The authors of this book want us to be aware of our positionality, so I'll tell you that I've been a scientist in the field of genetics for over 20 years, more recently as a curator and manager of delivering data to the public. I'm also a woman of color who thinks a lot about ethics and equity. Which is to say, I really try to think critically about data, scientific and otherwise.
I take this book literally. I fully agree that we need to look at what biases lay behind the hypotheses and interpretations of studies. I think scientists need to be clear in what parameters and variables are actually being measured, and whether it's meaningful to use certain categories at all (for instance, in my field, US racial categories are not very meaningful, and their use often obscures conclusions from data). I think it's important to define your terms, be as precise as you can and aware of how shorthand labels may mislead. I think we should consider what blindspots we may have, especially when doing research that impacts people and societies. And that interactions on an equal standing with people with different perspectives (professional and personal backgrounds) can help point out these blindspots. I think we should interrogate why certain jobs in STEM projects (e.g. curator vs data scientist) have more or less prestige, and what that says about our society.
Therefore, I largely agree with the recommendations, such as they are, of this book.
But I can't take this book seriously, because it frames these concepts, which I consider simply good practice, as feminism (by feminism, they mean an intersection of a gender+racial+class justice lens). Maybe I'm too much of a consequentialist, but my kneejerk reaction to this book was to reject putting the fetishization of identity ahead of practice.
I was also hoping for more insights that would help in my professional life. Disappointingly, rather than give precise scenarios of study and analysis design, the authors tend to rely on quotes from feminist scholars they think are cool, and then shout out examples of research they like (i.e. done by people who they approve of) versus stuff they don't like (done by people they don't like).
I kept thinking of data scientists I work with, many of them older men who didn't grow up in the US, and how I would love to recommend a book like this to them, so that they would think deeper about responsible use of data. But this book doesn't provide an accessible entry into this subject.
I know the authors workshopped this manuscript - I just wish that in addition to consulting gender and cultural scholars, they had also been more intentional about running this work past more normies, maybe some of the ones who they mention were initially hostile to their project. Critical comments from that perspective would likely have resulted in a stronger product.