Designing Controversies for the Public
•
5 j'aime•3,831 vues
A conference on how to engage the publics of sociotechnical controversies in the effort of controversy mapping. I have been invited to give this conference at the 2012 4S conference on Science and Technology Studies (Copenhague - 18/10/12), at the 'Tactics of Issue Mapping' seminar of Goldsmith University (London - 26/10/12), at the Department of Media Studies of the University of Amsterdam (17/04/13) and at the Ecsite Conference on science centres and museums (Gothenburg - 08/06/13).
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (15)
Similaire à Designing Controversies for the Public
Similaire à Designing Controversies for the Public (20)
Plus de INRIA - ENS Lyon
Plus de INRIA - ENS Lyon (17)
Designing Controversies for the Public
- 1. Designing Controversies and their Publics Tommaso Venturini (médialab Sciences Po Paris)
- 2. Part I: Controversy Mapping and its Contradiction Designing Controversies and their publics
- 3. Controversy Mapping as a teaching method Introduced by Bruno Latour some 20 years ago to train students in the observation and description of sociotechnical debates and currently taught in Paris, Copenhagen, Milan, Manchester, Amsterdam, Liège, Padova, Trento, Buenos Aires…
- 4. Controversy Mapping as a teaching method controverses.sciences-po.fr
- 5. Controversy Mapping as a research method 4 collaborative projects: MACOSPOL (mapping controversies on science for politics) 2007-09 www.mappingcontroversies.net MEDEA (mapping environmental debates on adaptation) 2011-14 projetmedea.hypotheses.org EMAPS (electronic maps to assist public science) 2011-14 emapsproject.com/blog FORCCAST (formation à la c. c. pour l’analyse de sciences et des techniques) 2012-20 forccast.hypotheses.org
- 6. Why controversies? a methodological reason
- 7. « It is controversies of this kind, the hardest controversies to disentangle, that the public is called in to judge. Where the facts are most obscure, where precedents are lacking, where novelty and confusion pervade everything, the public in all its unfitness is compelled to make its most important decisions » (p. 121). Why controversies? a political reason The Phantom Public Walter Lippmann, 1925
- 8. Controversy Mapping as a participation method « The MACOSPOL consortium has been assembled to address this question: how to explore the practical tools to represent in a new ways scientific and technical controversies so as to equip the potential public and turn it into a real representative arena? » (MACOSPOL project document, p. 8)
- 9. The contradiction of controversy mapping Controversy Mapping as a teaching and research method Controversy Mapping as a participation method Observe controversies in all their richness Provide the public with readable descriptions
- 10. A challenge to design « Now here is the challenge: In its long history, design practice has done a marvelous job of inventing the practical skills for drawing objects… But what has always been missing from those marvelous drawings (designs in the literal sense) are an impression of the controversies and the many contradicting stake holders that are born within with these … So here is the question I wish to raise to designers: where are the visualization tools that allow the contradictory and controversial nature of matters of concern to be represented? » A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design Bruno Latour, Keynote lecture for the Design History Society Falmouth, Cornwall, 3rd September 2008
- 11. Designing Controversies and their publics Part II: Asking the Right Question
- 12. The contradiction of controversy mapping Observe controversies in all their richness Provide the public with a readable description
- 13. The contradiction of controversy mapping Observe controversies in all their richness Provide the public with a readable description too rich too poor
- 14. Where do we stand? . legible but rich? rich but legible? www.boxplotstudios.com/2012deb ate_1 www.pitchinteractive.com/election 2008/jobarcs.html
- 16. Searching the point of balance
- 17. Where does scientific reference stand? The Pedofil of Boa Vista Bruno Latour (1995) Common Knowledge 4(1)
- 18. Are we asking the wrong question? The Pedofil of Boa Vista Bruno Latour (1995) Common Knowledge 4(1)
- 19. From where we stand to how we move « Our philosophical tradition has been mistaken in wanting to make phenomena the meeting point between things-in-themselves and categories of the human understandings… Phenomena, however, are not found at the meeting point between things and the forms of the human mind; phenomena are what circulates all along the reversible chain of transformations. » The Pedofil of Boa Vista Bruno Latour (1995) Common Knowledge 4(1)
- 20. Part III: Three movements Designing Controversies and their publics
- 21. Three movements • The extension of complexity/legibility trade off • Controversy atlases • WHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement) • WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table) • HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram) • WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute) • WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics) • Use-before-use (participatory design) • Design after design (digital interactivity) • The narration-exploration circle • Narrating the controversy fil-rouge • Exploring the complexity of debate • Datascapes navigation • The spiral of public engagement • Engaging the public throughout the mapping campaign • Engaging the public again, and again, and again
- 22. Movement 1: The extension of complexity/legibility trade off
- 23. WHAT? from statements to debates From statements to debates (what) From debates to actors (who) From actors to networks (how) From networks to cosmoses (where) From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when)
- 24. Movement 1, section 1: Controversy atlas WHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement) WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table) HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram) WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute) WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics)
- 27. WHO? from debates to actors (who) From statements to debates (what) From debates to actors (who) From actors to networks (how) From networks to cosmoses (where) From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when)
- 29. HOW: From actors to networks From statements to debates (what) From debates to actors (who) From actors to networks (how) From networks to cosmoses (where) From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when)
- 34. WHERE? from networks to cosmoses From statements to debates (what) From debates to actors (who) From actors to networks (how) From networks to cosmoses (where) From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when)
- 35. Debate scale / table of cosmos http://medialab.sciences-
- 36. WHEN? from cosmoses to cosmopolitics From statements to debates (what) From debates to actors (who) From actors to networks (how) From networks to cosmoses (where) From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when)
- 39. Movement 1, section 2: Use before use (participatory design)
- 40. Movement 1, section 3: Design after design Swiss Knife Pattada Sarda
- 41. Movement 1, section 3: Design after design (digital interactivity) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-
- 42. Movement 2: the exploration narration circle • The extension of complexity/legibility trade off • Controversy atlases • WHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement) • WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table) • HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram) • WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute) • WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics) • Use-before-use (participatory design) • Design after design (digital interactivity) • The narration-exploration circle • Narrating the controversy fil-rouge • Exploring the complexity of debate • Datascape navigation • The spiral of public engagement • Engaging the public throughout the mapping campaign • Engaging the public again, and again, and again
- 43. Movement 2, section 1: Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
- 44. How did Theseus escaped the labyrith? http://daazo.com/film/3bcb3110-8852-11e0-ba3e- 0050fc84de33
- 45. Find the way in your controversy and show it
- 46. What is the difference between a good and bad receptionist?
- 47. Movement 2, section 1: Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
- 48. http://www.medialab.sciences-po.fr/controversies/2011/scube/decroissance/ Movement 2, section 1: Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
- 49. Movement 2, section 2: Exploring the complexity of the debate “An essential property of this chain is that it must remain reversible. The succession of stages must be traceable, allowing to travel in both directions” (Latour, 1995) The Pedofil of Boa Vista, Bruno Latour (1995), Common Knowledge 4(1)
- 50. Movement 2, section 1: Narrating the ‘fil rouge’
- 51. Releasing the data thedata.org
- 52. Releasing the data http://www.nature.com/scientificdata/
- 54. Movement 2, section 3: datascapes navigation
- 55. http://issuu.com/densitydesign/docs/theres_no_place_like_ antarctica http://vimeo.com/37723263 Movement 2, section 3: datascape navigation
- 56. Movement 3: the spiral of public engagement • The extension of complexity/legibility trade off • Controversy atlases • WHAT: from statements to debates (the tree of disagreement) • WHO: from debates to actors (the actors-arguments table) • HOW: from actors to networks (the actor-network diagram) • WHERE: from networks to cosmoses (the scale of dispute) • WHEN: from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (the controversy dynamics) • Use-before-use (participatory design) • Design after design (digital interactivity) • The narration-exploration circle • Narrating the controversy fil-rouge • Exploring the complexity of debate • Datascape navigation • The spiral of public engagement • Engaging the public throughout the mapping campaign • Engaging the public again, and again, and again
- 57. GANTT 2011/2014
- 58. Expected protocol The interaction spiral
- 59. Movement 3, section 1: Engaging the public throughout the campaign
- 60. Movement 3, section 2: Engaging the public again, again and again
- 61. tommaso.venturini@sciences-po.fr Venturini, T. (2010) Diving in Magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), pp. 258-273 Venturini, T. (2012) Building on Faults: how to represent controversies with digital methods Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), pp. 796-812
Notes de l'éditeur
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 The result of this complex chain of transformations is the diagram in the slide. It is evident that the the initial phenomenon (the savanna/border) and the final diagram are very different. A few thousands of kilometers of bushes and trees do not resembles to a 10 square centimeters of printed papers.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 1. From statements to debates (what) . The first map is meant to show that statements in controversies are never isolated, but always connected in a dialogue made of endorsements and oppositions. It is therefore crucial to show how different discourses question and answer to each other. Of course, there are many ways to do so. One that is popular among the students of our controversy mapping courses, the ‘tree of disagreement’, is as old as greek philosophy and Porphyrian trees.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 1. From statements to debates (what) . The first map is meant to show that statements in controversies are never isolated, but always connected in a dialogue made of endorsements and oppositions. It is therefore crucial to show how different discourses question and answer to each other. Of course, there are many ways to do so. One that is popular among the students of our controversy mapping courses, the ‘tree of disagreement’, is as old as greek philosophy and Porphyrian trees.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 2. From debates to actors (who) . The second map consists in re-attaching statements to the their speakers. This movement is important because it gives materiality to the techno-scientific debate. Controversies do not happen in the vacuum and they oppose social actors rather than platonic ideas. Proposing an argument (as well as supporting or refuting it) is never a mere intellectual move. In controversies, each act is a speech that carries a meaning and every speech is an act that binds alliances and digs oppositions. Plotting who shares which argument with whom, the ‘actors-argument table’, is therefore the very basis of controversy mapping. It is important to remind that, descending from actor-network theory, controversy mapping has a very extended definition of what is an actor of a techno-scientific debate: scientists and engineers, of course, but also lay experts, activists, decisions-makers and not only individual actors but also collective actors (research institutions, enterprises, lobbies…) and non-human actors (instruments, theories, laws, natural elements…).
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 3. From actors to networks (how) . Exactly as statements are never isolated in controversies, so are actors. As you should know by now, the hyphen in actor-network does encourage researchers to look at one and the other, but to consider actors and networks as one thing. This is particularly evident in debates, where the position of actors is determined their alliances and oppositions and, conversely, networks are defined by the actors that they connects. The ‘actor-network diagram’ is meant to visualize the simultaneous movement of individualization and clusterization that characterize controversies. Not an easy task, to be sure, but one that is becoming less impossible thanks to the growing digital traceability of scientific citations, hyperlinks, texts and many other forms social connections.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) . The last bar of this section is certainly the most difficult one. Besides presenting what controversies are about, who fights them, how they join or oppose their forces and where battles and wars take place, cartographers must also show how all these elements evolve through time. Add to this the fact that the time of controversies is often the most heterogeneous (different part of the same controversy may remain dormant for ages and suddenly burst into the quickest developments) and the complexity of cosmopolitics will be evident. This is why, though crucial, the dynamic of disputes can only be introduced after all other elements have been set into place.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12 Other concatenations would be certainly possible, what is important is to break down the richness of a controversy and then rebuild it through a chain of subsequent representations. 1. From statements to debates (what) - Tree of disagreement 2. From debates to actors (who) - Actors-networks diagram 3. From actors to networks (how) - Network analysis - Scientometrics - Web cartography - Text analysis 4. From networks to cosmoses (where) - Debate scale - Table of cosmos 5. From cosmoses to cosmopolitics (when) - Debate dynamics
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 The only chance that you have not to get lost in the complexity of your controversy is to have a thread to follow. A ‘fil rouge’ that will help you keeping your direction, harnessing the richness of your controversy instead of being overflowed by it. It is all the difference between moving through the maze and being lost in it.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 Consider the way geographical maps are used. Maps, unlike paintings, are not meant to be just look at. Maps are meant to be pointed at. Consider how important is the little gesture where you point your finger on a map and say “we are here”, “we want to go there”. This little gesture transforms the very nature of the map, it turns it from an image to a navigation tool.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 27/08/12 This is important for you, but is all the more important for those that will look at (and evaluate) your maps. To succeed in your cartographic campaigns (and having a good note), delivering a bunch of visualization is not enough. You have to make sure that people will understand how to navigate through them. This is what makes the difference between a good and a bad controversy mapping and also between a good and a bad receptionist: handing a map is useless, if you are not able to give direction on it.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 …
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 Still, an increasing number of scientific practices are emerging that cannot comfortably be squeezed through the bottleneck of paper publication. For example, the more data and computational power become available for investigation and the more the scientists realize the value of databases and analytic algorithms as scientific results. Two important sets of initiatives have been taken in this direction. On the one hand, several online archives have been created to encourage the publication of scientific datasets on the web (e.g. the Harvard Dataverse Project, thedata.org and the UK data archive, data-archive.ac.uk ).
- 12/10/12 Still, an increasing number of scientific practices are emerging that cannot comfortably be squeezed through the bottleneck of paper publication. For example, the more data and computational power become available for investigation and the more the scientists realize the value of databases and analytic algorithms as scientific results. Two important sets of initiatives have been taken in this direction. On the one hand, several online archives have been created to encourage the publication of scientific datasets on the web (e.g. the Harvard Dataverse Project, thedata.org and the UK data archive, data-archive.ac.uk ).
- 12/10/12 On the other hand, many of the most prestigious journals are starting to require their contributors to release their data and the computer codes for purposes of replication and scientific quality ( Ince et al. , 2012), leading to a dramatic improvement in methodological rigor and a greater awareness of the advantages of data and code sharing. These praiseworthy initiatives, however, are meant to improve the transparency and reproducibility of science, not to enhance the publication of scientific results. Data and source-code are not the only non-textual items that scholars may want to publish.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 Moving from the websites to the video, the question of connecting different maps in one integrated atlas becomes even more important. Websites give their authors an almost unlimited freedom in the organization of the information they want to convey. Which means, as you can imagine, that often the website have no organization at all. Videos, on the contrary, as you can easily understand, are more constrained. In particular, the format of the video will force you to convey information in a linear way: one piece after another (a little bit like in the website on the Licence Globale that I just showed). Representing a controversy through a video requires therefore to ‘linearize’ its complexity presenting a series of maps connected in a meaningful chain. Which maps will constitute this chain and how exactly the will be organized one after the other is something that you’ll have to find out yourself (with the help of your tutors of course) on the basis of the ‘fil rouge’ of your controversy. Here you see an example realized by students of the controversy mapping course of the Politecnico of Milan.
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12 12/10/12
- 12/10/12 12/10/12