ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

Web Controversy Analysis×Digital Methods×
领域Science Technology StudiesScience Technology Studies
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份20122013
提出者Tommaso Venturini, Noortje MarresRichard Rogers, Amsterdam Digital Methods Initiative
类型Web-native controversy research methodEmpirical research approach for online data
开创性文献Venturini, T. (2012). Building on faults: how to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796-812. DOI ↗Rogers, R. (2013). Digital Methods. MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262018838
别名Web controversy mapping, Hyperlink controversy analysis, Online controversy cartographyFollow the medium, Natively digital research, Web epistemology methods
相关44
摘要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.Digital methods is an empirical research approach, developed by Richard Rogers and the Amsterdam Digital Methods Initiative, that takes the methods of online platforms and devices—the link, the like, the hashtag, the search engine ranking—and repurposes them for social and cultural research. Its guiding maxim is to 'follow the medium': rather than importing offline methods like the survey onto the web, the analyst learns what the medium already counts, ranks, and recommends, and turns those native operations into research instruments.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Web Controversy Analysis · Digital Methods. 于 2026-06-24 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare