Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Issue Mapping× | Controversy Mapping× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Science Technology Studies | Science Technology Studies |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 2015 | 2010 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Noortje Marres, Richard Rogers | Bruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso Venturini |
| Tyyppi≠ | Issue-centred digital research method | Qualitative descriptive method and pedagogy |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Rogers, R., Sánchez-Querubín, N., & Kil, A. (2015). Issue Mapping for an Ageing Europe. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN: 9789089647160 | Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | Issue cartography, Issue network mapping, Digital issue analysis | Cartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysis |
| Liittyvät | 4 | 4 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Issue mapping is an issue-centred digital research method that charts the actors, objects, and concerns gathered around a public issue—ageing, climate, vaccines, migration—using web and social-media data. Descended from controversy mapping but reoriented around the issue rather than a controversy or a pre-given social domain, it draws on Noortje Marres's pragmatist account of issue formation and the Amsterdam Digital Methods Initiative's repertoire to let the issue itself demarcate who and what counts. | Controversy mapping is a descriptive method for exploring and representing socio-technical disputes while they are still open and unsettled, before they harden into accepted facts or stable technologies. Developed as a teaching practice by Bruno Latour and codified by Tommaso Venturini at the Sciences Po médialab, it asks the analyst to dive into the heat of a debate, follow the actors and their arguments without prematurely taking sides, and render the resulting complexity legible through maps and visualisations. It treats controversy not as a pathology to be resolved but as the privileged moment in which the social and the technical are visibly being assembled. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|