Over the last century, the adoption of novel scientific methods for conducting the U.S. census has been met with wide-ranging receptions. Some methods were quietly embraced, while others sparked decades-long controversies. What accounts for these differences? We argue that controversies emerge from $\textit{arrangements of statistical imaginaries}$, putting into tension divergent visions of the census. To analyze these dynamics, we compare reactions to two methods designed to improve data accuracy (imputation and adjustment) and two methods designed to protect confidentiality (swapping and differential privacy), offering insight into how each method reconfigures stakeholder orientations and rhetorical claims. These cases allow us to reflect on how technocratic efforts to improve accuracy and confidentiality can strengthen -- or erode -- trust in data. Our analysis shows how the credibility of the Census Bureau and its data stem not just from empirical evaluations of quantification, but also from how statistical imaginaries are contested and stabilized.

翻译：在过去一个世纪中，美国人口普查采用新型科学方法引发了广泛反响。某些方法被悄然接纳，而另一些则引发了长达数十年的争议。如何解释这些差异？我们认为争议源于$\textit{统计想象的制度性安排}$，这些安排使人口普查的不同愿景形成张力。为分析这种动态机制，我们比较了针对两类方法的反应：旨在提升数据准确性的方法（插补与调整）与旨在保护机密性的方法（数据置换与差分隐私），从而揭示每种方法如何重构利益相关者的立场取向与话语主张。通过这些案例，我们可以反思技术官僚为提升准确性与保密性所做的努力如何增强——或削弱——对数据的信任。我们的分析表明，人口普查局及其数据的公信力不仅源于量化过程的实证评估，更取决于统计想象如何被争议与固化。