Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Web Controversy Analysis× | Controversy Mapping× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Science Technology Studies | Science Technology Studies |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 2012 | 2010 |
| Autors≠ | Tommaso Venturini, Noortje Marres | Bruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso Venturini |
| Tips≠ | Web-native controversy research method | Qualitative descriptive method and pedagogy |
| Pirmavots≠ | Venturini, T. (2012). Building on faults: how to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796-812. DOI ↗ | Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273. DOI ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi | Web controversy mapping, Hyperlink controversy analysis, Online controversy cartography | Cartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysis |
| Saistītās | 4 | 4 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | Web controversy analysis studies scientific, technical, and public controversies through the traces they leave online—hyperlink networks, search-engine results, and social-media activity. Building on the controversy-mapping tradition but reworking it as a web-native digital method, it follows Tommaso Venturini's call to 'build on faults' and Noortje Marres's argument for controversy analysis as a digital method, using crawling and co-link analysis to reveal how positions in a dispute are connected, opposed, and arranged across the web. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|