Abstract
This article presents our experience as a multidisciplinary team systematizing and analyzing the transcripts from a large-scale (1.775 conversations) series of conversations about Chile’s future. This project called “Tenemos Que Hablar de Chile” [We have to talk about Chile] gathered more than 8000 people from all municipalities, achieving gender, age, and educational parity. In this sense, this article takes an experiential approach to describe how certain interdisciplinary methodological decisions were made. We sought to apply analytical variables derived from social science theories and operationalize them through modern linguistics to guide a more theoretically informed natural language processing. The analysis was divided into three stages: (1) a descriptive analysis adapting descriptions of computational grounded theory, (2) a futurization analysis operationalizing concepts from futures studies, and (3) an argumentative analysis operationalizing concepts from argumentation theory. Overall, our methodological experimentation shed light on potential learnings for integrating a multidisciplinary perspective on NLP analysis with sensitive social content. Firstly, we developed a strategy for translation of knowledge based on the construction of what we called "analytical categories” in which a normative expectation or descriptive dimension was identified in the body of literature, operationalized through linguistics, and programmed in Python or R. Ultimately, we seek to reflect on the importance interdisciplinarity not only as means to find new analysis ideas but rather, to incorporate the critical, political and epistemological points of view to understand analysis as complex socio-technical processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asim MN, Wasim M, Khan MUG et al (2018) A survey of ontology learning techniques and applications. Database. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bay101
Bader V (2014) Sciences, politics, and associative democracy: democratizing science and expertizing democracy. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 27:420–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.835465
Barredo Arrieta A, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J et al (2020) Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf Fusion 58:82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
Bijker W (2017) Constructing worlds: reflections on science, technology and democracy (and a Plea for Bold Modesty). Engag Sci Technol Soc 3:315. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.170
Birks M, Chapman Y, Francis K (2008) Memoing in qualitative research. J Res Nurs 13:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254
Brown MB (2015) Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Soc Stud Sci 45:3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714556694
Campagnolo GM (2020) Social data science Xennials. Social data science Xennials. Springer, Cham, pp 1–18
Carcasson M (2016) Tackling wicked problems through deliberative engagement. Natl Civ Rev 105:44–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.21258
Carcasson M, Sprain L (2016) Beyond problem solving: reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Commun Theory 26:41–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12055
Carrozza C (2015) Democratizing expertise and environmental governance: different approaches to the politics of science and their relevance for policy analysis. J Environ Policy Plan 17:108–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2014.914894
Charmaz K (2017) The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qual Inq 23:34–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105
Chilvers J, Kearnes M (2020) Remaking participation in science and democracy. Sci Technol Hum Values 45:347–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919850885
Collins K, Ison R (2009) Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environ Policy Gov 19:358–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.523
Cook BR, de Melo Zurita ML (2019) Fulfilling the promise of participation by not resuscitating the deficit model. Glob Environ Chang 56:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.001
Curato N, Dryzek JS, Ercan SA et al (2017) Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus 146:28–38. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00444
Davies SR (2019) Democratic innovation in science and technology. In: Elstub S, Escobar O (eds) Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 297–309
Daviter F (2019) Policy analysis in the face of complexity: what kind of knowledge to tackle wicked problems? Public Policy Adm 34:62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717733325
Dryzek JS, Bächtiger A, Chambers S et al (2019) The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science (80-) 363:1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694
Engin Z, Treleaven P (2019) Algorithmic government: automating public services and supporting civil servants in using data science technologies. Comput J 62:448–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxy082
Ercan SA, Hendriks CM, Dryzek JS (2019) Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty. Policy Polit 47:19–36. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15200933925405
Ferrer C (2021) Los dos estudios que adelantaban el rechazo a los políticos y el descontento ciudadano previo a las elecciones. Emol
Flick U (2020) Triangulation. Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 185–199
Fogelin R (1985) The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Log 7:1–8
Fricker M (2007) Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, New York
Fuentes C, Goñi J, Miranda C (2022) Analytical categories to describe deficit attributions in deep disagreements between citizens and experts. Public Underst Sci 31(1):70-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211020474
Fuentes C, Goñi J (2021) Online critical debate model: designing and analyzing deliberation for the digital age. In: Cattani A, Mastroianni B (eds.) Competing cooperating deciding: towards a model of deliberative debate (pp. 69–86). Firenze University Press. https://doi.org/10.36253/978-88-5518-329-1.08
Galison P (2010) Trading with the enemy. In: Trading zones and interactional expertise. The MIT Press, pp 25–52. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014724.003.0003
Gastil J, Richards RC (2017) Embracing digital democracy: a call for building an online civic commons. PS Polit Sci Polit 50:758–763. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000555
Greene D, Hoffmann AL, Stark L (2019) Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: a critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Grand Wailea, Hawaii, pp 2122–2131
Iliadis A, Russo F (2016) Critical data studies: an introduction. Big Data Soc 3:205395171667423. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238
Jasanoff S (2016) The ethics of invention: technology and the human future. W.W. Norton and Company, New York
Karpowitz C, Raphael C (2016) Ideals of inclusion in deliberation. J Deliber Democr. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.255
Kilkenny MF, Robinson KM (2018) Data quality: “Garbage in—garbage out.” Heal Inf Manag J 47:103–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1833358318774357
Knorr-Cetina K (1981) Time and context in practical action: underdetermination and knowledge use. Knowl Creat Diffus Util 3:143–165
Krick E (2018) The epistemic quality of expertise: contextualized criteria for the multi-source, negotiated policy advice of stakeholder fora. Crit Policy Stud 12:209–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2016.1258317
Lago N, Marianne D, Pouleur J-A et al (2019) Citizen participation through digital platforms: the challenging question of data processing for cities. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on smart cities, systems, devices and technologies. IARIA, Nice, pp 19–25
Lövbrand E, Pielke R, Beck S (2011) A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 36:474–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910366154
Marraud H (2014) Methodus argumentandi. UAM Ediciones. https://doi.org/10.15366/m.argumentandi2014
Miller R (ed) (2018) Transforming the future: anticipation in the 21st century. UNESCO-Routledge, Paris-Oxford
Moats D, Seaver N (2019) “You Social Scientists Love Mind Games”: experimenting in the “divide” between data science and critical algorithm studies. Big Data Soc 6:205395171983340. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719833404
Neff G, Tanweer A, Fiore-Gartland B, Osburn L (2017) Critique and contribute: a practice-based framework for improving critical data studies and data science. Big Data 5:85–97. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.0050
Nelson LK (2020) Computational grounded theory: a methodological framework. Sociol Methods Res 49:3–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729703
Niemeyer S (2011) The emancipatory effect of deliberation: empirical lessons from mini-publics. Polit Soc 39:103–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329210395000
Niemeyer S (2020) Deliberation and ecological democracy: from citizen to global system. J Environ Policy Plan 22:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1661232
Niemeyer S, Dryzek JS (2007) The ends of deliberation: meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Polit Sci Rev 13:497–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00087.x
Noveck BS (2017) Five hacks for digital democracy. Nature 544:287–289. https://doi.org/10.1038/544287a
Patel M, Webb H, Jirotka M et al (2019) Harnessing interdisciplinarity to promote the ethical design of AI systems. In: Griffiths P, Kabir MN (eds) ECIAIR 2019—proceedings of European conference on the impact of artificial intelligence and robotics. Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Oxford
Pinch TJ, Bijker WE (1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc Stud Sci 14:399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004
Polak F (1971) The image of the future. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Poli R (2018) A note on the classification of future-related methods. Eur J Futur Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0145-9
Procter R, Arana-Catania M, van Lier F-A et al (2021) Citizen participation and machine learning for a better democracy. Digit Gov Res Pract. https://doi.org/10.1145/3452118
Robinson DKR, Simone A, Mazzonetto M (2020) RRI legacies: co-creation for responsible, equitable and fair innovation in Horizon Europe. J Respons Innov. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1842633
Scudder MF (2020) The ideal of uptake in democratic deliberation. Polit Stud 68:504–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719858270
Slotterback CS, Lauria M (2019) Building a foundation for public engagement in planning. J Am Plan Assoc 85:183–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1616985
Strasser BJ, Baudry J, Mahr D et al (2018) “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci Technol Stud 1:52–76. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60425
Strauss A, Corbin J (1994) Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The sage handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 443–466
Tenemos Que Hablar de Chile (2021) Un país que se piensa y se proyecta: Diez hallazgos desde un Chile a Escala. Santiago
Topcu MN, Hirst W (2019) Remembering a nation’s past to imagine its future: the role of event specificity, phenomenology, valence, and perceived agency. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000746
Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Wiley
Weingart P, Joubert M, Connoway K (2021) Public engagement with science—origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLoS ONE 16:e0254201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goñi, J.“., Fuentes, C. & Raveau, M.P. An experiential account of a large-scale interdisciplinary data analysis of public engagement. AI & Soc 38, 581–593 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01457-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01457-4