Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Why map issues? On controversy analysis as a digital method

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Marres, Noortje (2015) Why map issues? On controversy analysis as a digital method. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40 (5). pp. 655-686. doi:10.1177/0162243915574602 ISSN 0162-2439.

[img]
Preview
PDF
WRAP_Marres_1472684-im-071215-marres_sthv574602.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (573Kb) | Preview
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243915574602

Request Changes to record.

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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Internet governance -- Methodology , Internet -- Political aspects, Search engines -- Censorship, Social media -- Censorship
Journal or Publication Title: Science, Technology & Human Values
Publisher: Sage Publications Ltd.
ISSN: 0162-2439
Official Date: 26 March 2015
Dates:
DateEvent
26 March 2015Published
Volume: 40
Number: 5
Page Range: pp. 655-686
DOI: 10.1177/0162243915574602
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access (Creative Commons)
Date of first compliant deposit: 15 December 2015
Date of first compliant Open Access: 18 December 2015
Funder: Economic and Social Research Council (Great Britain) (ESRC)
Grant number: ES/J010103/1

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us