[DESIGN] Participedia DATA Design Jam #895
Comments
|
To Do:
|
jesicarson
assigned dethe, davidascher, ascott, amberfj, jesicarson, plscully and Mattygryan
|
@Mattygryan welcome to Github! |
|
Linking up this issue to #896 - Using MIRO to mock-up a visual overview of the data model. Here's a couple screenshots, and feel free to use this Miro link to collaborate on the board in real time (sign in required).
|
Cheers! I am getting used to the jargon! That @jesicarson your first post is Ace - in the spirit of taking risks can we just basically put that on the research page and then update as necessary? Think we need to be more agile. The diagram is also Ace I will take a closer look but my intuition is that it should go up in our research page too! Another way to put it related to #896 - what is a good argument not to have any of this on the reasearch page now? |
|
@Mattygryan yes we can definitely make some changes to the research page in the near future (just have to put them in the queue for the dev team, as there's already some other work underway). Also, great question from Sandy via Slack:
My initial thoughts below, but would be great if @Mattygryan could weigh in on the audience question! AUDIENCES (for this Jam/zoom call, and to detail on the research page): As of now, it seems like it will be for teams of researchers/data scientists in political science who use quantitative data and methods. But also might include some qualitative political science researchers, as they could be tasked with fleshing out subsets of entries for the data folks to experiment with. ZOOM CALL THOUGHTS: We could aim for a core group of confirmed participants (partners on the participedia project, and their students) and then open the call up to anyone else who may want to hop on, and see what happens. there'd be an agenda but also kind of open to self-organize into potential working groups. |
|
Agreed on the audience @jesicarson. I am quite keen not to have a call about what we might do only though. I agree with Sandy we need to show something to people before any meeting so they have a vision of what we are talking about. We may be able to do this with some existing work e.g. the summaries @plscully is working on, work presented or questions raised in Sussex - do we have a list somewhere? |
|
Here's a summary of some thinking i wrote in email to a discussion among some participedians about a student project that @jesicarson suggested i share - The question of validity is key. My thinking has been that what is relatively unique about participedia is that we have crowdsourced a relatively large non-random sample of structured and unstructured data over a long period of time. So we are this exciting or awkward place depending on how you look at it - somewhere in between the methodological considerations that big data researchers deal with, but also those that do large-N qualy archival research, and then small-N comparative case-selection logic, and then that more traditional forms of secondary data analysis think about etc. We have some almost ‘boiler plate’ things we can say about the quality of the data. The data we have collected emanated from the work of a network of leading scholars in the field who have been reflecting on these issues, and though biased are likely to have some authority about where to look for relevant cases which is one strength of claim. We have also improved the quality of data through review, and of data models, also methods of collection etc. I think then when we come to doing research, depending on the research question there are different strategies for ‘validating’ any claims from the data depending on what we are trying to speak to. It might be we can make logical inferences within the scope of what we’ve got, or that we have to do some systematic imputation of missing values. It might be that we link to existing secondary data (administrative data in countries we work in, or other datasets collected by researcher NGOs) either as a complement or a robustness test or both. Or for the same reasons some questions might benefit from some supplementary primary data collection – surveys, expert surveys (we have been thinking this might be a good way to use the network we have built as extra validation). I think I’ve recognised that it is quite difficult to know where to start with answering the question of what we need to do to really enable or facilitate cashing out what we have got, and so my proposal is we take an agile approach… start trying to answer RQs that interest us but share the difficulties and thoughts on overcoming them as a network and team so we can then better know if e.g. development can build in a tool to link, analyse, or structure data, or we should build up the dataverse or try an expert survey or something to see what that can do for us… |
|
Moving into a phase of visualizing Participedia data in experimental ways... |
|
That's very cool. would be good to map the network of elements we have on the site. |
|
@plscully @Mattygryan @ascott Here's a wild idea... can we structure a design jam (perhaps with a few scheduled sessions over the summer) using some or all of the SSHRC 2 research cluster themes? ie: get together and see what data we can mine/visulize from ppedia (and/or other data sources) on each of the themes, with the intention of identifying gaps that will be useful for phase 2 research clusters? Obviously it would be high level and a bit hacky, but could be a fun springboard into ppedia phase 2... maybe a few team members/students would be into it as a fun summer collaboration.
|
|
I think it is a good idea. Could replace an all team meeting in some ways. I suppose format would depend on whether those directly involved in preparing the phase 2 application would find it useful or it would be something separate... |
|
This sounds like a great long term approach. We would have to organize
cases/methods by these deficits if they aren't already. My guess is that
this might take a good amount of upfront work by political science
researchers prior to visualization. We can help to design this process as a
prompt, which might help with the SSHRC application process.
First, we might focus on lower hanging fruit like doing some basic analysis
by geographic region using structured factors, e.g. general issues, general
types of methods, or scope of influence. This might tell us that certain
issues and methods are more common in some regions of Participedia's
dataset, providing gist-level insights and identifying gaps in our dataset.
We could also extend this to a more general semantic analysis of case data
through a combo of recurrent neural network analysis (RNNs) using
TensorFlow with word embeddings and finetuning the model with k-means
clustering or something similar. This sounds complicated but we might be
able to find an open-source library that does the trick.
…On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:46 AM Matt Ryan ***@***.***> wrote:
I think it is a good idea. Could replace an all team meeting in some ways.
I suppose format would depend on whether those directly involved in
preparing the phase 2 application would find it useful or it would be
something separate...
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#895 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALGGIMSAHAR2R6WCDWYQELRYBMU3ANCNFSM4MEDXL5A>
.
|
|
Thanks @Mattygryan and @amberfj! |
|
Good idea, Jesi. I like the idea of focusing on human rights. Once we have an analysis method set up, we can zoom in to look at small groups of cases based on the human rights filter. |
|
The human rights & civil rights filter brings up 130 results - https://participedia.net/?selectedCategory=case&general_issues=human |
|
Sure but would start with the entire dataset of cases first.
…Sent from my phone
On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:07 AM, jesicarson ***@***.***> wrote:
The human rights & civil rights filter brings up 130 results - https://participedia.net/?selectedCategory=case&general_issues=human
Should we see what @ascott can do with this set to get the ball rolling?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
|
hey all, lots of interesting ideas here! i can start with a some basic charts/maps looking at the structured data we have e.g. general issues, general types of methods, or scope of influence, to get a sense of where some gaps in the data might be. I’m thinking of a map with checkboxes to show/hide entries with different filter values to quickly get sense of location density for a given field/value. looking more specifically at entries related to human rights, we could use the general_issues:human field:value on cases, which gives us 130 cases . we can also use the keyword search with human rights and we get 179 entries. there are of course many other terms and ways of classifying entries as related to human rights. some other terms we could search with might be:
i agree that there could be some work to be done by editors and researchers to search through our data set as is using the keyword search (and other filters), to make sure that the structured data fields are completed for entries related to human rights. after this, i could create a subset of entries based on our structured data and keyword searches to visualize geographic data or nlp results on the set. i took a closer look into k-means clustering and there are many examples using open source algorithms that we could experiment with. eg: https://observablehq.com/@romaklimenko/finding-palettes-of-dominant-colors-with-the-k-means-cluste |
This issue is the jumping off point for collaboration with anyone interested in using Participedia data (either on its own or in combination with any other data, using any analysis methods).
Our goal is to experiment with the data on Participedia.net using concrete research questions, and in the process to expose and document potential opportunities as well as roadblocks or challenges with using the data in order to improve it. We aim to inform future iterations of the Participedia data model, codebook, data export systems or any other area to support our research community.
Resources:
Research Page on https://participedia.net/research
Clicking any of the links below will automatically download a CSV file containing the latest data from Participedia.net to your device:
Draft Codebook (comment-only Google Doc) available for review.
Collaborator Accessible Data Forms (comment-only Google Docs) contain all of the text and values for the entry forms on Participedia.net:
(To see the entry forms live on Participedia.net, click the white "+ Quick Submit" button at the top of the screen on desktop, or the red "+" button on mobile, and select one of the entry types.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: