The Election Debate Visualisation Project - KMi Internal Seminar - 19 June 2014

1,127 views

Published on

During the 2010 UK general election, the first ever televised Prime Ministerial debates took place. Research and pilot work in KMi and at University of Leeds demonstrated the interest that this sparked in the public, their need for more understanding of the issues, and the potential of mapping the debates in visual ways. In 2015 the next election is anticipated with public debates. The 3 year EPSRC-funded Election Debate Visualisation (EDV) Project [http://edv-project.net] will take this opportunity to investigate new ways in which the public can replay the debates, and engage more deeply with the issue and arguments at stake. In this talk, we will reflect on the current experience of watching debates, summarise key findings from citizen focus groups, show how we have prototyped a new kind of richer audience feedback and video annotation interface (using the televised/streamed Clegg-Farage EU Debates as an example), and indicate where we’re going. Your thoughts on this are most welcome.

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,127
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
631
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • a pervasive challenge for building CI platforms is balancing a critical tension between:
    The need to structure and curate contributions from many people in order to maximise the signal-to-noise-ratio and provide more advanced CI services
    versus permitting people to make contributions with very little useful indexing or structure
  • (f.i to what extent two speakers support or challenge each other while discussing a specific topic)
  • The Election Debate Visualisation Project - KMi Internal Seminar - 19 June 2014

    1. 1. Election Debate Visualisation Project edv-project.net Simon Buckingham Shum Anna De Liddo Brian Plüss
    2. 2. Simon Buckingham Shum Professor Learning Informatics Anna De Liddo Research Associate Collective Intelligence Brian Plüss Research Associate Debate Analytics Paul Wilson Lecturer Design Giles Moss Lecturer Media Policy Stephen Coleman Professor Political Communication
    3. 3. The 2010 Election Debates
    4. 4. Twitter sentiment analysis
    5. 5. Google searches sparked by the debates
    6. 6. 2010 BBC replay site • Second debate http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ election_2010/8635098.stm • Final debate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ election_2010/8652884.stm
    7. 7. Leeds & OU research on the 2010 Election Debates
    8. 8. Univ. Leeds prior research into public response to the televised 2010 Election Debates
    9. 9. Impact of the 3 debates on voter intentions
    10. 10. Key findings… • the British public appreciated the debates • 2/3 said they’d learnt something new • they seemed to energise first-time voters • people would talk about them afterwards (esp. younger voters) • media coverage shifted from focusing on the ‘game’ to the substance
    11. 11. Mapping the UK election TV debates http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/real-time-mapping-election-tv-debates
    12. 12. Mapping the UK election TV debates http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/real-time-mapping-election-tv-debates Seeing Nick Clegg’s moves
    13. 13. Mapping the UK election TV debates http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/ debate-replay-with-map
    14. 14. The EDV Project 2013-2016
    15. 15. Overall project objectives • Political Research: Understand the roles that Election Debates could play in developing citizens able to engage more fully in the democratic process thus motivating… • Computation/Informatics Research: Render and enrich replays of the debates through novel experiences that make visible significant features of the content, and of the context enabling further research and design through… • Open Data: Publish open datasets for others to analyse and visualise
    16. 16. Qualitative research: citizens’ perceptions of election debates 12 focus groups conducted at Leeds: • Disengaged Voters • Committed Party Supporters • Undecided Voters • First-time Voters • Active Users of the Internet • Performers Male/Female; 15 people per group
    17. 17. Qualitative research: citizens’ perceptions of election debates Structure of the interviews: 1. The 2010 UK General Elections Debates: views and experiences 2. Improving the debates 3. Final questions
    18. 18. Qualitative research: citizens’ perceptions of election debates Structure of the interviews:
    19. 19. Qualitative research: citizens’ perceptions of election debates Structure of the interviews:
    20. 20. Qualitative research: citizens’ perceptions of election debates Structure of the interviews:
    21. 21. Focus groups motivate a set of ‘democratic entitlements’ • Ability to scrutinise the communicational strategies adopted by the speakers, e.g. to detect intentional confusion & manipulation • Understand the meaning, background and historical record of political claims • Connect disparate arguments and claims with a view to understanding their ramifications, esp. negative • Have a sense of involvement, presence and voice, including telling their stories
    22. 22. The debate-viewing experience today
    23. 23. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations BBC, 2 AprilLBC Radio, 26 March
    24. 24. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
    25. 25. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
    26. 26. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
    27. 27. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
    28. 28. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
    29. 29. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
    30. 30. Fact-checking • https://fullfact.org/ • Knowledge base • Live fact-checking • … Full Fact (@FullFact) Independent fact checking organisation
    31. 31. BBC Live site
    32. 32. BBC Replay site
    33. 33. The Future of Election Debate Replays
    34. 34. Computing & Informatics research objectives • Debate Analytics and Visualizations • Citizen Voice Channels • Debate Replay Platform • (Open Data Archive)
    35. 35. Envisioning the future with concept demonstrators • Automatic, semi-automatic and manual analysis of debate clips and transcripts • Demonstrate concepts in future user experience, and deeper analytics Use these to envision broadcasters and other researchers as to what should be possible for the 2020 General Election…
    36. 36. Debate Analytics and Visualisations • Argument Maps • Rhetoric and Rules of the Game Collaborations might make possible: • Social Media Analytics • Fact-Checking • Topic Analysis
    37. 37. Argument Maps • First 15 minutes of second Clegg-Farage debate • Claims being made and by whom • Support/challenge connections • Time of contributions is less influential • Is this the best way to show it to end-users?
    38. 38. Argument Maps
    39. 39. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
    40. 40. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) • Rules of the game in terms of discourse obligations • Coding scheme for manual annotation of transcripts • Method for classifying annotated speaker contributions wrt the rules of the game
    41. 41. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Dialogue Act Initiating Responsive Init-Inform Init-InfoReq Resp-Inform Resp-Accept Resp-Reject Objective Subjective On-Topic Off-Topic Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated Neutral Loaded On-Topic Off-Topic Reasonable Unreasonable New Repeated Objective Subjective Relevant Irrelevant Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated Complete Incomplete • Rules of the game in terms of discourse obligations • Coding scheme for manual annotation of transcripts • Method for classifying annotated speaker contributions wrt the rules of the game
    42. 42. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Dialogue Transcript Annotation (Segments, Dialogue Act Functions, References and Content Features) Assessment of Cooperation (for each participant in the dialogue) Degrees of Cooperation Annotated Dialogue • Rules of the game in terms of discourse obligations • Coding scheme for manual annotation of transcripts • Method for classifying annotated speaker contributions wrt the rules of the game Dialogue Act Initiating Responsive Init-Inform Init-InfoReq Resp-Inform Resp-Accept Resp-Reject Objective Subjective On-Topic Off-Topic Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated Neutral Loaded On-Topic Off-Topic Reasonable Unreasonable New Repeated Objective Subjective Relevant Irrelevant Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated Complete Incomplete
    43. 43. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Annotation Tool
    44. 44. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Output of the method
    45. 45. Social Media Analytics
    46. 46. Citizen Voice Channels • Viewer Feedback Collaborations might make possible: • Life Stories • Crowdsourced Fact-Checking • Localised Narratives
    47. 47. What if viewers had a say?
    48. 48. What if viewers had a say? ‘Soft’ Feedback
    49. 49. What if viewers had a say? • Controlled and nuanced • Voluntary and non-intrusive • Enabling analytics and visualisations ‘Soft’ Feedback:
    50. 50. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment • 18 flashcards in 3 categories • Emotion • Trust • Information need • 15 participants watched the second Clegg-Farage debate live • Video annotations in Compendium (and Youtube!)
    51. 51. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Emotion cards
    52. 52. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Trust cards
    53. 53. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Information need cards
    54. 54. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment • 18 flashcards in 3 categories • Emotion • Trust • Information need • 15 participants watched the second Clegg-Farage debate live • Video annotations in Compendium (and Youtube!)
    55. 55. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment
    56. 56. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment • 18 flashcards in 3 categories • Emotion • Trust • Information need • 15 participants watched the second Clegg-Farage debate live • Video annotations in Compendium (and Youtube!)
    57. 57. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Compendium Annotations • Video mapping with modifications • Annotations exported as XML, CSV, etc. for analysis • Youtube export for dissemination • Replay of annotated videos
    58. 58. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Compendium Annotations • Video mapping with modifications • Annotations exported as XML, CSV, etc. for analysis • YouTube export for dissemination • Replay of annotated videos
    59. 59. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Quantitative analysis: • Most/least frequently used cards • Most/least frequently used categories • Comparison with other viewer response analytics Outcomes: • Redesign of flashcard deck • Test of hypothesis on categories • Insight for the design of feedback interfaces
    60. 60. Debate Replay Platform • Uniformly organise diverse sources of information • Support user preferences in terms of: • Visualisation channels • Media navigation and indexing • Allow for different kinds of audience response
    61. 61. EDV Replay Platform
    62. 62. EDV Replay Platform
    63. 63. Generation of: - Web content - Analytics - Open data - ... Repository Replay Website GO! Argument Mapping Open Data Video Transcripts Twitter Feeds Soft Feedback System Rhetoric and Rules Checking Debate Rules TopicsNon-Cooperation Arguments Fact checking Open Data Sentiment Analysis Party Manifestos Topic Analysis Soft Feedback Analysis Fact-Checking Soft Feedback EDV Architecture Sketch • Gather data from sources • Analyse data and produce visualisations • Tailor augmentations to audiences and purposes • Publish open data and replay interface • Provide access to citizens and give them a ‘voice’ Features and functionalities:
    64. 64. Collective Intelligence Online Deliberation Human Dynamics of Engagements Analytics, & Visualization Crowdsourcing ideas, arguments and facts Structured Discourse and Argumentation Democratic entitlements New class of Online Deliberation tools Contested Collective Intelligence for the Common Good (Social, Visual and Argumentation-based CI) Citizen Voice Social Innovation Computational Services & Dialogic Agents
    65. 65. Future Research Collaborations • Combining sentiment, topic and opinion mining of social media data to political debate analysis and visualization • Automated sentiment and topic and analysis of election debate transcripts will be used to generate engaging visualizations and summarization of the debate content
    66. 66. Topic: Immigration
    67. 67. Future Research Collaborations • Enabling soft feedback during the live broadcasting of the political debate • Soft feedback widget for Stadium Live • This would provide a platform for experimentation of different research hypothesis (f.i. how do soft feedback statistic affect opinion changes and debate participation?) • It would also provide a platform to engage a larger audience.
    68. 68. Future Research Collaborations • Collective Intelligence and Visual Analytics Dashboard for online discourse and argumentation data (IBIS datamodel)
    69. 69. Thanks for you time! Simon Buckingham Shum, Anna De Liddo and Brian Plüss Project website: http://edv-project.net/

    ×