Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

De liddo seminar-oct2021-fin

Wird geladen in …3

Hier ansehen

1 von 44 Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (19)

Ähnlich wie De liddo seminar-oct2021-fin (20)


Weitere von Anna De Liddo (16)

Aktuellste (20)


De liddo seminar-oct2021-fin

  1. 1. Harnessing the power of coming together, even when we disagree Contested Collective Intelligence Research and Tools Dr. Anna De Liddo anna.delidd@open.ac.uk Learning at Scale Special Interest Group - Invited Talk, Oct 12th, 2021
  2. 2. Anna De Liddo Professor of Human Computer Interaction Dr. Lucia Lupi Urban Informatics Alberto Ardito Senior Web Developer Retno Lasarti PhD Student Explainable AI Lucas Anastasiou PhD Student Argument Mining Riccardo Pala Web Developer Michelle Bachler Senior Project Officer
  3. 3. Collective Intelligence • defined as the capability to collectively solve complex problems • CI research seek to develop the conceptual foundations and sociotechnical infrastructures to improve the ability of small to large groups to act more intelligently that any person or machine would do in isolation.
  5. 5. Contested Collective Intelligence (De Liddo 2012) When tackling complex and contested problems In contexts such as collaborative learning, public policy or business strategy there will almost always be contention over the right answers. There may not be one worldview, or clear option Evidence can be ambiguous or of dubious reliability requiring the construction of plausible, possibly competing narratives; Growth in intelligence results from learning, which is socially constructed through different forms of discourse, such as dialogue and debate.
  6. 6. Collective Intelligence Spectrum Model of Collective Intelligence (CI): from sensing the environment, to interpreting it, to generating good options, to taking decisions and coordinating action... Collec&ve( Ac&on( Collec&ve( Decision( Collec&ve( Idea&on( Collec&ve( Sensemaking( Collec&ve( Sensing(( (
  7. 7. The discussion spaces that we see on the Web today are flawed • are rudimental in the way they structure data • lack of content quality and variety • scarcely support evidence- based reasoning • lack features to enhance personal understanding and situational awareness
  8. 8. Public Deliberation on the internet is dispersed, hard to make sense of and often occurs in echo-chambers • dispersed across different Web- sites and Social Media environments. This makes it difficult for people to make sense of the state and progress of a public debate. • Poor summarization and poor visualizations issues have been widely recognized as key detrimental barriers to the quality of online public deliberation • An open challenge to effective online deliberation is therefore connecting communities that are "isolated" in different platforms island and allowing cross fertilisation of ideas between community platforms.
  9. 9. Setting the Problem: Social/Organisational Dimension • … and produce well known negative socio-technical effects, such as • ‘echo chambers” and the activation of biased information dynamics (Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Taber & Lodge, 2006) • Homophily and Lack of content variety (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995, Mutz & Martin, 2001). • polarisation, division and conflict (Sunstein, 2018; Golbeck et al., 2017; Matias et al., 2015, Binder et al., 2009) • degrade the quality, balance and safety (Golbeck, 2017; Guntuku, 2017) of online discourse, up to undermining social tolerance (Mutz 2002)
  10. 10. Promising Solutions for Building Consensus A new type of technology-enabled collective intelligence to help people make sense of and co-create innovative solutions to complicated challenges. Contested Collective Intelligence (CCI) tools to harness the power of technology to enable people worldwide to build consensus – even when, on the face of it, they disagree. Using advanced human and computational methods, such as crowdsourcing and Natural Language Processing, to contribute and 'mine' online conversations (with people's consent), these easy to use tools identify both stated and unstated points of agreement to help summarise complex debates. They then generate visualisations of these points of understanding, which we can show people to help them reflect on each other's ideas and make better informed collective decisions. Mining online conversations also produces a wealth of data we can analyse further to understand the fundamental nature of sensemaking, the social and cognitive process through which humans make sense of their collective experience.
  11. 11. Contested Collective Intelligence (De Liddo 2012)
  12. 12. Impact 1. Bridging divides and healing divisions Society's division and disagreement are no more evident in the political arena or post war conflicts. Working with colleagues from The Open University's Knowledge Media Institute and The University of Leeds to build a new collective intelligence platform to help people think critically about political and societal issues and challenge their prior assumptions. These are crucial skills people need to bridge divides and reduce social conflict.
  13. 13. New Modes of Engagement with Televised Political Debate through Audience Feedback democraticreflection.org
  14. 14. A New Method to Harness Audience Reactions • Instant • Nuanced meaning • Discourse-based: Provided in form of discourse elements • Voluntary and non-intrusive • Enabling analytics and visualisations ‘Soft’ Feedback:
  15. 15. Democratic Reflection’s Interactive Experience
  16. 16. Previous successful testing in Political Communication Contexts Democratic Reflection was tested with over 2000 UK citizen in the last 2015, 2017 and 2019 political election debates, and was reported to improve self- reflection and learning, “change the way people felt about political leaders”, and showed to “change personal assumptions” that people had before using the tool.
  17. 17. Emerging insights from the last 2015, 2017, 2019 UK Elections • Democratic Reflection facilitated: • High engagement and willingness to use the tool in the future • No usability issues (also from people with very low digital literacy) • Improved sensemaking • “unexpected insights on the debaters and on what they said,” • To “reflect on the debate in a deeper way” • “assessing personal assumption” and • “changing some initial assumptions had before the debate.”
  18. 18. Trials with broadcaster ITV during the 2015, 2017 and 2019 UK general election • “I came into this group more or less decided on what I was going to vote for, but the statistics completely changed my mind, so that helped” • “To someone who's really undecided on who to vote for, it is quite interesting to see what my reactions were […] I was a bit like oh, right. Okay, so obviously, I agree with what they're saying. Maybe I need to go back and look at their manifesto and read it all through again.” 2017 trial participants
  19. 19. Impact 2: Nudging Behavior Change at Scale to Build Peace democraticreflection.org Concept Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ue=4&v=xj0gB07yMuU
  20. 20. Setting the Problem In 1994 Rwanda experienced large scale genocide. Since 2001 Aegis Trust worked with the Government of Rwanda to establish the Kigali Genocide Memorial (KGM www.kgm/rw ) in commemoration of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, as a place for remembrance and learning. Video archival materials are part of the collective memory of the country, and are used extensively by NGOs and piece building organisations as digital storytelling tools to promote empathy and to build peace. Challenges in using Digital Storytelling for peace building: • to measure the impact of digital storytelling videos, and the changes they affect in the viewers perceptions of the genocide. • extent to which the viewing experience improves people’s critical thinking, active listening, and other capabilities for peace.
  21. 21. User Study in Rwanda with Aegis Trust In 2019 with the support of Kings Collage London, the ISOOKO EU Project and Aegis Trust Aegis Trust: a British based NGO working for the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities worldwide, has been present in Rwanda since 2001.
  22. 22. Testing DR with Video Testimonies from Rescuers Working with Aegis Trust and Kings Collage Social Scientists colleagues to identify category of observations and multimedia material: ‘Ubumuntu’ means ‘humanity’–Referring to the quality of being humane; greatness of heart, benevolence, generosity and kindness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMqFVF8lYEE&t=813s
  23. 23. Understanding (awareness and commitment to act) Very low “S/he made a big commitment” = Very Low Understanding Low “I can do good as he/she did” = Low Understanding Medium “This shows how doing good is always possible” =Medium Understanding High “I can be one of them” = High Understanding Very high “I too can practice peace by helping others” = Very High Understanding Personal connection (empathy) Very low “It looks like s/he was doing a good thing” – Very Low Personal Connection Low “That must have been very difficult” – Low Personal Connection Medium “I know the feeling s/he is describing” – Medium Personal Connection High “Listening to her/him makes me emotional” – High Personal Connection Very high “What s/he is saying makes me proud” – Very High Personal Connection
  24. 24. Testing DR with Video Testimonies from Rescuers Translations, recruitment and technical testing. Access the TEST DRIVE at: https://democraticreflection.org/event/video/-L_O_AsF7Fykq2iXWdK2/-L_O_AsF7Fykq2iXWdK2
  25. 25. Feedback from Aegis Trust • “What I liked is, the tool wasn't about commenting on the video as such, it was touching on how people feel, and how people think in the place of the storyteller..." • “The tool has that ability of giving you a chance to express yourself, to feel connected, and connect with what you are watching, but also evaluate…It gave people a time for self-reflection.” • “When we engage people, when we call people for peace education training, we want the change to start with individuals. When the change starts with individuals, then it escalates to become a change for the group, and you can only achieve that if individually people are connected, and people are really reflecting on their role in society. That is something Democratic Reflection was really promoting. People had to respond not from their mind, I would say, but from their heart.” 2019 trial interview with Head of Digital Resources and Communications at Aegis Trust
  26. 26. Impact 3. Evidence Hub - Crowdsourcing community capabilities • For professional communities to pool resources, expertise and crowdsource solutions to problems. • Since 2014, worling with the UK's professional body for health visitors, the Institute of Health Visiting (iHV), to create and manage The Evidence Hub. • The online platform allows iHV members to share, reflect on and develop their professional practice based on the latest scientific evidence and their collective experience in the field. • The network has created opportunities to collate evidence and present it to public health policymakers.
  27. 27. A Knowledge Tree to connect evidence to findings Evidence In Favor Evidence Against
  28. 28. Social Analytics
  29. 29. Evidence Hub Website: http://evidence-hub.net/
  30. 30. Users Engagement • 14 Hubs communities • Main Sectors: Healthcare and Education but also, sustainable development and academic research networks • Contributors from 3-10 small community groups to larger 100-900 users community for bigger Hubs - from grassroots local initiatives to higher national and international policy. • Form hundreds to thousands user generated content.
  31. 31. NETLAB Evidence Hub ¡ A tool for SDG communities of practice to gather and debate evidence for ideas and solutions to specific community issues. ¡ By aggregating and connecting single users’ contributions the Evidence Hub provides a collective picture of what is the SDG challenges, debates, projects and organizations in the Milan Metropolitan Area ¡ This collective picture can be explored in form of a simple textual interface (as list of organizations, claims, evidences, issues, resources) or in a more visual way as a knowledge tree, or a network map
  32. 32. Impact 4. LiteMap: Collaborative Web Annotation and Knowledge Mapping for collaborative online learning Since its first launch in 2015, has been used • By over 2000 users • in 10 different countries, • Over 100 community groups • 560 Maps to confirm an emerging public and education impact. • a Brazilian community of 1300 teachers carry out collaborative work and coordinate online course activities with, LiteMap improve collaborative online learning and collective inquiries. http://litemap.net/
  33. 33. Crowdsourcing community capabilities in Brazil • Brazilian open research community, COLEARN, facilitated by my Open University colleague and open learning expert Dr Ale Okada, has also used our cloud-based LiteMap tool to build collaboration between school teachers and university researchers, remotely and at scale, in a way rarely seen in the massive and geographically diverse country. • The network has employed the tool's debate visualisation, collaborative knowledge mapping, and argumentation technology to support thousands of teachers and researchers to develop coordinated online learning opportunities for school pupils on diverse themes from genetically modified foods to Zika virus response.
  34. 34. LiteMap Strengths • LiteMap main strength is the capability to provide user generated visual mapping of a debate combined with Web annotation, that is the assimilation of information from any web source. • Litemap provides an instrument for reflecting across diverse forums and web data. • By combining reflection with visual mapping LiteMap enables reflections to be connected, commented and linked in a meta discussion space (the 2D canvas map) as further element of co-creation and analysis. • The functionality of hyperlinking external knowledge to the argument map was considered highly valuable to see all the discussion about a given argument; and to make arguments clearer. • The capability of Web annotation to enable the collaborative harvesting of evidence from external sources, is also an effective response to the lack of diversity and shallowness of online conversations. • Civic leaders, and communities alike, can use Web annotations to better ground arguments, support counterarguments, while enabling provenance of ideas across platforms and communities. • Web annotation also naturally mitigates data duplication and plagiarism (since people can link directly to the external source without the need to copy content).
  35. 35. LESSONS LEARNED FROM CONTESTED COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS • If we want to support people’s capability to question assumptions and think critically, we need to design spaces for personal reflection and sensemaking. Information overload and balkanization makes it difficult for people to extract useful and reliable insights to make better-informed decisions, to change biased assumptions or behaviours. Information complexity and uncertainty (fake vs legitimate news) contribute to citizens’ alienating from a healthy engagement in public life. We miss the right social context and tools to practice critical thinking
  36. 36. “the best remedy for propaganda and misinformation... is helping people engage in critical thinking and evidence- based reasoning.” – Ricky Sethi Citation credit - Juho Kim https://theconversation.com/how-citizen-investigators-can-collaborate-on-crowdsourced-fact-checking-76890 CRITICAL THINKING AS A CRITICAL DEMOCRATIC SKILL
  37. 37. Using technology to unite us, not divide us • Powerful analytical tool are often used as persuasive tools but the same tools can be used for improving civic engagement and learning • Users profiling is more and more used by big corporations to target people but it can be also used by government to provide better services and to design effective civic learning experiences. It is easy to scapegoat technology for society's ills, but we should never forget its extraordinary potential to unite us. How to we design for this second class of applications? How we create new tools to do address society’s hardest challenges will define us. Read the full impact article at: https://www.open.ac.uk/research/impact/using-technology-unite-us-not-divide-us
  38. 38. Thank you for listening! Please fell free to contact me at anna.deliddo@open.ac.uk to know more about our work please visit the research group website at: idea.kmi.open.ac.uk