on a giant sports scoreboard, without losing their status as data. And yet, the format is not without ontological and epistemological influence. In fact, I hope to convince the reader that format matters deeply with regard to these things. Understanding how the dashboard as a format, through its arrangements and set-ups, its presentations and displays, works over the data that pass through it and in doing so constitute it, underpins much of this inquiry.
This ontological blurring resulting from the dynamic interplay between data and format is partly captured in how ‘format’ acts as both noun and verb. A dashboard is a format, but one can also format data into a dashboard. As a verb, ‘format’ suggests an active reworking, a transition in state; it is the work required in order for ‘format’ to function effectively as a noun. As a rule, there is no format without a priori formatting. This book takes a strong interest in the formatting of data through dashboards, but other formatting work is also going on. The dashboard is layered with perceptual orientations, cultural significations and epistemological qualities that format not only the data and elements that pass through it, but also the bodies and organizations that make use of it. How far one can stretch the notion of formatting beyond a direct encounter with a format and what kind of force one can grant it once placed alongside competing forces – however conceived – are empirical questions that I wish to explore but do not expect to resolve. This bidirectionality of formatting, such that what is formatted is not only data but also the people, things and situations within which a format is at work, brings us close to the use of the term by Bruno Latour and Michel Callon.
Over thirty-odd years, the notion of formatting pops up in several places in the work of Latour. In an early co-authored piece with Callon, the two use the concept of formatting in at least three senses in order to develop their own approach to the study of capitalism, markets and economic science (as a discipline).27 They use the idea to describe the performativity of economic categories: ‘the notion of formatting refers to the always ongoing and effective performance of economic categories, which are definitely real as long as they are networked to other mechanisms that not only do not hide them but actively contribute to their reality’.28 They use it to refer to the performativity of the practical methods of economic science:
even the most theoretical economic science is constantly performing this formatting operation, for its work is much more practical, down to earth, and effective than it would admit. Indeed, economic science extracts from the mobilization of people and things the necessary elements to make the exchanges calculable – and it is precisely this set of operations that we have in mind when we use the notion of formatting.29
And they use it as a way to get at the relation between capitalism and markets: ‘capitalism refers to the formatting of markets’.30 Overall, we get a sense that formatting refers to the ongoing performativity of things. It is the ‘how’ of performativity. It refers to the method of framing some thing or activity in a specific way such that it is amenable to a pre-existing epistemic order (i.e., economic science). And it is used to define how one thing relates to, or acts upon, another.
In later writings, Latour uses the concept once again to highlight the active, performative role of knowledge construction, but now as part of a negative contrast: ‘The notion of “fact,” let us recall, had the disadvantage of not taking into account the enormous work of shaping, formatting, ordering, and deducing, needed to give the data a meaning that they never have on their own.’31 Here, the idea refers to the active work needed to give data meaning; work that can go unnoticed once something attains the status of fact. Latour tends to use this notion of formatting to point to the practical elements of knowledge construction that are easily overlooked, though not invisible or hidden. Part of what the term ‘formatting’ does, as a verb, is ascribe these practical and mundane elements some force and an active role in the production of realities.
Like Latour and Callon, I too see formatting as a performative notion, able to describe the ‘how’ of one thing’s relation to another. I like the way Latour places it within a context of knowledge production and the overlooked (but not invisible) elements that feed into and define more finished products (like facts). However, my own use is more literal and specific than Latour’s. I want to stick much more closely to the notion of format when I invoke formatting. Formatting refers to the bidirectional performativity of a format as it is enacted (or ‘used’, in more common parlance). It refers to how a format acts on the data and other elements that pass through (and thereby constitute) it and on the people, devices, and organizational time-spaces within which it is deployed. To describe the active work of a format as formatting suggests a specificity to its performativity. Formatting is not a free-for-all; it has limits, its ‘tendencies’ in terms of what it can achieve in any given situation. What a format does is carry along these specificities, limits and tendencies; they are in part what constitute it as a format; they give it its consistency and make it recognizable.
