Designing Controversiesand their PublicsTommaso Venturini(médialab Sciences Po Paris)
Part I: Controversy Mappingand its ContradictionDesigning Controversiesand their publics
Controversy Mappingas a teaching methodIntroduced by Bruno Latour some 20 years agoto train students in the observation an...
Controversy Mappingas a teaching method controverses.sciences-po.fr
Controversy Mappingas a research method4 collaborative projects:MACOSPOL (mapping controversies on science for politics) 2...
Why controversies?a methodological reason
« It is controversies of this kind, the hardestcontroversies to disentangle, that the public iscalled in to judge. Where t...
Controversy Mappingas a participation method« The MACOSPOL consortium has been assembled to address thisquestion: how to e...
The contradiction ofcontroversy mappingControversy Mappingas a teaching and research methodControversy Mappingas a partici...
A challenge to design« Now here is the challenge: In its long history, design practice has done amarvelous job of inventin...
Designing Controversiesand their publicsPart II: Asking the Right Question
The contradiction ofcontroversy mappingObserve controversiesin all their richnessProvide the public witha readable descrip...
The contradiction ofcontroversy mappingObserve controversiesin all their richnessProvide the public witha readable descrip...
Where do we stand? .legible but rich?rich but legible?www.boxplotstudios.com/2012debate_1www.pitchinteractive.com/election...
The complexity-simplicity slider
Searching the pointof balance
Where does scientificreference stand?The Pedofil of Boa VistaBruno Latour (1995)Common Knowledge 4(1)
Are we asking the wrongquestion?The Pedofil of Boa VistaBruno Latour (1995)Common Knowledge 4(1)
From where we standto how we move« Our philosophical tradition has been mistaken in wanting to makephenomena the meeting p...
Part III: Three movementsDesigning Controversiesand their publics
Three movements• The extension of complexity/legibility trade off• Controversy atlases• WHAT: from statements to debates (...
Movement 1:The extension of complexity/legibility trade off
WHAT? from statements to debatesFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)...
Movement 1, section 1:Controversy atlasWHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement)WHO: from debates to act...
Tree of disagreementhttp://medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2010/Copenhague1/flash/fertilisation_ocean.s
Tree of disagreementhttp://jiminy.sciences-po.fr/labs/guidedtour/contents/tree.mp4
WHO? from debates to actors (who)From statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how...
The actor-argument tablehttp://medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2007/marees_vertes/schemassi.swf
HOW: From actors to networksFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)From...
Actor-network diagramhttp://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/statistiquesethniques/reseau_acteurs.php
Actor-network diagram(scientometrics)
Actor-network diagram(web cartography)http://www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2010/Hadopi2/index.php?
Actor-network diagram(text analysis)http://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/neutrinos/
WHERE? from networks to cosmosesFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)...
Debate scale / table of cosmoshttp://medialab.sciences-
WHEN? from cosmoses to cosmopoliticsFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (...
Debate dynamicshttp://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/gardasil/
http://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/mediator/chrono.htmlDebate dynamics
Movement 1, section 2:Use before use (participatory design)
Movement 1, section 3:Design after designSwiss Knife Pattada Sarda
Movement 1, section 3:Design after design (digital interactivity)http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics...
Movement 2: the exploration narration circle• The extension of complexity/legibility trade off• Controversy atlases• WHAT:...
Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
How did Theseusescaped the labyrith?http://daazo.com/film/3bcb3110-8852-11e0-ba3e-0050fc84de33
Find the way in your controversyand show it
What is the difference between a goodand bad receptionist?
Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
http://www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2011/scube/decroissance/Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
Movement 2, section 2:Exploring the complexity of the debate“An essential property of this chain is that it must remain re...
Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
Releasing the data thedata.org
Releasing the data http://www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Releasing the codegithub.com/medialab
Movement 2, section 3:datascapes navigation
http://issuu.com/densitydesign/docs/theres_no_place_like_antarctica http://vimeo.com/37723263Movement 2, section 3:datasca...
Movement 3: the spiral of public engagement• The extension of complexity/legibility trade off• Controversy atlases• WHAT: ...
GANTT 2011/2014
Expected protocolThe interaction spiral
Movement 3, section 1:Engaging the public throughout the campaign
Movement 3, section 2:Engaging the public again, again and again
tommaso.venturini@sciences-po.frVenturini, T. (2010)Diving in Magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theor...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Designing Controversies for the Public

1,946 views

Published on

A conference on how to engage the publics of sociotechnical controversies in the effort of controversy mapping.
I have been invited to give this conference at the 2012 4S conference on Science and Technology Studies (Copenhague - 18/10/12), at the 'Tactics of Issue Mapping' seminar of Goldsmith University (London - 26/10/12), at the Department of Media Studies of the University of Amsterdam (17/04/13) and at the Ecsite Conference on science centres and museums (Gothenburg - 08/06/13).

0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,946
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
292
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 The result of this complex chain of transformations is the diagram in the slide. It is evident that the the initial phenomenon (the savanna/border) and the final diagram are very different. A few thousands of kilometers of bushes and trees do not resembles to a 10 square centimeters of printed papers.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 1. From statements to debates (what) . The first map is meant to show that statements in controversies are never isolated, but always connected in a dialogue made of endorsements and oppositions. It is therefore crucial to show how different discourses question and answer to each other. Of course, there are many ways to do so. One that is popular among the students of our controversy mapping courses, the ‘tree of disagreement’, is as old as greek philosophy and Porphyrian trees.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 1. From statements to debates (what) . The first map is meant to show that statements in controversies are never isolated, but always connected in a dialogue made of endorsements and oppositions. It is therefore crucial to show how different discourses question and answer to each other. Of course, there are many ways to do so. One that is popular among the students of our controversy mapping courses, the ‘tree of disagreement’, is as old as greek philosophy and Porphyrian trees.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 2. From debates to actors (who) . The second map consists in re-attaching statements to the their speakers. This movement is important because it gives materiality to the techno-scientific debate. Controversies do not happen in the vacuum and they oppose social actors rather than platonic ideas. Proposing an argument (as well as supporting or refuting it) is never a mere intellectual move. In controversies, each act is a speech that carries a meaning and every speech is an act that binds alliances and digs oppositions. Plotting who shares which argument with whom, the ‘actors-argument table’, is therefore the very basis of controversy mapping. It is important to remind that, descending from actor-network theory, controversy mapping has a very extended definition of what is an actor of a techno-scientific debate: scientists and engineers, of course, but also lay experts, activists, decisions-makers and not only individual actors but also collective actors (research institutions, enterprises, lobbies…) and non-human actors (instruments, theories, laws, natural elements…).
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 3. From actors to networks (how) . Exactly as statements are never isolated in controversies, so are actors. As you should know by now, the hyphen in actor-network does encourage researchers to look at one and the other, but to consider actors and networks as one thing. This is particularly evident in debates, where the position of actors is determined their alliances and oppositions and, conversely, networks are defined by the actors that they connects. The ‘actor-network diagram’ is meant to visualize the simultaneous movement of individualization and clusterization that characterize controversies. Not an easy task, to be sure, but one that is becoming less impossible thanks to the growing digital traceability of scientific citations, hyperlinks, texts and many other forms social connections.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) . The last bar of this section is certainly the most difficult one. Besides presenting what controversies are about, who fights them, how they join or oppose their forces and where battles and wars take place, cartographers must also show how all these elements evolve through time. Add to this the fact that the time of controversies is often the most heterogeneous (different part of the same controversy may remain dormant for ages and suddenly burst into the quickest developments) and the complexity of cosmopolitics will be evident. This is why, though crucial, the dynamic of disputes can only be introduced after all other elements have been set into place.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 The only chance that you have not to get lost in the complexity of your controversy is to have a thread to follow. A ‘fil rouge’ that will help you keeping your direction, harnessing the richness of your controversy instead of being overflowed by it. It is all the difference between moving through the maze and being lost in it.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 Consider the way geographical maps are used. Maps, unlike paintings, are not meant to be just look at. Maps are meant to be pointed at. Consider how important is the little gesture where you point your finger on a map and say “we are here”, “we want to go there”. This little gesture transforms the very nature of the map, it turns it from an image to a navigation tool.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 This is important for you, but is all the more important for those that will look at (and evaluate) your maps. To succeed in your cartographic campaigns (and having a good note), delivering a bunch of visualization is not enough. You have to make sure that people will understand how to navigate through them. This is what makes the difference between a good and a bad controversy mapping and also between a good and a bad receptionist: handing a map is useless, if you are not able to give direction on it.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 …
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 Still, an increasing number of scientific practices are emerging that cannot comfortably be squeezed through the bottleneck of paper publication. For example, the more data and computational power become available for investigation and the more the scientists realize the value of databases and analytic algorithms as scientific results. Two important sets of initiatives have been taken in this direction. On the one hand, several online archives have been created to encourage the publication of scientific datasets on the web (e.g. the Harvard Dataverse Project, thedata.org and the UK data archive, data-archive.ac.uk ).
  • 12/10/12 Still, an increasing number of scientific practices are emerging that cannot comfortably be squeezed through the bottleneck of paper publication. For example, the more data and computational power become available for investigation and the more the scientists realize the value of databases and analytic algorithms as scientific results. Two important sets of initiatives have been taken in this direction. On the one hand, several online archives have been created to encourage the publication of scientific datasets on the web (e.g. the Harvard Dataverse Project, thedata.org and the UK data archive, data-archive.ac.uk ).
  • 12/10/12 On the other hand, many of the most prestigious journals are starting to require their contributors to release their data and the computer codes for purposes of replication and scientific quality ( Ince et al. , 2012), leading to a dramatic improvement in methodological rigor and a greater awareness of the advantages of data and code sharing. These praiseworthy initiatives, however, are meant to improve the transparency and reproducibility of science, not to enhance the publication of scientific results. Data and source-code are not the only non-textual items that scholars may want to publish.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 Moving from the websites to the video, the question of connecting different maps in one integrated atlas becomes even more important. Websites give their authors an almost unlimited freedom in the organization of the information they want to convey. Which means, as you can imagine, that often the website have no organization at all. Videos, on the contrary, as you can easily understand, are more constrained. In particular, the format of the video will force you to convey information in a linear way: one piece after another (a little bit like in the website on the Licence Globale that I just showed). Representing a controversy through a video requires therefore to ‘linearize’ its complexity presenting a series of maps connected in a meaningful chain. Which maps will constitute this chain and how exactly the will be organized one after the other is something that you’ll have to find out yourself (with the help of your tutors of course) on the basis of the ‘fil rouge’ of your controversy. Here you see an example realized by students of the controversy mapping course of the Politecnico of Milan.
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • 12/10/12 12/10/12
  • Designing Controversies for the Public

    1. 1. Designing Controversiesand their PublicsTommaso Venturini(médialab Sciences Po Paris)
    2. 2. Part I: Controversy Mappingand its ContradictionDesigning Controversiesand their publics
    3. 3. Controversy Mappingas a teaching methodIntroduced by Bruno Latour some 20 years agoto train students in the observation and description ofsociotechnical debatesand currently taught in Paris, Copenhagen, Milan,Manchester, Amsterdam, Liège, Padova, Trento, BuenosAires…
    4. 4. Controversy Mappingas a teaching method controverses.sciences-po.fr
    5. 5. Controversy Mappingas a research method4 collaborative projects:MACOSPOL (mapping controversies on science for politics) 2007-09www.mappingcontroversies.netMEDEA (mapping environmental debates on adaptation) 2011-14projetmedea.hypotheses.orgEMAPS (electronic maps to assist public science) 2011-14emapsproject.com/blogFORCCAST (formation à la c. c. pour l’analyse de sciences et des techniques) 2012-20forccast.hypotheses.org
    6. 6. Why controversies?a methodological reason
    7. 7. « It is controversies of this kind, the hardestcontroversies to disentangle, that the public iscalled in to judge. Where the facts are mostobscure, where precedents are lacking, wherenovelty and confusion pervade everything, thepublic in all its unfitness is compelled to makeits most important decisions » (p. 121).Why controversies?a political reason The Phantom PublicWalter Lippmann, 1925
    8. 8. Controversy Mappingas a participation method« The MACOSPOL consortium has been assembled to address thisquestion: how to explore the practical tools to represent in a new waysscientific and technical controversies so as to equip the potential publicand turn it into a real representative arena? »(MACOSPOL project document, p. 8)
    9. 9. The contradiction ofcontroversy mappingControversy Mappingas a teaching and research methodControversy Mappingas a participationmethodObserve controversiesin all their richnessProvide the public withreadable descriptions
    10. 10. A challenge to design« Now here is the challenge: In its long history, design practice has done amarvelous job of inventing the practical skills for drawing objects… But whathas always been missing from those marvelous drawings (designs in the literalsense) are an impression of the controversies and the many contradicting stakeholders that are born within with these …So here is the question I wish to raise to designers: where are the visualizationtools that allow the contradictory and controversial nature of matters of concernto be represented? »A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of DesignBruno Latour, Keynote lecture for the Design History SocietyFalmouth, Cornwall, 3rd September 2008
    11. 11. Designing Controversiesand their publicsPart II: Asking the Right Question
    12. 12. The contradiction ofcontroversy mappingObserve controversiesin all their richnessProvide the public witha readable description
    13. 13. The contradiction ofcontroversy mappingObserve controversiesin all their richnessProvide the public witha readable descriptiontoo rich too poor
    14. 14. Where do we stand? .legible but rich?rich but legible?www.boxplotstudios.com/2012debate_1www.pitchinteractive.com/election2008/jobarcs.html
    15. 15. The complexity-simplicity slider
    16. 16. Searching the pointof balance
    17. 17. Where does scientificreference stand?The Pedofil of Boa VistaBruno Latour (1995)Common Knowledge 4(1)
    18. 18. Are we asking the wrongquestion?The Pedofil of Boa VistaBruno Latour (1995)Common Knowledge 4(1)
    19. 19. From where we standto how we move« Our philosophical tradition has been mistaken in wanting to makephenomena the meeting point between things-in-themselves andcategories of the human understandings…Phenomena, however, are not found at the meeting point betweenthings and the forms of the human mind; phenomena are whatcirculates all along the reversible chain of transformations. »The Pedofil of Boa VistaBruno Latour (1995)Common Knowledge 4(1)
    20. 20. Part III: Three movementsDesigning Controversiesand their publics
    21. 21. Three movements• The extension of complexity/legibility trade off• Controversy atlases• WHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement)• WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table)• HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram)• WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute)• WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics)• Use-before-use (participatory design)• Design after design (digital interactivity)• The narration-exploration circle• Narrating the controversy fil-rouge• Exploring the complexity of debate• Datascapes navigation• The spiral of public engagement• Engaging the public throughout the mapping campaign• Engaging the public again, and again, and again
    22. 22. Movement 1:The extension of complexity/legibility trade off
    23. 23. WHAT? from statements to debatesFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)From networks to cosmoses (where)From cosmoses to cosmopolitics(when)
    24. 24. Movement 1, section 1:Controversy atlasWHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement)WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table)HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram)WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute)WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics)
    25. 25. Tree of disagreementhttp://medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2010/Copenhague1/flash/fertilisation_ocean.s
    26. 26. Tree of disagreementhttp://jiminy.sciences-po.fr/labs/guidedtour/contents/tree.mp4
    27. 27. WHO? from debates to actors (who)From statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)From networks to cosmoses (where)From cosmoses to cosmopolitics(when)
    28. 28. The actor-argument tablehttp://medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2007/marees_vertes/schemassi.swf
    29. 29. HOW: From actors to networksFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)From networks to cosmoses (where)From cosmoses to cosmopolitics(when)
    30. 30. Actor-network diagramhttp://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/statistiquesethniques/reseau_acteurs.php
    31. 31. Actor-network diagram(scientometrics)
    32. 32. Actor-network diagram(web cartography)http://www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2010/Hadopi2/index.php?
    33. 33. Actor-network diagram(text analysis)http://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/neutrinos/
    34. 34. WHERE? from networks to cosmosesFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)From networks to cosmoses (where)From cosmoses to cosmopolitics(when)
    35. 35. Debate scale / table of cosmoshttp://medialab.sciences-
    36. 36. WHEN? from cosmoses to cosmopoliticsFrom statements to debates (what)From debates to actors (who)From actors to networks (how)From networks to cosmoses (where)From cosmoses to cosmopolitics(when)
    37. 37. Debate dynamicshttp://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/gardasil/
    38. 38. http://controverses.sciences-po.fr/archive/mediator/chrono.htmlDebate dynamics
    39. 39. Movement 1, section 2:Use before use (participatory design)
    40. 40. Movement 1, section 3:Design after designSwiss Knife Pattada Sarda
    41. 41. Movement 1, section 3:Design after design (digital interactivity)http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-
    42. 42. Movement 2: the exploration narration circle• The extension of complexity/legibility trade off• Controversy atlases• WHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement)• WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table)• HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram)• WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute)• WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics)• Use-before-use (participatory design)• Design after design (digital interactivity)• The narration-exploration circle• Narrating the controversy fil-rouge• Exploring the complexity of debate• Datascape navigation• The spiral of public engagement• Engaging the public throughout the mapping campaign• Engaging the public again, and again, and again
    43. 43. Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
    44. 44. How did Theseusescaped the labyrith?http://daazo.com/film/3bcb3110-8852-11e0-ba3e-0050fc84de33
    45. 45. Find the way in your controversyand show it
    46. 46. What is the difference between a goodand bad receptionist?
    47. 47. Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
    48. 48. http://www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2011/scube/decroissance/Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
    49. 49. Movement 2, section 2:Exploring the complexity of the debate“An essential property of this chain is that it must remain reversible. The successionof stages must be traceable, allowing to travel in both directions” (Latour, 1995)The Pedofil of Boa Vista, Bruno Latour (1995), Common Knowledge 4(1)
    50. 50. Movement 2, section 1:Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
    51. 51. Releasing the data thedata.org
    52. 52. Releasing the data http://www.nature.com/scientificdata/
    53. 53. Releasing the codegithub.com/medialab
    54. 54. Movement 2, section 3:datascapes navigation
    55. 55. http://issuu.com/densitydesign/docs/theres_no_place_like_antarctica http://vimeo.com/37723263Movement 2, section 3:datascape navigation
    56. 56. Movement 3: the spiral of public engagement• The extension of complexity/legibility trade off• Controversy atlases• WHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement)• WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table)• HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram)• WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute)• WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics)• Use-before-use (participatory design)• Design after design (digital interactivity)• The narration-exploration circle• Narrating the controversy fil-rouge• Exploring the complexity of debate• Datascape navigation• The spiral of public engagement• Engaging the public throughout the mapping campaign• Engaging the public again, and again, and again
    57. 57. GANTT 2011/2014
    58. 58. Expected protocolThe interaction spiral
    59. 59. Movement 3, section 1:Engaging the public throughout the campaign
    60. 60. Movement 3, section 2:Engaging the public again, again and again
    61. 61. tommaso.venturini@sciences-po.frVenturini, T. (2010)Diving in Magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theoryPublic Understanding of Science, 19(3), pp. 258-273Venturini, T. (2012)Building on Faults: how to represent controversies with digital methodsPublic Understanding of Science, 21(7), pp. 796-812

    ×