Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 655-686

  Marres, Noortje ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

controversy analysis; digital methods; Internet governance; media bias; media technologies; methodology; politics of knowledge; politics of technology; Twitter

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938895561     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243915574602     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. C.W.AndersonD.Kreiss. 2013. “Black Boxes as Capacities for and Constraints on Action: Electoral Politics, Journalism, and Devices of Representation.”Qualitative Sociology36 (4): 1–18.
2. K.Asdal2014. “From Climate Issue to Oil Issue: Offices of Public Administration, Versions of Economics, and the Ordinary Technologies of Politics.”Environment and Planning A46 (9): 2110–24.
3. B.BarnesD.BloorJ.Henry, eds. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. G.BeckC.Kropp. 2011. “Infrastructures of Risk: A Mapping Approach towards Controversies on Risks.”Journal of Risk Research1 (14): 1–16.
5. Y.Benkler2012. “Truthiness and the Networked Public Sphere.” Symposium on Truthiness in Digital Media, Berkman Centre for Internet and Society, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, March6–7.
6. D.Bloor1982. “Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge.”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science13 (4): 267–97.
7. E.BorraE.WeltevredeP.CiuccarelliA.KaltenbrunnerD.LaniadoG.MagniM.MauriR.RogersT.Venturini. 2014. “Contropedia—The Analysis and Visualization of Controversies in Wikipedia Articles.” In Conference Proceedings of The International Symposium on Open Collaboration, edited by D.RiehleJ.Gonzalez-BarahonaG.RoblesK.MosleinI.SchieferdeckerU.CressA.WichmannB.HechtN.Jullien, 1–34. New York: ACM, doi:10.1145/2641580.2641622. Accessed February 24, 2015.http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2650000/2641622/p34.pdf?ip=158.223.177.167&id=2641622&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=BF07A2EE685417C5.18BBEBD7797679F3.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID= 626415044&CFTOKEN=48122900&__acm__=1423834717_45a0b011f1b6269b56d7c29269c2e417.
8. D.BogenM.Lynch. 1989. “Taking Account of the Hostile Native: Plausible Deniability and the Production of Conventional History in the Iran-Contra Hearings.”Social Problems36 (3): 197–224.
9. O.Burkeman2013. “Here Are the Correct Opinions to Hold about This Week’s Social Media Outrages.”The Guardian, July19, 2013. Accessed February 13, 2015. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/oliver-burkemans-blog/2013/jul/19/social-media-outrage-tsarnaev-zimmerman.
10. M.CallonJ.LawA.Rip, eds. 1986. Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (p. 19). London, UK: Macmillan.
11. F.Chateauraynaud2009. “Public Controversies and the Pragmatics of Protest: toward a Ballistics of Collective Action.”Working Paper EHESS, Paris, France.
12. G.Coleman2011. “Hacker Politics and Publics.”Public Culture23 (365): 511–16.
13. G.Coleman2013. “Anonymous and the Politics of Leaking.” In Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications for the Future of Communications, Journalism & Society, edited by B.BreviniA.HintzP.McCurdy Basingstoke, 209–228. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
14. H.M.CollinsT.Pinch. 1998. The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. K.CrawfordT.Gillespie. 2014. “What Is a Flag for? Social Media Reporting Tools and the Vocabulary of Complaint.”New Media & Society, 1–19. doi:10.1177/1461444814543163.
16. C.DailyChartE.WarsEdit. The Economist Website, August5, 2013. Accessed February 13, 2015. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/08/daily-chart-1.
17. J.EklöfA.Mager. 2013. “Technoscientific Promotion and Biofuel Policy: How the Press and Search Engines Stage the Biofuel Controversy.”Media Culture & Society4 (35): 454–71.
18. R.EnnalsB.TrushkowskyJ.M.AgostaT.RattenburyT.Hirsch. 2010. “Highlighting Disputed Claims on the Web.” In ACM Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, edited by M.RappaP.JonesJ.FreireS.Chakrabarti, 341–50. New York: ACM.
19. H.Garfinkel1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
20. C.GerlitzA.Helmond. 2013. “The Like Economy: Social Buttons and the Data-intensive Web.”New Media & Society15 (8): 1348–65. doi:10.1177/1461444812472322.
21. T.Gillespie2010. “The Politics of Platforms.”New Media & Society12 (3): 347–64.
22. T.Gillespie2013. “The Relevance of Algorithm.” In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, edited by T.GillespieTarletonP.BoczkowskiPabloK.FootKirsten, 167–94. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. R.HagendijkJ.Meeus. 1993. “Blind Faith: Fact, Fiction and Fraud in Public Controversy over Science.”Public Understanding of Science2 (4): 391–415.
24. S.Herring2010. “Web Content Analysis: Expanding the Paradigm.” In International Handbook of Internet Research, edited by J.HunsingerJeremyL.KlastrupLisbethM.AllenMatthew, 233–49. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
25. S.Hilgartner2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, CA: University Press.
26. J.Hofmann2013. “Narratives of Copyright Enforcement: The Upward Ratchet and the Sleeping Giant.”Revue Française D’études Américaines134 (4): 64–80.
27. L.IntronaH.Nissenbaum. 2000. “Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters.”The Information Society3 (16): 169–85.
28. J.Kelly2010. “Parsing the online ecosystem: Journalism, media, and the blogosphere.”Transitioned media: A Turning Point in the Digital Realm, edited by G.Einav, 93–108. New York: Springer.
29. B.Latour1998. “Thought Experiments in Social Science: From the Social Contract to Virtual Society.”1st Virtual Society? Annual Public Lecture, April 1, 1998, Brunel University, London, UK.
30. B.Latour2005. Assembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31. B.Latour2011. “Bruno Latour on Mapping Controversies.”Video. Accessed November 11, 2011. http://www.mappingcontroversies.eu.
32. L.Leydesdorff2001. The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement, and Self-organization of Scientific Communications. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.
33. L.LeydesdorffI.Hellsten. 2006. “Measuring the Meaning of Words in Contexts: An Automated Analysis of Controversies about ‘Monarch Butterflies,’ ‘Frankenfoods,’ and ‘Stem Cells.’”Scientometrics67 (2): 231–58.
34. A.K.MadsenA. Koed. 2012. “Web-visions as Controversy-lenses.”Interdisciplinary Science Review1 (37): 51–68.
35. A.K.MadsenA. Koed. 2013. “Web-visions: Repurposing Digital Traces to Organize Social Attention.”Doctoral diss., Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
36. N.Marres2012. “The Redistribution of Methods: On Intervention in Digital Social Research, Broadly Conceived.”The Sociological Review60 (S1): 139–65.
37. N.MarresC.Gerlitz. In press. “Interface Methods: Renegotiating Relations between Digital Research, STS and Sociology.”Sociological Review.
38. N.MarresR.Rogers. 2000. “Depluralising the Web and Repluralising Public Debate: The Case of the GM Food Debate on the Web.” In Preferred Placement: Knowledge Politics on the Web, edited by R.Rogers, 113–35. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Jan van Eyck Editions.
39. N.MarresR.Rogers2005. “Recipe for Tracing Issues and Their Publics on the Web.” In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, edited by B.LatourP.Weibel, 922–35. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. N.MarresR.Rogers. 2009. “Subsuming the Ground: How Local Realities of the Fergana Valley, the Narmada Dams and the BTC Pipeline Are Put to Use on the Web.”Economy and Society37 (2): 251–81.
41. N.MarresE.Weltevrede. 2013. “Scraping the Social? Issues in Live Social Research.”Journal of Cultural Economy6 (3): 313–35.
42. D.Moats2014. “Mapping Controversies with Wikipedia: The Case of Fukushima.”Doctoral diss., University of London, Goldsmiths, UK.
43. A.Mol2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
44. E.Morozov2012. “Warning: This Site Contains Conspiracy Theories.”Slate, January23, 2012. Accessed February 23, 2015. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/01/anti_vaccine_activists_9_11_deniers_and_google_s_social_search_.html
45. A.Munk2013. “A Field Guide to the Web: Techno-anthropology and the Digital Natives.” In What Is Techno-anthropology? edited by T.BorsenL.Botin, 91–116. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
46. S.Mutzel2009. “Networks as Culturally Constituted Processes: A Comparison of Relational Sociology and Actor-network Theory.”Current Sociology57 (6): 871–87.
47. D.Nelkin ed. 1979. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. London, UK: Sage.
48. S.Niederer2013. “‘Global Warming Is Not a Crisis!’: Studying Climate Change Skepticism on the Web.”Necsus, European Journal of Media Studies2 (1): 83–112.
49. W.PearceK.HolmbergI.R.HellstenB.Nerlich. 2014. “Climate Change on Twitter: Topics, Communities and Conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report.”PLoS One9:e94785. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094785.
50. J.-C.Plantin2011. “‘The Map Is the Debate’: Radiation Webmapping and Public Involvement during the Fukushima Issue.”Paper presented at A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, September 21-24, Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, UK.
51. R.PrabowoRudyM.ThelwallI.HellstenA.Scharnhorst. 2008. “Evolving Debates in On-line Communication: A Graph Analytical Perspective.”Internet Research18:520–40.
52. R.Rogers2009. The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods. Vol. 339. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University Press.
53. R.Rogers2013. Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. R.RogersA.Ben-David. 2008. “The Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process and Trans-national Issue Networks: The Complicated Place of the Israeli NGO.”New Media & Society1 (10): 41–72.
55. R.RogersN.Marres. 2000. “Landscaping Climate Change: A Mapping Technique for Understanding Science and Technology Debates on the World Wide Web.”Public Understanding of Science9 (2): 141–63.
56. B.Rieder2013. “Studying Facebook via Data Extraction: The Netvizz Application.” In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, edited by H.DavisH.HalpinA.PentlandM.BernsteinL.AdamicH.AlaniA.MonninR.Rogers, 346–55. New York: ACM.
57. M.Savage2012. Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The Politics of Method. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58. A.ScharnhorstP.Wouters. 2006. “Web Indicators: A New Generation of S&T Indicators.”Cybermetrics10. Accessed February 13, 2015. http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v10i1p6.html.
59. S.M.SchneiderK.A.Foot. 2005. “Web Sphere Analysis: An Approach to Studying Online Action.” In Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet, edited by C.Hine, 157–70. New York: Berg.
60. M.ThelwallK.VannR.Fairclough. 2006. “Web Issue Analysis: An Integrated Water Resource Management Case Study.”Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology57 (10): 1303–14.
61. J.B.Thompson2011. “Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life.”Theory, Culture & Society28 (4): 49–70.
62. N.Tkacz2014. Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. T.Venturini2012. “Building on Faults: How to Represent Controversies with Digital Methods.”Public Understanding of Science7 (21): 796–812.
64. T.VenturiniD.Guido. 2012. “Once Upon a Text: An ANT Tale in Text Analysis.”Sociologica62 (3). doi:10.2383/72700. Accessed February 13, 2015. http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/journal/article/index/Article/Journal:ARTICLE:607/Item/Journal:ARTICLE:607.
65. T.VenturiniF.GemenneM.Severo. 2013. “Des Migrants et des Mots. Une Analyse Numérique Des Débats Médiatiques Sur Les Migrations Et L’environnement.”Cultures & Conflicts88 (4): 133–56.
66. I.WeberV.R.K.GarimellaE.Borra. 2012. “Mining Web Query Logs to Analyze Political Issues.” In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, edited by N.ContractorB.UzziM.MacyW.Nejdl, 330–34. New York: ACM.
67. E.WeltevredeE.Borra. 2013. “Repurposing Wikipedia as a Controversy Exploration Device.”Working Paper presented at the DMI Winter school, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January22, 2013.
68. S.J.Whatmore2009. “Mapping Knowledge Controversies: Science, Democracy and the Redistribution of Expertise.”Progress in Human Geography33 (5): 587–98.
69. A.Yaneva2012. Mapping Controversies in Architecture. Chalgrove, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
70. T.YasseriR.SumiA.RungA.KornaiJ.Kertész. 2012. “Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia.”PloS One7 (6): e38869.