Skip to main content

Mapping Controversies

During the last 3 weeks, I've had the pleasure of participating in the first ever MACOSPOL (MApping COntroversies for Science and POLitics) course in Denmark. Very much in the spirit of Latour and STS, the course took place at the Technical University of Denmark, where two brave researchers threw a dozen students head first into the mapping praxis.

In my team, we decided to map the heated debate on tax reform that has been going on in Denmark - especially in this spring. The two main blocks in Danish politics have been pitted against each other in a war of rhetorics and economics. According to the sitting conservative-liberal government, tax cuts and welfare cuts are the only way to keep Denmark competitive and thus fund the welfare system in the long term. To challenge this logic, the centre-left coalition stresses that it would be more in the spirit of the Danish welfare state if everyone helped generate the necessary worth by worked a bit harder. The centre-left opposition has critizised the government intensely for 'destroying' the welfare and the renowned Danish labor market model. The government, on the other hand, has claimed to have the only 'economically responsible' solution.

Our thesis is that this heated controversy has been a defeat for democracy. It has been a war on words, numbers with many zeros and economic arguments that no lay person can possibly understand. By mapping the tax wars and publishing the results on a website, we hope to make it a little bit easier for the averagely informed citizen to find paths through the mess.

So what have we done? First of all, we tried to let data decide the boundaries of the debate instead of our own preconceptions. This proved to be harder than we thought, because although you want to map as openly and inclusively as possible, you still need a vantage point. This is unavoidable and something you need to be clear about.

Thus, we chose 'tax reform' and 'tax cuts' as the absolute core keywords and started our mapping from there. One of our primary strategies was to visualize what the actors in different spheres talk about, when they talk of tax reform and tax cuts. Various spheres on tax reform, that we've mapped, include
We also included some of the human and non-human 'victims' of the tax debate, including fat, meat, cigarettes, alchohol and cars.

The most powerful visualization tool proved to be the IBM-developed Many Eyes and its ability to create e.g. sophisticated word clouds and word trees. This allows the visitor to our site to explore, among many other texts, the full transcript of the final debate in the parliament that took place on the 2nd of June 2010. This was an important battle in the tax wars, which we also illustrate in a short video, based on the original film material from the parliamentary library.

Our mapping efforts also include a mind map overview of some of the central actors in the tax controversy, a few visualizations focusing on the time perspective, a collection of key quotations from the debate, a map of virtual and physical locations in the debate, and even more.

Overall, it's been three intense and exciting weeks, where we've tried to live up to the legacy of the other regular MACOSPOL projects that normally took half a year to make. Although our project was much shorter, we've learned to use a wide range of new tools and put a quite comprehensive website together, not least because of the technical shortcut that the free website editor, Weebly, is.

Comments

  1. Hey. Den ser godt ud, hjemmesiden. Visualiseringer er en spændende genre. Vil gerne høre mere om kurset og værktøjerne ved lejlighed. mvh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. jeg må dog desværre sige, for at være lidt kritisk, det håber jeg er ok, at jeg synes metaforikken bliver for villet og opmærksomshedkrævende og derfor er med til at sløre fokus og gøre navigationen på hjemmesiden mindre overskuelig, hvilket er synd i og med sigtet med den slags projekterer, som jeg forstår det, jo netop er at skabe en form for overblik.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tak for kommentarer og fint med kritik. Medgivet, det bliver meget let anstrengt med en så omfattende metaforik, men det bidrog om ikke andet til at holde humøret oppe i et meget intenst 3-ugers forløb, hvor vi i sagens natur måtte gå på kompromis med mange af de mere seriøse kortlægningsmål.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Official statistics: 51% of 16-74 year old Danes use Facebook

In making a case for why my MSc dissertation here at the Oxford Internet Institute should be concerned with something as hyped and mundane as Facebook, I've been looking for numbers on the Danish social media landscape.

On the English-language web, the commercial SocialBakers Facebook statistics suggest that 49% of the Danish population are on Facebook.

This rather non-transparent number can now be compared with a recent report by Statistics Denmark, suggesting that 51% of 16-74 year old Danes have a Facebook account. The second-largest online social network service in Denmark, LinkedIn, is trailing far behind at 8%. Most surprisingly perhaps, a mere 3% of the surveyed age cohort use Twitter.

As such, there are compelling quantitative reasons for choosing Facebook over e.g. Twitter for a case study of how social media reflect life in Denmark. Another recent survey produced for a Danish daily confirms this: A tiny elite of the 319 most active Twitter users in Denmark write half of …

Two (used) comments on Gillespie's new chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms"

I'm in Paris this semester, as a visiting doctoral student at the Center for the Sociology of Innovation (CSI) at Ecole des Mines and at the médialab at Sciences Po. 
Apart from finding myself in the middle of two very lively research communities, I've also been so lucky that a series of cross-institutional seminars on Digital Methods are taking place in Paris this spring.
The last seminar was on "Transformative interaction: web effects on social dynamics", for which I volunteered to prepare a brief comment on one of the selected readings, namely Tarleton Gillespie's chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms", forthcoming in an edited volume on "Media Technologies" to be published by MIT Press. (The full chapter has been uploaded by Gillespie here).
Since I prepared the comments in writing, and since they did in fact spark some discussion, I've decided that it might be appropriate to recycle them as a blog post. Here goes:

Introducing: The Twitter-thing!

Context: The Twitter-thing is the (awkward?) translation into English of 'Twittertinget' - a project I worked on last year with two Danish colleagues, Irina Papazu (CBS) and Tobias Bornakke (Uni. of Copenhagen) in collaboration with the Danish newspaper Politiken. The Twitter-thing is a tool that draws on TCAT in order to build a network visualisation of how Danish MPs use hashtags on Twitter. Here follows my abstract for the upcoming Data Publics conference in Lancaster, where I'll be exhibiting the Twitter-thing.


Parliaments could seem to be highly issue-agnostic places. All sorts of problems move in and out of these large and expensive devices (Dányi 2015), while the membership stays more or less the same in-between elections. But as issues are taken up and left behind by parliaments, they also make cuts in the parliament in the sense that specific sets of parliamentarians become attached to specific issues. The aim of the Twitter-thing tool is to trace these cuts and v…