In my work as a research assistant for a historical data project, I transcribed public records that contained the names of enslaved people enlisted in the Union Army, their enslavers, how much money their enslavers were supposed to receive for their slaves enlisting, the date of enlistment, the filing of the claim, and any action by the Boards that oversaw the claims, as well as other financial records from the Boards of Claims, such as the gas bill or salaries for members of the Board. Working on this project has led me to think much more critically about numerical data than I have in the past. This broader understanding will help me to approach both history and the present day with a more critical lens. 

This project has changed the way that I understand data, especially data about the past. In my previous history classes, I had analyzed written sources through a critical lens, understanding that everyone was coming from their own viewpoints and had their own understanding of the “facts,” and that everyone was constantly pushing their narratives, causing them to articulate things in certain manners. Previously, I never considered that that perspective also applies when you are interpreting data. I knew that you had to consider the source of the data, but I had not thought to consider the interpretation of the data itself.  

I first learned about cliometrics, the application of economic theory to history through statistical analysis, when we read and discussed Jessica Marie Johnson’s article, “Markup Bodies” (2018). This article discusses how historians have a responsibility to ethically use and interpret data related to slavery and Black history. Quantifying slavery can be a continuation of the white supremacist systems that slavery is built on.

Cliometrics has fallen out of fashion, but the lessons learned from Johnson apply to all data, historical or not. Data must be interpreted within context, and in a way that does not perpetuate the racist or bigoted systems that the data was created under. Historical analysis and understanding that data must be interpreted with the same critical lens as a story or a letter has broadened my understanding of history and of the modern day world. Nothing is unbiased and nothing is objective. Sometimes people think that numbers are unbiased because they don’t involve words, but you have to interpret numbers using words.  

Before doing this work, I had only thought of quantitative data as numbers. I said this in a meeting and felt sort of silly about it, but I had never considered the impact that interpreting data can have. Working on this project has made me much more interested in data, especially numerical data, something I never previously thought I would have an interest in. History is a narrative, and data can be used to further whatever historical narrative one is trying to convey. Understanding that broadens one’s perception of how facts can be manipulated to sway one’s opinion. This has historical and current-day implications. 

Ethically interpreting this data involves reading against the grain. Reading against the grain means reading critically, deriving information that was not intended to be gleaned from the source being read. This was something I’ve learned about in my history research methods class, and it was a lightbulb moment for me. When dealing with slavery, one must read against the grain, because otherwise you’re contributing to the white supremacist systems that enacted slavery in the first place.

These documents were made to commodify enslaved people, which is something that we shouldn’t be furthering in the present day. This data could further white supremacist systems if it was used to focus on the enslavers, like if the descendants of enslavers attempted to argue that they deserved compensation in the present day for their slaves enlisting in the Union Army during the Civil War. The argument to pay enslavers for freed slaves wouldn’t be accepted after the ratification of the 14th Amendment (Kleintop 2025). However, even making the argument that they should furthers the idea that slaves were the property of their enslavers, continuing the commodification of Black people into the present day.  

Interpreting slavery data both critically and ethically requires context and a focus on the enslaved rather than the enslavers. If the enslaved are prioritized, then slavery data can be used to broaden our understanding of life for the enslaved. If enslavers are prioritized, then the white supremacist systems that upheld slavery are encouraged in the modern day.  

References 

Johnson, Jessica Marie. 2018. “Markup Bodies: Black [Life] Studies and Slavery [Death] Studies at the Digital Crossroads.” Social Text 36 (4): 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-7145658. 

Kleintop, Amanda Laury. 2025. Counting the Cost of Freedom: The Fight over Compensation Emancipation after the Civil War. University of North Carolina Press. 

Klientop, Amanda, and Cora Wigger. 2025. “Engaging Students in Transcribing Historical Data: About the Project.” Center for Engaged Learning (Blog). Elon University, October 21, 2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/engaging-students-in-transcribing-historical-data-about-the-project. 

About the Author 

Brooke Frizzell is a senior at Elon University majoring in History, with minors in Political Science and Music. She worked as a DataNexus/Center for Engaged Learning research assistant in the summer of 2025.  

How to Cite This Post 

Frizzell, Brooke. 2025. “My Experience Interpreting Data: Ethically and Critically.” Center for Engaged Learning (Blog). Elon University, December 2, 2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/my-experience-interpreting-data-ethically-and-critically/.