Describing Controversies

From observation to description:

Observation is the exploration phase of a study. Description is the representation phase of a study. In the descriptive phase of the study, analysts try to make the complexity encountered in the observation or exploration phase into the simplicity of a report; they do this in order to make complexity legible.

Assigning proportionate visibilities:

When deciding on what to include in a description or when deciding how much visibility to give to different viewpoints, a controversy analyst must consider a viewpoint’s 1) representativeness, 2) influence, 3) interest.  “Objectivity does not come from crediting the same weight to all perspectives, not even from balancing the space allotted to each side.  Second-degree objectivity comes from attributing to each actor a representation that fits its position and relevance in the dispute.”—Building on Faults by Venturini

Questions for assessing these 3 dimensions:

Representativeness/popularity: “How many actors subscribe to this viewpoint?” – More common viewpoints deserve more visibility, whereas less common viewpoints deserve less visibility.

Influence/level of power: “Which actors occupy influential positions that give them the power to affect the actions of other actors?”; “Which are the most (or more) influential actors?”; “Which actors, through their support or opposition, can decide the outcome of a controversy?”; “Which viewpoints are held by those in influential positions?” – More influential actor’s viewpoints deserve more visibility, whereas less influential actor’s viewpoints deserve less visibility.

Interest: “Which actors (specifically, disagreeing minorities) and viewpoints offer original perspectives and question what is taken for granted?” – More interesting viewpoints deserve more visibility, whereas less interesting viewpoints deserve less visibility.

Three descriptive precautions:

Adaptation: Describe (and stretch to cover) as many native representations as possible, and interpret as little as possible. This rule ensures that analysts adapt their minds and understanding to the data and not the other way around.

Redundancy: “The key to drawing effective representations is drawn many of them: each one dedicated to a different aspect of the phenomenon. Even if each map fails in capturing the richness of the disputes, altogether they may do the trick. Of course, this implies many pieces of information will be repeated… [And this] redundancy stabilizes representations and makes them able to stand the quakes of public debate.” – [For those students merely trying to make a single report in a roughly 3 week time period, you are expected only to make one map, which is to focus on a specific aspect of a controversy.]

Flexibility: Make sure that you trace your steps from planning and observation to description through the use of an inquiry log. – [An inquiry log will not be necessary until Report #2.]

Things to describe/map:

1. Find the shared notions of the controverts: make a glossary of noncontroversial elements; explain any notions that are not so common that they don’t need to be explained; visualize, simulate, or de-jargonize any jargon or technical speak

2. Make a documentation repository (inquiry log): including fieldnotes, interview recordings, roll data, archive documents, alterations should be offered for public examination; bibliographic references – facilitate access to the original sources; publish every step of the investigation as well as the results

3. The analysis of scientific literature: consult the scientific literature on the subject matter; analyze coauthorship, the relative authority of actors (scientist, research centers, journals…) Through citation analysis, and the diffusion of idea through lexicographic analysis; display these results as indicators or as connection graphs, the latter of which can display oppositions and alliances in the scientific community

4. The review of media and public opinions: follow news, gossip, opinions, rumors, discussions, and quarrels, media discourses, institutional statements, public opinions; use visualization techniques, textual statistics, lexicographic and graph analysis techniques

5. The tree of disagreement:  diagram the points of divergence or disagreement in a controversy

6. The scale of controversies: how is the development of this dispute affected by events taking place above or below it? How is this controversy ordered according to its degree of generality-specificity? How is this controversy affected by (1) [more general] supra-controversies, (2) controversies on the same level of generality-specificity, (3) [more specific] sub-controversies?

7. The diagram of actor-networks: “What used to be a single actor can suddenly dissolve in an explosion of conflicting agents and what used to be a loose constellation of agents can solidify into a unique source of action.”

8. The chronology of dispute: make a timeline; ideally readers would be able to zoom out to get an overall view or zoom in to examine specific events and retrieve further information, multimedia contents or hyperlinks” as well as be able to show “the position of actors at a given moment in time” and “how positions change through time and how this has affected the definition of the controversy itself”

9. The table of cosmoses: “the table of cosmoses should represent all those involved in a controversy showing where cosmoses diverge and where they may overlap”

10. Performing controversies: “involving visitors in the research process, collecting their observations, soliciting their contribution and gathering their comments”