Bsrgvty

This is a situation that many blogs, companies and papers acknowledge as something real in many cases.

In this paper Data Wrangling for Big Data: Challenges and Opportunities, there is a quote about it

data scientists spend from 50 percent to 80 percent of their time

collecting and preparing unruly digital data.

Also, you can read the source of that quote in this article from The New York Times, For Big-Data Scientists, ‘Janitor Work’ Is Key Hurdle to Insights

Unfortunately, the real world is not like Kaggle. You don't get a CSV or Excel file that you can just start the Data Exploration with a little bit of cleaning. You need to find the data in a format that is not suitable for your needs.

What you can do is make use of the old data as much as you can and try to adapt the storing of new data in a process that will be easier for you (or a future colleague) to work with.

Feels like most of the work is not related to data science at all. Is this accurate?

This is the reality of any data science project. Google actually measured it and published a paper "Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems" https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5656-hidden-technical-debt-in-machine-learning-systems.pdf

Result of the paper reflects my experience as well. Vast majority of time is spent in acquiring, cleaning and processing data.

As another recent starter in Data Science, I can only add that I don't think you're experience is unique, my team of about 10 apparently hasn't done any DS in over a year (one small project that occupied 2 of the team). This is due to the promise of an effective pipeline the team's been working on, but still just isn't quite delivering the data. Apparently retention has been fairly poor in the past and there's continuous promise of a holy-grail MS Azure environment for future DS projects.

So to answer:

1) Yes totally accurate

2) No you're correct, but it's an uphill battle to get access to the data you want (if it even exists).

3) I'm sure there's companies out there who are better than others. If you can't stand it at your current company, 2 years is a decent length of time, start looking for brighter things (be careful how you phrase your desire to leave your current job, something like "looking to work with a more dynamic team" would sound better than "my old company won't give me data").

1. 
   

   Feels like most of the work is not related to data science at all. Is this accurate?

   
   
   

   Wrangling data is most definitely in the Data Scientist job description. At some level you have to understand the data generating process in order to use it to drive solutions. Sure, someone specialized in ETL could do it faster/more efficient, but being given data dumps is not uncommon in the real world. If you don't like this aspect of data science, there may be an opportunity to work more closely with IT resources to get the data properly sourced into a warehouse you have access to. Alternatively, you could find a job that already has data in better order.

   
   


2. 
   

   I know this is not a data-driven company with a high-level data engineering department, but it is my opinion that data science requires minimum levels of data accessibility. Am I wrong?

   
   
   

   I think the minimum level is txt files. If you have access to the data via text files, you should have access to the data in the database (push back on this with superiors).

   
   


3. 
   

   Is this type of setup common for a company with serious data science needs?

   
   
   

   Yes. You are the data SCIENTIST; you are the expert. It is part of your job to educate others on the inefficiencies of the current data structure and how you can help. Data that isn't usable isn't helping anyone. You have an opportunity to make things better and shape the future of the company.

   
   

If you look at this from the perspective of "this isn't my job, so why should I do it" then that's a fairly common, general problem not specific to data science. Ultimately, your job is to do whatever the boss tells you to do, but in practice there is little reason for the boss to be dictatorial about this and usually they can be persuaded. Or at least they will give you a sincere explanation of why it has to be that way. But as far as appealing to authority, there is no official definition of "Data Science" that says you can only do at most X% data cleaning. The authority is whoever is paying you, so long as they have the legal right to stop paying you.

You could also look at it from another perspective: Is this a good use of your time? It sounds like you took a job to do some tasks (which you mean by "data science") but you are having to do another thing (which you call "data wrangling"). Job descriptions and personal feelings are a bit beside the point here because there is something more pertinent: The company presumably pays you a good amount of money to do something that only you can do (the data science). But it's having you do other things instead, which could be done by other people who are some combination of more capable, more motivated or less expensive. If the data wrangling could be done by someone making half your salary, then it makes no sense to pay you twice as much to do the same thing. If it could be done faster by someone paid the same salary, the same logic applies. Therefore it is a waste of resources (especially money) to have the company assign this task to you. Coming at it from this perspective, you might find it much easier to make your superiors see your side of things.

Of course, at the end of the day, somebody has to do the data wrangling. It may be that the cheapest, fastest, easiest way of doing it -- the best person for the job, is you. In that case, you're kind of out of luck. You could try to claim it's not part of your contract, but what are the odds they were naive enough to put something that specific in the contract?

Perhaps to put it simply:

• When creating variables and binning numerics, would you be doing that blindly, or after analysing your data?


• When peers review your findings, if they had questions about particular bits of data, would it embarrass you to not know them?

You need to work with and understand your data - which includes simple stuff from fixing inconsistencies (NULLs, empty strings, "-") to understanding how a piece of data goes from collected to being displayed. Processing it includes knowing the same pieces of information, so it is partially work you would have had to do anyway.

Now, it sounds like this company could benefit from setting up some sort of free MySQL (or similar) instance to hold your data. Trying to be flexible when you're designing your wrangling code is also a good idea - having an intermediate dataset of processed data I think would be useful if you're allowed to (and can't do it in MySQL).

But of course you're still setting up things from scratch. This is not an easy process, but this "learning experience" is at least good to put in your CV.

1) Feels like most of the work is not related to data science at all. Is this accurate?
In my opinion, Data Science cannot pull out from Data wrangling. But, as you said, the question would come on how much percentage of Data Wrangling is required to do by a Data Scientist. It depends on Organizations bandwidth and the person interest in doing such work. In my experience of 15 to 16 years as DS, I always, spent around 60% to 70% in data wrangling activity and spent to a max of 15% of time in real analysis. so take your call.

2) I know this is not a data-driven company with a high-level data engineering department, but it is my opinion that data science requires minimum levels of data accessibility. Am I wrong?
Again it depends on organization's security policies. They cannot leave everything to you and they have their own security issues to reveal the data to a person who is temporary employee (sorry to use this words :-()

3) Is this type of setup common for a company with serious data science needs?
I feel these kind of companies require most attention from Data Scientists to make feel that data driven modeling is the future to sustain their business. :-)

I have given my inputs in thinking of businesses instead of technical stand points. :-)
Hope I am clear in my choice of words.

In his talk "Big Data is four different problems", Turing award winner Michael Stonebraker mentions this particular issue as a big problem (video, slides)

He says that there are a number of open problems in this area: Ingest, Transform(e.g. euro/dollar),
Clean(e.g.-99/Null),
Schema mapping (e.g. wages/salary),
Entity consolidation (e.g. Mike Stonebraker/Michael Stonebreaker)

There are number of companies/products trying to solve this problem such as Tamr, Alteryx, Trifacta, Paxata, Google Refine working to solve this problem.

Until this area matures, a lot of the data scientist job will indeed be data wrangling.