Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda: 
Enhancing Election Debates to Foster Viewers' Engagement 
edv-project...
Simon Buckingham Shum 
Professor 
Learning Informatics 
Anna De Liddo 
Research Associate 
Collective Intelligence 
Paul W...
Leeds & OU research 
on the 2010 Election Debates
Univ. Leeds prior research into 
public response to the 
televised 2010 Election 
Debates
Impact of the 3 debates on 
voter intentions
Key findings… 
• the British public appreciated the debates 
• 2/3 said they’d learnt something new 
• they seemed to ener...
Mapping the UK election TV debates 
http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/real-time-mapping-election-tv-debates
Mapping the UK election TV debates 
http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/real-time-mapping-election-tv-debates 
Seeing...
The EDV Project 
2013-2016
Focus groups motivate a set of 
‘democratic entitlements’ 
• Ability to scrutinise the communicational strategies 
adopted...
The debate-viewing 
experience today
The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations 
LBC Radio, 26 March BBC, 2 April
The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU 
relations
The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU 
relations
The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU 
relations
The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU 
relations
The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU 
relations
The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU 
relations
Fact-checking 
Full Fact (@FullFact) 
Independent fact checking organisation 
• https://fullfact.org/ 
• Knowledge base 
•...
BBC Live site
The Future of 
Election Debate Replays
Replay 
Platform
Debate Analytics and 
Visualisations 
• Argument Maps 
• Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
Collaborations might make possibl...
Argument Mapping and 
Visualisation 
http://compendiuminstitute.net
Collaborative 
Knowledge 
Production 
Collaborative Web 
Annotation and 
Knowledge 
mapping 
Structured Online 
Discussion...
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) 
• Rules of the game in terms of discourse 
obligations 
• C...
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) 
• Rules of the game in terms of discourse 
Dialogue Act 
In...
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) 
Annotation Tool
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) 
• Rules of the game in terms of discourse 
Dialogue Act 
In...
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
Rhetoric and Rules of the Game 
(Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) 
• Is there room for crowdsourcing these? 
Dialogue Act 
Ini...
Citizen Voice Channels 
• Viewer Feedback 
And later perhaps… 
• Crowdsourced Fact-Checking 
• Life stories
Citizen Voice Channels 
• Viewer Feedback 
And later perhaps… 
• Crowdsourced Fact-Checking 
• Life stories 
• Everything?
What if viewers had a say?
What if viewers had a say? 
‘Soft’ Feedback
What if viewers had a say? 
‘Soft’ Feedback: 
• Controlled and nuanced 
• Voluntary and non-intrusive 
• Enabling analytic...
What if viewers had a say? 
‘Soft’ Feedback: 
• Controlled and nuanced 
• Voluntary and non-intrusive 
• Enabling analytic...
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
• 18 flashcards in 3 categories 
• Emotion 
• Trust 
• Information need 
• 15...
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
Emotion cards
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
Trust cards
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
Information need cards
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
• 18 flashcards in 3 categories 
• Emotion 
• Trust 
• Information need 
• 15...
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
• 18 flashcards in 3 categories 
• Emotion 
• Trust 
• Information need 
• 15...
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
Compendium Annotations 
• Video mapping with modifications 
• Annotations exp...
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
Qualtitative analysis: 
• Engagement with the cards 
• Ease of use 
• Peer pr...
A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment 
Outcomes: 
• Test of hypothesis on categories 
• Scalability 
• Revision of t...
A digital prototype
Debate Replay Platform 
• Uniformly organise diverse sources 
of information 
• Support user preferences in terms 
of: 
• ...
EDV 
Replay 
Platform
Arguments Fact checking 
Generation of: 
- Web content 
- Analytics 
- Open data 
- ... 
Repository 
Replay Website 
GO! 
...
Thanks for your time! 
Brian Plüss 
Anna De Liddo 
Simon Buckingham Shum 
Knowledge Media Institute 
The Open University, ...
Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda
Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda

617 views

Published on

The Web is changing the way citizens engage with the political agenda. Following the emergence of social media, political events are now surrounded by real-time reactions and analyses from viewers, political actors, mainstream media and other social organisations.

We anticipate a future in which events such as election debates will be enriched by an unpredictable range of additional information streams from individuals and organisations, from additional live reaction as events unfold, to retrospectively added resources which can be more reflective, and hence possibly higher quality. The EPSRC Election Debate Visualisation (EDV)
Project is aimed at developing an online video replay platform during the 2015 UK General
Election, in which party leadership debates are linked to customisable visualisation channels to enhance viewers’ experience and hopefully encourage citizen engagement.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda

  1. 1. Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda: Enhancing Election Debates to Foster Viewers' Engagement edv-project.net Brian Plüss Anna De Liddo Simon Buckingham Shum
  2. 2. Simon Buckingham Shum Professor Learning Informatics Anna De Liddo Research Associate Collective Intelligence Paul Wilson Lecturer Design Brian Plüss Research Associate Debate Analytics Giles Moss Lecturer Media Policy Stephen Coleman Professor Political Communication
  3. 3. Leeds & OU research on the 2010 Election Debates
  4. 4. Univ. Leeds prior research into public response to the televised 2010 Election Debates
  5. 5. Impact of the 3 debates on voter intentions
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Mapping the UK election TV debates http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/real-time-mapping-election-tv-debates
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. The EDV Project 2013-2016
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. The debate-viewing experience today
  12. 12. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations LBC Radio, 26 March BBC, 2 April
  13. 13. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  14. 14. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  15. 15. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  16. 16. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  17. 17. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  18. 18. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  19. 19. Fact-checking Full Fact (@FullFact) Independent fact checking organisation • https://fullfact.org/ • Knowledge base • Live fact-checking • …
  20. 20. BBC Live site
  21. 21. The Future of Election Debate Replays
  22. 22. Replay Platform
  23. 23. Debate Analytics and Visualisations • Argument Maps • Rhetoric and Rules of the Game Collaborations might make possible: • Social Media Analytics • Fact-Checking • Topic Analysis
  24. 24. Argument Mapping and Visualisation http://compendiuminstitute.net
  25. 25. Collaborative Knowledge Production Collaborative Web Annotation and Knowledge mapping Structured Online Discussion and Argumentation Social Network Analysis and Visualization Advanced Analytics for: Attention mediation & Deliberation diagnostic http://catalyst-fp7.eu Collective Argument Mapping and Visualisation Collective intelligence for social innovation
  26. 26. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  27. 27. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) • Rules of the game in terms of discourse Dialogue Act Initiating Responsive Init-Inform Init-InfoReq Resp-Inform Resp-Accept Resp-Reject On-Topic Off-Topic Objective Subjective Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated On-Topic Off-Topic Neutral Loaded Reasonable Unreasonable New Repeated Relevant Irrelevant Objective Subjective Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated Complete Incomplete obligations • Coding scheme for manual annotation of transcripts • Method for classifying annotated speaker contributions wrt the rules of the game
  30. 30. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Annotation Tool
  31. 31. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) • Rules of the game in terms of discourse Dialogue Act Initiating Responsive Init-Inform Init-InfoReq Resp-Inform Resp-Accept Resp-Reject On-Topic Off-Topic Objective Subjective Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated On-Topic Off-Topic Neutral Loaded Reasonable Unreasonable New Repeated Relevant Irrelevant Objective Subjective Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated Complete Incomplete obligations • Coding scheme for manual annotation of transcripts • Method for classifying annotated speaker contributions wrt the rules of the game
  32. 32. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  33. 33. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) • Is there room for crowdsourcing these? Dialogue Act Initiating Responsive Init-Inform Init-InfoReq Resp-Inform Resp-Accept Resp-Reject On-Topic Off-Topic Objective Subjective Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated On-Topic Off-Topic Neutral Loaded Reasonable Unreasonable New Repeated Relevant Irrelevant Objective Subjective Accurate Inaccurate New Repeated Complete Incomplete
  34. 34. Citizen Voice Channels • Viewer Feedback And later perhaps… • Crowdsourced Fact-Checking • Life stories
  35. 35. Citizen Voice Channels • Viewer Feedback And later perhaps… • Crowdsourced Fact-Checking • Life stories • Everything?
  36. 36. What if viewers had a say?
  37. 37. What if viewers had a say? ‘Soft’ Feedback
  38. 38. What if viewers had a say? ‘Soft’ Feedback: • Controlled and nuanced • Voluntary and non-intrusive • Enabling analytics and visualisations
  39. 39. What if viewers had a say? ‘Soft’ Feedback: • Controlled and nuanced • Voluntary and non-intrusive • Enabling analytics and visualisations
  40. 40. 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!)
  41. 41. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Emotion cards
  42. 42. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Trust cards
  43. 43. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Information need cards
  44. 44. 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!)
  45. 45. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment
  46. 46. 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!)
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Qualtitative analysis: • Engagement with the cards • Ease of use • Peer pressure Quantitative analysis: • Most/least frequently used cards • Most/least frequently used categories • Comparison with other feedback elicitation methods
  49. 49. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment Outcomes: • Test of hypothesis on categories • Scalability • Revision of the card deck • Get insights for the design of the platform feedback interface
  50. 50. A digital prototype
  51. 51. 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
  52. 52. EDV Replay Platform
  53. 53. Arguments Fact checking 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 Non-Cooperation Topics Open Data Sentiment Analysis Party Manifestos Topic Analysis Soft Feedback Analysis Fact-Checking Soft Feedback EDV Architecture Sketch Features and functionalities: • 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’
  54. 54. Thanks for your time! Brian Plüss Anna De Liddo Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, UK http://edv-project.net/

×