Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method. Marres, N. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40(5):655–686, September, 2015. ![Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex This article takes stock of recent efforts to implement controversy analysis as a digital method in the study of science, technology, and society (STS) and beyond and outlines a distinctive approach to address the problem of digital bias. Digital media technologies exert significant influence on the enactment of controversy in online settings, and this risks undermining the substantive focus of controversy analysis conducted by digital means. To address this problem, I propose a shift in thematic focus from controversy analysis to issue mapping. The article begins by distinguishing between three broad frameworks that currently guide the development of controversy analysis as a digital method, namely, demarcationist, discursive, and empiricist. Each has been adopted in STS, but only the last one offers a digital “move beyond impartiality.” I demonstrate this approach by analyzing issues of Internet governance with the aid of the social media platform Twitter.
@article{marres_why_2015,
title = {Why {Map} {Issues}? {On} {Controversy} {Analysis} as a {Digital} {Method}},
volume = {40},
issn = {0162-2439},
shorttitle = {Why {Map} {Issues}?},
url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531114/},
doi = {10.1177/0162243915574602},
abstract = {This article takes stock of recent efforts to implement controversy analysis as a digital method in the study of science, technology, and society (STS) and beyond and outlines a distinctive approach to address the problem of digital bias. Digital media technologies exert significant influence on the enactment of controversy in online settings, and this risks undermining the substantive focus of controversy analysis conducted by digital means. To address this problem, I propose a shift in thematic focus from controversy analysis to issue mapping. The article begins by distinguishing between three broad frameworks that currently guide the development of controversy analysis as a digital method, namely, demarcationist, discursive, and empiricist. Each has been adopted in STS, but only the last one offers a digital “move beyond impartiality.” I demonstrate this approach by analyzing issues of Internet governance with the aid of the social media platform Twitter.},
number = {5},
urldate = {2020-04-06},
journal = {Science, Technology \& Human Values},
author = {Marres, Noortje},
month = sep,
year = {2015},
pmid = {26336325},
pmcid = {PMC4531114},
pages = {655--686},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"K8h9N3sfPs7JdXGv6","bibbaseid":"marres-whymapissuesoncontroversyanalysisasadigitalmethod-2015","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Marres, N."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method","volume":"40","issn":"0162-2439","shorttitle":"Why Map Issues?","url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531114/","doi":"10.1177/0162243915574602","abstract":"This article takes stock of recent efforts to implement controversy analysis as a digital method in the study of science, technology, and society (STS) and beyond and outlines a distinctive approach to address the problem of digital bias. Digital media technologies exert significant influence on the enactment of controversy in online settings, and this risks undermining the substantive focus of controversy analysis conducted by digital means. To address this problem, I propose a shift in thematic focus from controversy analysis to issue mapping. The article begins by distinguishing between three broad frameworks that currently guide the development of controversy analysis as a digital method, namely, demarcationist, discursive, and empiricist. Each has been adopted in STS, but only the last one offers a digital “move beyond impartiality.” I demonstrate this approach by analyzing issues of Internet governance with the aid of the social media platform Twitter.","number":"5","urldate":"2020-04-06","journal":"Science, Technology & Human Values","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Marres"],"firstnames":["Noortje"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"September","year":"2015","pmid":"26336325","pmcid":"PMC4531114","pages":"655–686","bibtex":"@article{marres_why_2015,\n\ttitle = {Why {Map} {Issues}? {On} {Controversy} {Analysis} as a {Digital} {Method}},\n\tvolume = {40},\n\tissn = {0162-2439},\n\tshorttitle = {Why {Map} {Issues}?},\n\turl = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531114/},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/0162243915574602},\n\tabstract = {This article takes stock of recent efforts to implement controversy analysis as a digital method in the study of science, technology, and society (STS) and beyond and outlines a distinctive approach to address the problem of digital bias. Digital media technologies exert significant influence on the enactment of controversy in online settings, and this risks undermining the substantive focus of controversy analysis conducted by digital means. To address this problem, I propose a shift in thematic focus from controversy analysis to issue mapping. The article begins by distinguishing between three broad frameworks that currently guide the development of controversy analysis as a digital method, namely, demarcationist, discursive, and empiricist. Each has been adopted in STS, but only the last one offers a digital “move beyond impartiality.” I demonstrate this approach by analyzing issues of Internet governance with the aid of the social media platform Twitter.},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\turldate = {2020-04-06},\n\tjournal = {Science, Technology \\& Human Values},\n\tauthor = {Marres, Noortje},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tpmid = {26336325},\n\tpmcid = {PMC4531114},\n\tpages = {655--686},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Marres, N."],"key":"marres_why_2015-1","id":"marres_why_2015-1","bibbaseid":"marres-whymapissuesoncontroversyanalysisasadigitalmethod-2015","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531114/"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/moniquepaez","creationDate":"2020-05-20T00:42:50.290Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["map","issues","controversy","analysis","digital","method","marres"],"title":"Why Map Issues? On Controversy Analysis as a Digital Method","year":2015,"dataSources":["yMLLs8ACHBAKj9HB3","bGsBCQzaqZdRxfy7J"]}