Download to read offline
Uploaded byEDV Project
Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda
The document discusses the EDV project aimed at enhancing viewer engagement in political debates through collective intelligence, focusing on the 2010 UK election debates and subsequent events. Key findings highlight that debates educated the public, energized first-time voters, and shifted media coverage towards substantial discussions. The project also explores potential future developments in debate analytics, citizen feedback mechanisms, and enhanced fact-checking to facilitate informed public discourse.
Collective Intelligence Meets the Political Agenda
- 1. Collective Intelligence Meetsthe Political Agenda: Enhancing Election Debates to Foster Viewers' Engagement edv-project.net Brian Plüss Anna De Liddo Simon Buckingham Shum
- 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. Leeds & OUresearch on the 2010 Election Debates
- 4. Univ. Leeds priorresearch into public response to the televised 2010 Election Debates
- 5. Impact of the3 debates on voter intentions
- 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. Mapping the UKelection TV debates http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/real-time-mapping-election-tv-debates
- 8. Mapping the UKelection TV debates http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/2010/04/real-time-mapping-election-tv-debates Seeing Nick Clegg’s moves
- 9. The EDV Project 2013-2016
- 10. Focus groups motivatea 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.
- 12. The Clegg-Farage 2014debates on UK-EU relations LBC Radio, 26 March BBC, 2 April
- 13. The Clegg-Farage 2014debates on UK-EU relations
- 14. The Clegg-Farage 2014debates on UK-EU relations
- 15. The Clegg-Farage 2014debates on UK-EU relations
- 16. The Clegg-Farage 2014debates on UK-EU relations
- 17. The Clegg-Farage 2014debates on UK-EU relations
- 18. The Clegg-Farage 2014debates on UK-EU relations
- 19. Fact-checking Full Fact(@FullFact) Independent fact checking organisation • https://fullfact.org/ • Knowledge base • Live fact-checking • …
- 20.
- 21. The Future of Election Debate Replays
- 23.
- 24. Debate Analytics and Visualisations • Argument Maps • Rhetoric and Rules of the Game Collaborations might make possible: • Social Media Analytics • Fact-Checking • Topic Analysis
- 25. Argument Mapping and Visualisation http://compendiuminstitute.net
- 27. 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
- 28. Rhetoric and Rulesof the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
- 29. Rhetoric and Rulesof the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
- 30. Rhetoric and Rulesof 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
- 31. Rhetoric and Rulesof 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. Rhetoric and Rulesof the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue) Annotation Tool
- 33. Rhetoric and Rulesof 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
- 34. Rhetoric and Rulesof the Game (Non-Cooperation in Dialogue)
- 35. Rhetoric and Rulesof 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
- 36. Citizen Voice Channels • Viewer Feedback And later perhaps… • Crowdsourced Fact-Checking • Life stories
- 37. Citizen Voice Channels • Viewer Feedback And later perhaps… • Crowdsourced Fact-Checking • Life stories • Everything?
- 38. What if viewershad a say?
- 39. What if viewershad a say? ‘Soft’ Feedback
- 40. What if viewershad a say? ‘Soft’ Feedback: • Controlled and nuanced • Voluntary and non-intrusive • Enabling analytics and visualisations
- 41. What if viewershad a say? ‘Soft’ Feedback: • Controlled and nuanced • Voluntary and non-intrusive • Enabling analytics and visualisations
- 42. 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!)
- 43. A paper prototype:the flashcard experiment Emotion cards
- 44. A paper prototype:the flashcard experiment Trust cards
- 45. A paper prototype:the flashcard experiment Information need cards
- 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. A paper prototype:the flashcard experiment
- 48. 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!)
- 49. 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
- 50. 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
- 51. 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
- 52.
- 53. 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
- 54.
- 55. 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’
- 56. Thanks for yourtime! Brian Plüss Anna De Liddo Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, UK http://edv-project.net/