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.

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

1,354 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
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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/

×