Successfully reported this slideshow.

Election Debate Visualisation Project - PCRG Talk

2

Share

Loading in …3
×
1 of 78
1 of 78

Election Debate Visualisation Project - PCRG Talk

2

Share

Download to read offline

The Election Debate Visualisation (EDV) project is funded by the UK’s Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). This joint 3 year project kicked off Oct. 2013, conducted by the University of Leeds (Institute of Communications Studies) and the Open University (Knowledge Media Institute).

EDV is investigating how British citizens experienced the televised Prime Ministerial Debates in 2010, with a view to understanding how the 2015 debates might be experienced in new ways to give greater insight and engagement. These requirements will inform the use of novel computational approaches to representing what takes place in the debates, through novel replay interfaces. The project team brings a unique combination of Information Science, Political Communication and Design (University of Leeds) with Computer-Supported Argument Modelling & Visualisation (The Open University).

The Election Debate Visualisation (EDV) project is funded by the UK’s Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). This joint 3 year project kicked off Oct. 2013, conducted by the University of Leeds (Institute of Communications Studies) and the Open University (Knowledge Media Institute).

EDV is investigating how British citizens experienced the televised Prime Ministerial Debates in 2010, with a view to understanding how the 2015 debates might be experienced in new ways to give greater insight and engagement. These requirements will inform the use of novel computational approaches to representing what takes place in the debates, through novel replay interfaces. The project team brings a unique combination of Information Science, Political Communication and Design (University of Leeds) with Computer-Supported Argument Modelling & Visualisation (The Open University).

More Related Content

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

Election Debate Visualisation Project - PCRG Talk

  1. 1. Election Debate Visualisation Project edv-project.net
  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 at the OU http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/ debate-replay-with-map
  8. 8. The EDV Project 2013-2016
  9. 9. Main project objectives 1. Political Communication Research: understand how election debates connect with and may enable democratic citizenship 2. Computing/Informatics/Design Research: develop an election debate replay web platform that will provide new ways for citizens to experience and evaluate election debates edv-project.net
  10. 10. 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; 8~10 people per group
  11. 11. Democratic capabilities & entitlements 1. Be respected as a rational and independent decision-maker 2. Be able to evaluate political claims and make an informed decision 3. Feel part of the debate as a democratic cultural event 4. Be able to communicate with and be recognized by the leaders who want to represent me 5. Be able to make a difference to what happens in the political world
  12. 12. New Modes of Engagement with Televised Political Debate through Audience Feedback
  13. 13. Setting the Problem The way people engage with televised political debates today is progressively shifting form “passive” viewing of a television programme, to “active” participation to a multiple media event
  14. 14. The past….
  15. 15. The present… The past….
  16. 16. The present… The past…. ?The Future?
  17. 17. Research Questions: • Is this new “participation experience” really informative? And to what extent does it improve citizens’ confidence about the issues discussed? • Do social media voices truly capture the richness of citizens’ reactions to political debates? • What could we learn about the audience of political election debate, and about the debate as media event, if we had better analytical tools to scrutinize audience’s understanding and reactions?
  18. 18. Collective Intelligence cycle 2 Social Media & Ubiquitous Computing and Audience Feedback 1 3 4 5 2 Data Aggregation Annotation and structuring Analytics Identifying interesting Patterns Augmented Media and Visualizations Communities
  19. 19. Harnessing Audience Reactions ‘Soft’ Feedback: • Controlled and nuanced • Voluntary and non-intrusive • Enabling analytics and visualisations
  20. 20. Audience Feedback Objectives • promoting active engagement by enabling the audience to react to the televised debates in new non-intrusive, yet expressive, and timely manner; • harnessing and analysing viewers’ reactions to better understand the audience and their debate experience; • providing new metrics to assess the debate as media event in terms of its capability to engage the audience aesthetically, emotionally, intellectually and critically.
  21. 21. 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!)
  22. 22. Trust Cards designed to provide insights on the main motivations for audience’s trust/distrust. ….with the goal in mind to distinguish between trust on the speaker, the debate content, and pre-existing beliefs.
  23. 23. Emotion Cards Designed to provide insights on audience’s emotional reactions to the debate and can be used as proxy to assess people engagement with the speakers and the debated topics.
  24. 24. Questions Cards Designed to provide insights on audience’s information needs. ..to inform the type of information analysis and visualizations to be implemented in the EDV replay platform, in order to make the audience viewing experience more informative.
  25. 25. A paper prototype: the flashcard experiment
  26. 26. Coding and Annotation of the Video - Quantitative analysis - Frequently used/unused cards - Most used categories - Do the dimensions make sense?
  27. 27. Clegg’s VS Farage’s Reactions triggers
  28. 28. Explore in details one of the speakers perceived performance
  29. 29. Explore in details one of the speakers perceived performance
  30. 30. Farage: “…actually sixty-two percent of the people that were surveyed in that British car manufacture interview they want serious reform within the European Union if they're gonna stay as members. So, far from the top line being true, two-thirds of them are saying unless we get reform then the time has come to leave the EU.” Farage: “You can't do that. You haven't got this power. You haven't got this control.” Clegg: “Yes, you do. Yes, you do.” Is this TRUE? Where can I find more info on this? Farage: “We do not have that power as members of the European Union and that's the truth of it.” Clegg: “Yes, you do. Yes.” Who to TRUST?
  31. 31. Who are the outliers?
  32. 32. Self- Reflection: How do I differ/comply with the GROUP? Me VS the Group
  33. 33. Self- Reflection: How do I differ/comply with the GROUP?
  34. 34. Twitter sentiment analysis
  35. 35. Google searches sparked by the debates
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. Soft Feedback Mobile App
  38. 38. Next Steps • Enabling soft feedback during the live broadcasting of the political debate • Design flashcards for the democratic entitlements identified • Replicate the soft feedback gathering experiment with flashcards in a virtual distributed setting by using the mobile and face-to-face
  39. 39. Next Steps • Guidelines will be provided on how to use soft feedback, flashcard methods and tools, to harness audience reactions to political debates in different contexts, and with different audience’s size.
  40. 40. Democratic capabilities & entitlements 1. Be respected as a rational and independent decision-maker 2. Be able to evaluate political claims and make an informed decision 3. Feel part of the debate as a democratic cultural event 4. Be able to communicate with and be recognized by the leaders who want to represent me 5. Be able to make a difference to what happens in the political world
  41. 41. The debate-viewing experience today
  42. 42. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations LBC Radio, 26 March BBC, 2 April
  43. 43. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  44. 44. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  45. 45. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  46. 46. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  47. 47. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  48. 48. The Clegg-Farage 2014 debates on UK-EU relations
  49. 49. BBC Live site
  50. 50. BBC Replay site
  51. 51. 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
  52. 52. The Future of Election Debate Replays
  53. 53. Computing & Informatics research objectives • Debate Analytics and Visualizations • Feedback Channels • Debate Replay Platform • Open Source Tools and Open Data Archive
  54. 54. Debate Analytics and Visualisations • Argument Maps • Rhetoric and Rules of the Game Collaborations might make possible: • Social Media Analytics • Fact-Checking
  55. 55. Argument Mapping and Visualisation http://compendiuminstitute.net
  56. 56. 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?
  57. 57. Argument Maps
  58. 58. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  59. 59. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  60. 60. 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
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. 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 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
  63. 63. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Annotation Tool
  64. 64. 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
  65. 65. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Output of the method
  66. 66. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  67. 67. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  68. 68. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  69. 69. Rhetoric and Rules of the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
  70. 70. Social Media Analytics
  71. 71. Fact-checking Full Fact (@FullFact) Independent fact checking organisation • https://fullfact.org/ • Knowledge base • Live fact-checking • …
  72. 72. 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
  73. 73. 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’
  74. 74. Thanks for your time! Brian Plüss Anna De Liddo Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, UK http://edv-project.net/

Editor's Notes

  • To test the soft feedback idea we designed an experiment in which audience reactions were captured by using flashcards. Flashcards consist of paper cards containing textual information and are often used in learning contexts for memory training. We used them to help viewers to reflect on the specific “concepts” captured by the flashcard text. The flashcards’ spaced order and repetition was used as a method to help participants memorising the cards. Card’s colour, and typographic style was also carefully designed to help participants to easily focus on the key concept captured by the card.

    The aim of the cards was to elicit three main types of reactions to the speakers’ utterances: emotional, trust, and information needs reactions.

    The trust cards (yellow cards) were designed to provide insights on the main motivations for audience’s trust/distrust. They were specifically designed with the gaol in mind to
    distinguish between trust on the speaker, the debate content, and pre-existing beliefs.

    The emotion cards (red cards) were designed to provide insights on audience’s emotional reactions to the debate and can be used as proxy to assess people engagement with the speakers and the debated topics.

    Finally the questions cards (blue cards) were designed to provide insights on audience’s information needs. This deck of cards also aimed to inform the type of information analysis and visualizations to be implemented in the EDV replay platform, in order to make the audience viewing experience more informative.
    In the following we list the trust cards we designed and the associated type of trust each card aimed at capturing. The cards colours, and typographic style was carefully designed to help participants to easily focus and memorise the key concept captured by each card.
  • To test the soft feedback idea we designed an experiment in which audience reactions were captured by using flashcards. Flashcards consist of paper cards containing textual information and are often used in learning contexts for memory training. We used them to help viewers to reflect on the specific “concepts” captured by the flashcard text. The flashcards’ spaced order and repetition was used as a method to help participants memorising the cards. Card’s colour, and typographic style was also carefully designed to help participants to easily focus on the key concept captured by the card.

    The aim of the cards was to elicit three main types of reactions to the speakers’ utterances: emotional, trust, and information needs reactions.

    The trust cards (yellow cards) were designed to provide insights on the main motivations for audience’s trust/distrust. They were specifically designed with the gaol in mind to
    distinguish between trust on the speaker, the debate content, and pre-existing beliefs.

    The emotion cards (red cards) were designed to provide insights on audience’s emotional reactions to the debate and can be used as proxy to assess people engagement with the speakers and the debated topics.

    Finally the questions cards (blue cards) were designed to provide insights on audience’s information needs. This deck of cards also aimed to inform the type of information analysis and visualizations to be implemented in the EDV replay platform, in order to make the audience viewing experience more informative.
    In the following we list the trust cards we designed and the associated type of trust each card aimed at capturing. The cards colours, and typographic style was carefully designed to help participants to easily focus and memorise the key concept captured by each card.
  • To test the soft feedback idea we designed an experiment in which audience reactions were captured by using flashcards. Flashcards consist of paper cards containing textual information and are often used in learning contexts for memory training. We used them to help viewers to reflect on the specific “concepts” captured by the flashcard text. The flashcards’ spaced order and repetition was used as a method to help participants memorising the cards. Card’s colour, and typographic style was also carefully designed to help participants to easily focus on the key concept captured by the card.

    The aim of the cards was to elicit three main types of reactions to the speakers’ utterances: emotional, trust, and information needs reactions.

    The trust cards (yellow cards) were designed to provide insights on the main motivations for audience’s trust/distrust. They were specifically designed with the gaol in mind to
    distinguish between trust on the speaker, the debate content, and pre-existing beliefs.


    Finally the questions cards (blue cards) were designed to provide insights on audience’s information needs. This deck of cards also aimed to inform the type of information analysis and visualizations to be implemented in the EDV replay platform, in order to make the audience viewing experience more informative.
    In the following we list the trust cards we designed and the associated type of trust each card aimed at capturing. The cards colours, and typographic style was carefully designed to help participants to easily focus and memorise the key concept captured by each card.
  • To test the soft feedback idea we designed an experiment in which audience reactions were captured by using flashcards. Flashcards consist of paper cards containing textual information and are often used in learning contexts for memory training. We used them to help viewers to reflect on the specific “concepts” captured by the flashcard text. The flashcards’ spaced order and repetition was used as a method to help participants memorising the cards. Card’s colour, and typographic style was also carefully designed to help participants to easily focus on the key concept captured by the card.

    The aim of the cards was to elicit three main types of reactions to the speakers’ utterances: emotional, trust, and information needs reactions.

    The trust cards (yellow cards) were designed to provide insights on the main motivations for audience’s trust/distrust. They were specifically designed with the gaol in mind to
    distinguish between trust on the speaker, the debate content, and pre-existing beliefs.

    The emotion cards (red cards) were designed to provide insights on audience’s emotional reactions to the debate and can be used as proxy to assess people engagement with the speakers and the debated topics.

    Finally the questions cards (blue cards) were designed to provide insights on audience’s information needs. This deck of cards also aimed to inform the type of information analysis and visualizations to be implemented in the EDV replay platform, in order to make the audience viewing experience more informative.
    In the following we list the trust cards we designed and the associated type of trust each card aimed at capturing. The cards colours, and typographic style was carefully designed to help participants to easily focus and memorise the key concept captured by each card.
  • We used as test-bed the second political debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage about whether the UK should be in or out of the EU (one hour debate hosted by BBC television on April 2th 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26443312).
    A study was run with 15 Leed’s University students in which participants were asked to watch the political debate and raise the flashcards as the debate unfolded. Students were asked to raise the flashcard that most represented their “feeling” toward what was being said by the politicians during the debate. This procedure was repeated throughout the entire debate allowing the participants to raise the cards as many times as they wanted, whenever any event during the debate triggered any reaction from their
  • We’ll use soft feedback analysis to investigate and measure which democratic entitlement is triggered at specific time of the political debate and by specific political topics and actors.
  • We’ll use soft feedback analysis to investigate and measure which democratic entitlement is triggered at specific time of the political debate and by specific political topics and actors.
  • We’ll use soft feedback analysis to investigate and measure which democratic entitlement is triggered at specific time of the political debate and by specific political topics and actors.
  • ×