Tag Archives: visualisation

Hello, digital methods!

In October and  November 2014 we finally had a series of workshops we planned for experimenting and discussing the potential of digital methods for social sciences and humanities. Digital methods are a set of methods aimed at supporting researchers’ ability to explore and display data or objects that can be collected through the Web (Dutton-Jeffreys, 2010). As Richard Rogers (2009) made clear, these methods could not exist or even be conceived without the web, as their mode of operation is based on objects/content/devices/environments that are natively digital, or born in the new mediumas opposed to the ones that simply “migrated” into it. According to other scholars, such as Venturini and Latour (2010), the potential of digital technologies for social sciences research could lie in allowing for the overcoming of the traditional micro/macro dualism, making possible to track both the actors and the interactions among them while collective phenomena emerge, and to develop analyses of social phenomena that achieve at the same time “breadth and depth” (ibid., p. 2).

We had the pleasure to have Tommaso Venturini,  Paul Girard and Benjamin Ooghe Tabanou as our instructors for two two-days workshops in which they showed us the tools they are developing at the Medialab Paris and guided us in applying them to a wide set of research questions.

Opened by a lecture for CES PhD students held by Venturini, the workshops involved 15 researchers from several Portuguese university that applied some of the methods to a wide set of research in progress, such as the case of the Portuguese memorandum during the recent economic crisis in the country, the EU discourse about scientific mobility, the development of the new European Data Protection Act.

The slide from the lecture and the workshop are here.

First session

Tuesday, Oct 28

Wednesday, Oct 29

Morning session9.30-13.00 Working with data and networks:

Afternoon session14.30-18.00 Tommaso Venturini, PhD seminar (lecture, CES, Sala 1; 14.30-17.30) Escaping the Great DivideHow actor-network theory, digital methods and network analysis can make us sensitive to the differences in the density of associations Extracting data

Workshop projects’ presentation:

  • Each participants (or group) presents what she/he wish to achieve during the workshop
  • The médialab team provide feedback on feasibility and operationalization
Dinner Dinner

Second session

Thursday, Nov 13

Friday, Nov 14

Morning session9.30-13.00 Projects advancement presentation:

  • Each participant (or group) show what has been achieved so far, problems and objectives.
  • Discussion on the planning of the work during the rest of the workshop
Work under the guidance of the médialab team
Afternoon session14.30-18.00 Work under the guidance of the médialab team Results presentation:

  • What worked what didn’t?
  • Feedbacks on methods used
  • Discussion on the next steps.
Dinner

Venturini_lectureresults8 results4 results5 workshop workshop5 workshop8 workshop9 resultsresults2

“Colada” en una buena fiesta. Impresiones sobre la Escuela de Verano del proyecto FORCCAST

forccast

Del 27 al 29 de Agosto del 2014 se llevó a cabo la escuela de verano del FORCCAST, (Formación para Cartografía de Controversias y el Análisis de las Ciencias y las Tecnologías) proyecto de Science Po y de otras catorce universidades y centros de investigación. Se realizó en la Ciudad de París, en un salón de la École de Mines desde cuyas ventanas podía disfrutarse una vista excepcional de los Jardínes de Luxemburgo. Yo estuve ahí y a manera de bitácora comparto mis mayores impresiones.

La primera fue sentirme como la invitada de otra invitada a la fiesta, lo que se conoce como “colada”. Mi distancia teórica y empírica con el tema central de la escuela me aisló de muchas discusiones pero esa distancia me permitió tener una perspectiva muy abierta. El grupo de 35 personas estaba formado por el staff, un grupo de participantes pequeño con experiencia de docencia en el tema; otro de investigadores independientes que parecían haber asistido al curso a resolver cuestiones muy puntuales y otro grupo, en el que me encontraba yo, de estudiantes curiosos.  Esta heterogeneidad fue uno de los mayores desafíos para poder profundizar en todos los intereses ahí reunidos. Las actividades propuestas por el – por cierto, muy amable y efectivo comité organizador – fueron muy útiles para algunos participantes pero para otros, como fue mi caso, no resultaron actividades estimulantes.

session_27Aug

Mi segunda gran impresión fue la de estar en el laboratorio de una idea revolucionaria: el investigador híbrido sumará su inteligencia a la de su máquina para construir nuevo conocimiento. Estuve frente a científicos sociales audaces, comprometidos con empujar los límites de la producción científica, y por ello me sentí afortunada. Sin embargo, confieso que no siempre resultaron cómodos sus planteamientos. Mi antropocentrismo fue provocado repetidamente al punto de revelárseme cuán reducido era mi concepto de “ser humano”. En este sentido, aunque hubo muy poca discusión filosófica, los planteamientos generales de estas nuevas metodologías de investigación socio-tecnológica responden a muy progresistas –casi futuristas – concepciones de lo humano y de sus relaciones con seres no humanos.

groupwork_27Aug

Por último, mi tercer mayor recuerdo fue el de estar frente a creativos que festejan el descubrimiento de errores. En el tercer día pudimos conocer herramientas digitales para graficar, mapear, interpretar, leer datos, textos, prevalencia en internet; conocimos desde las más antiguas hasta las recién “salidas del horno”. Así conocimos las nuevas potenciales y sofisticación hasta ahora alcanzada. Los diseñadores de estas herramientas, programadores, filósofos, antropólogos y sociólogos, no parecen estar buscando una versión final de las aplicaciones que diseñan. En cambio, parecen apostar por un programa de análisis de código abierto permanente para estar siempre en constante innovación.

En suma, puedo decir que fue una experiencia que promete una lenta y afortunada digestión intelectual.

Ximena Peredo, CES’s PhD in “Democracy in the XXI century” 

 

Credits: photos from MediaLab equipe

How does the digital mediates social research? Reflections on the (technical) possibilities of the digital for (post) humanities

The way humanists use digital media is a topic in which we are very much interested in the project “Being Digital”. Apparently, academics in humanities use the digital “to do their same things”, that is, they tend to use the digital for the purpose of digitization of content – this is an aspect that we could observe from the comparison between two groups of researchers doing the Digital Scholarship Workshop that we recently organized, where we had an heterogeneous group in Lisbon with people coming from different areas whereas in Coimbra we had a group mostly composed of people in humanities. The way these groups reacted to the exercises done in the workshop suggests differences in use of the digital that seem to point out to the ‘digitization of content’ kind of approach by the humanists. I suppose that’s because humanists live in a (human-centric) world where society is one thing and technical things are another one, and so they use the digital as just another media – as if a neutral vehicle of their work. A few days ago we had a session in CES where interns in several projects presented their work. Ana Rui Fonseca was one of these interns who have been working with us in the project “Being Digital”.

Ana Rui Fonseca is an undergraduate student of Anthropology in her second year at the Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia of the University of Coimbra who accepted the challenge of exploring the analytical possibilities of digital methods for social research – an aspect that is largely to be explored. This required a big effort from Ana Rui because of the technical difficulties related with these tools. In this respect, Ana Rui really put her hands on the technical stuff and did the ‘dirty work’ that humanists usually don’t like doing and she really explored the technical use of digital instruments. She focused her work on Gephi, a software for visualizing networks, and prepared a tutorial for the use of this tool and uploaded it on Youtube.

I had the pleasure to comment Ana Rui’s exploration of this instrument. She used her facebook network to explore the potential of this tool in terms of data visualization, which was surely a good starting point for exploring the functional potential of the tool, however, I had the feeling that other possibilities may have been explored – I commented it would be interesting to see an exploration of Gephi for “real” networks or controversies; it would be interesting to have seen her experimenting how to move from the “chaos” of networks and controversies to the “clean” version of a graphic connections between nodes – although, to be fair, engaging in such complexity would be better done in a different kind of context – a masters’ thesis, for example. I also suggested that it would be interesting to have seen her reflecting on some of the aspects that such a visual representation of networks leaves behind – Gephi seems to “reduce” interactions to the connections between dots – but what to do with all the stuff (all the qualitative, maybe phenomenological dimensions) in socio-technical controversies that doesn’t go in that representation? In case she is interested in following that thread in the future, I pointed out a book called “Lines”, by Tim Ingold – apparently nothing to do with this, but specially of interest for this purpose are his explorations about mapping and his idea that there is more in interactions/relations/networks than just the junction between the dots – I think there are a lot of ideas there that can be inspiring and particularly challenging if put in contrast with Latour’s networks and especially Venturini’s ANTA, literatures that she also explored.

The point is that I realise afterwards that myself (being somehow a humanist living in a human-centric research world – I am an anthropologist, by the way) was caught in my own human-centrism: what I could have suggested her, and this would perhaps be more interesting – now it’s too late!, would be exploring how does the digital mediates social research – I believe this would be an enormous contribution in respect to what scholars in digital humanities are doing. Virtual ethnographers are not doing this; cyborg anthropology is not doing this; digital ethnography is not doing this (“Like a traditional anthropologist, the main concern of a digital ethnographer is locating the field site and learning the language of the natives. The difference is that the anthropologist may be able to access the field site without physical travel”); people in visual anthropology and media studies are not doing this : what they are doing is the traditional stuff but through digital media – some do online ethnographies others study the relationship between people and digital technologies. All of these examples couldn’t be a better example of ‘digital humanism’: research with digital means. The tools that Ana Rui engaged with are good opportunities for exploring the potentials of the digital as mediators of social research – but she definitely could have gone further in that respect; the point is that even myself missed that point when suggesting her to look at other ways of ‘mapping’ the social – which is not irrelevant – but I was maybe entrapped in my own disciplinary human-centrism and therefore reproducing humanist concerns such as: where is the phenomenological stuff? Anthropologists are usually good in identifying all sorts of parochialism – except their own disciplinary ones, which is something I learn by working in an interdisciplinary project as this one. Humanities, for a start, is an obsolete term: what we need is maybe post-humanities explorations of the digital.