Readers of this journal will be familiar with the power of data to inform healthcare decisions, processes, policies and investments, with the goal of better patient care. They may also know first-hand how these data are always limited, partial, political and context-dependent,1–3 yet useful and necessary nonetheless. This is one of the data paradoxes recounted in the book by the same name,4 by Professor Klaus Hoeyer, University of Copenhagen. The book examines the work that is required to produce and use data in healthcare, while also exploring the contradictions inherent in these data that make it challenging to inform improvements, practice and policy. It is based on research about the Danish healthcare system, although its arguments are applicable internationally. The paradoxes are universal, as is the data work involved.

The book is rich in conceptual insight, anecdotes and storytelling and questions our data knowledge, judgement and wisdom. This is the type of insight one gets from anthropology5—and its core method, ethnography6—which can challenge assumptions and reveal the lived experience and complexity of health and healthcare. In the quality improvement community, insight from anthropology and ethnography is sought to identify aspects of care that need improvement,6 as well as ‘what good looks like’,7 while being aware …