Collective Intelligence in Polish-Ukrainian Internet Projects. Debate Models and Research Methods
- What are the key problems related to the situation of the Ukrainian minority in Poland, its integration with the rest of society and the level of social capital?
- What kind of online communication is suitable for debating common Polish-Ukrainian issues? Which of the debate models presented in the theoretical framework will be particularly relevant to Polish-Ukrainian internet projects?
- Which of the presented CI research methods seem to be the most suitable for studying Polish-Ukrainian internet projects and why?
- Which of the debate aspects examined by these methods are particularly relevant in raising the level of social bridging capital in Polish-Ukrainian communities?
3.1. The Literature Review and Theoretical Framework for the Qualitative Research
3.1.1. Debate Models Present in the Public Sphere and Their Features
3.1.2. Methods of Researching Collective Intelligence Suitable to Identify the Aspects of the Public Sphere Debate in Internet Projects
- Maturity—indication how mature the discussion for an issue is, estimated by gathering statistics on the topology of the branch for the debated problem: The greater complexity of the threads and the coverage of them by arguments, the better;
- Controversy—a topic that generated a large number of conflicting opinions;
- Inequality—measuring to what extent the community support is unequal for the ideas related to an issue;
- An individual participant’s level of expertise and integrity, evaluated by other participants and/or the AI algorithms during the debate;
- Clusters—identifying clusters of posts that tend to be liked, rated, and viewed together;
- Support consistency—measuring to what extent an idea’s average rating is consistent with the ratings for the underlying arguments;
- Social graph—returning a graph showing which users have interacted (rated, commented on, responded to, or edited posts created by the other user);
- Groupthink—estimating the level of groupthink in the deliberation for a given issue. Groupthink occurs when a particular group converges prematurely on one solution, without giving adequate attention to competing ideas. This can help to detect such phenomena as polarisation and balkanisation [43,44];
- CI capacity index (studied at macro-level: Crowds), whose main dimensions are:
- Capacity for creativity; components: Degree of diversity in the source of ideas and degree of diversity in engagement forms.
- Capacity for aggregating knowledge; components: Degree of interdependence and degree of adequate supply of critical mass (“swarm effect”).
- Capacity for decision making and problem-solving; components: Degree of decentralisation, efficiency of problem-solving, and degree of independence.
- CI emergence index (studied at mid-level: Internet communities), whose main dimensions are:
- Potential for self-organization; components: Adequacy in the form of self-organisation to a community task and degree of development of transparent structure and culture.
- Intensity of emergence; components: Degree of development of new qualities in the form of ideas, activities, structured opinions, competencies, etc. based on distributed memory system (Web intelligence).
- Potential for adaptivity; components: Degree of development of improvements and learning processes within the community and development of life-long learning.
- CI maturity index (studied at micro-level: Individual participants), whose main dimensions are:
- Maturity of social impact (behavioral); components: Degree of civic engagement and degree of sustainability.
- Maturity of social motivation (psychological); components: Level of maturity of social motivation of a community, level of social sensitivity of community members, and the degree of mutual trust between the participants.
- Maturity of Social Orientation (cognitive); components: Level of maturity of reaction to social issues, degree of diversity in cooperating partners and financing, and level of maturity of generated content.
3.1.3. Bridging Social Capital and the Factors Affecting its Level in Internet Projects
3.1.4. Theoretical Framework for the Qualitative Research
3.2. The Qualitative Research: In-Depth Interviews
3.2.1. Situation of the Ukrainian Minority in Poland
- They notice a different way of accumulating social capital in both groups. In Ukrainian communities, mainly due to the omnipotence of the state in the Soviet era and the outward presentation of participation in civic life, true social capital is expressed primarily in informal, and friends-and-family ties (this is “bonding social capital”, according to Putnam’s theory). There is high integration at the level of informal ties, but formalised cooperation is more difficult, and relations with institutions are distrustful. On official level, these kind of people present “safe” rather than honest opinions, which hinders the real public sphere debate. One of our participants gives an example of the specific way Ukrainians do business in Poland: They prefer cooperation with compatriots and people who they know on an informal basis, and they generally do not believe in equality of competition. As for Poles, despite some similarities, informal and formal ties are much more balanced.
- Some of our participants claim, that Polish culture is characterised by a much more “individualistic” approach, and Ukrainian a more “collective” approach. This is due to the impact of different civilization patterns (in Poland-Western, where the human being is the center of attention, and in Ukraine-Eastern, where the collective is more important).
3.2.2. Online Communication on Polish-Ukrainian Issues. Debate Models
3.2.3. Most Appropriate Methods of Researching CI in Polish-Ukrainian Projects
3.2.4. Relevance to Creation of Social Bridging Capital
Conflicts of Interest
- Malone, T.W. Handbook of Collective Intelligence; Bernstein, M.S., Ed.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Levy, P. Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace, English ed.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Woolley, A.W.; Chabris, C.F.; Pentland, A.; Hashmi, N.; Malone, T.W. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 2010, 330, 686–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Hong, L.; Page, S. Groups of diverse problem-solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem-solvers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 16385–16389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Mulgan, G. Big Mind: How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World; Princeton University Press: Princeton HJ, USA; Oxford, UK, 2018; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
- Malone, T.W.; Laubacher, R.; Dellarocas, C. The collective intelligence genome. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2010, 51, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemmatian, B.; Sloman, S.A. Two systems for thinking with a community: Outsourcing versus collaboration. In Festschrift in Honour of David Over; Elqayam, S., Evans, J., Douven, I., Cruz, N., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Szuba, T. Computational Collective Intelligence; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Keil, F. Doubt, deference, and deliberation: Understanding and using the division of cognitive labor. In Oxford Studies in Epistemology; Gendler, T.S., Hawthorne, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 143–166. [Google Scholar]
- Sloman, S.; Fernbach, P. The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone; Penguin: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Malone, T.W. Superminds; Little, Brown: New York, NY, USA; Boston, MA, USA; London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Tetlock, P.E.; Gardner, D. Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction; Broadway Books: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Fukuyama, F. Social capital and development: The coming agenda. SAIS Rev. 2002, 22, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Woolcock, M.; Narayan, D. Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res. Obs. 2000, 15, 225–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Czerwiński, K. Przemiany obywatelstwa we współczesnych demokracjach—wyzwania dla edukacji. Podstawy Edukacji 2014, 7, 39–59. [Google Scholar]
- Chloupkova, J.; Svendsen, G.L.H.; Svendsen, G.T. Building and destroying social capital: The case of cooperative movements in Denmark and Poland. Agric. Hum. Values 2003, 20, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatskova, K.; Gatskov, M. Weakness of Civil Society in Ukraine: A Mechanism-Based, IOS Working Papers; No. 323; Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung (IOS): Regensburg, Germany, 2012; Available online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-20121001755 (accessed on 5 May 2020).
- Howard, M.M. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kurowska, A.; Theiss, M. Solidarity practices in Poland and their social capital foundations. In Solidarity in Europe. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology; Lahusen, C., Grasso, M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Brik, T. Facebooking Alone? Ukrainian Revolution and Social Capital. Available online: https://voxukraine.org/en/facebooking-alone-ukrainian-revolution-and-social-capital/ (accessed on 10 May 2020).
- Growiec, K. Social capital and migration. The case of Polish youth. In Youth on the Move; Cairns, D., Ed.; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Habermas, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torraco, R.J. Theory-building research methods. In Human Resource Development Handbook: Linking Research and Practice; Swanson, R.A., Holton, E.F., III, Eds.; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 114–137. [Google Scholar]
- Steenbergen, M.R.; Bächtiger, A.; Spörndli, M.; Steiner, J. Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comp. Eur. Polit. 2003, 1, 21–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stromer-Galley, J. Measuring deliberation content: A coding scheme. J. Pub. Delib. 2007, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansbridge, J.J. A minimalist definition of deliberation. In Deliberation and Development; Heller, S., Rao, V., Eds.; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 27–49. [Google Scholar]
- Mouffe, C. Agonistics: Thinking The World Politically; Verso Books: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Paxton, M. Agonistic Democracy: Rethinking Political Institutions in Pluralist Times; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Held, D. Models of Democracy; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology; In Association with the Open University; Matravers, D., Pike, J.E., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Habermas, J. Reason and the rationalization of society. In The Theory of Communicative Action; McCarthy, T., Ed.; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1987; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Landemore, H. Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA; Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Arendt, H. The Human Condition; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Benhabib, S. Models of public space: Hannah arendt, the liberal tradition, and Jurgen Habermas. In Habermas and the Public Sphere; Calhoun, C., Ed.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Lowndes, V.; Paxton, M. Can agonism be institutionalised? Can institutions be agonised? Prospects for democratic design. Br. J. Politi. Int. Relations 2018, 20, 693–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tuncel, Y. Agon in Nietzsche; Marquette University Press: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Olszowski, R.; Chmielowski, M. Collective intelligence and the geopolitical crossroads in central-eastern europe. Review of the selected research methods. In Internet Science; INSCI Lecture Notes in Computer Science; El Yacoubi, S., Bagnoli, F., Pacini, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, M.; Spada, P.; Calabretta, R. Enabling deliberations in a political party using large-scale argumentation: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Marseille, France, 29 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, M. Enabling Large-Scale Deliberation Using Attention-Mediation Metrics. Computer Supported Coop. Work 2011, 21, 449–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, M.; Iandoli, L. Supporting collaborative deliberation using a large-scale argumentation system: The Mit Collaboratorium. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4691-08. In Proceedings of the Conference on Online Deliberation, Berkeley, CA, USA, 20 February 2008; Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1099082 (accessed on 20 June 2020). [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Klein, M. The CATALYST deliberation analytics server. MIT Working Paper 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, M. Towards crowd-scale deliberation. MIT Working Paper 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rittel, H. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rittel, H. Second generation design methods. In Developments in Design Methodology; Cross, N., Ed.; J. Wiley & Sons: Chicester, UK, 1984; pp. 317–327. [Google Scholar]
- Rittel, H.; Noble, D. Issue-Based Information Systems for Design; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1989; OCLC 20155825. [Google Scholar]
- Massari, G.; Giannoccaro, I.; Carbone, G. Are distrust relationships beneficial for group performance? The influence of the scope of distrust on the emergence of collective intelligence. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 208, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincenzo, I.; Giannoccaro, I.; Carbone, G.; Grigolini, P. Criticallity triggers the emergence of collective intelligence in groups. Phy. Rev. E 2017, 96, 22309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Vincenzo, I.; Massari, G.; Giannoccaro, I.; Carbone, G.; Grigolini, P. Mimicking the collective intelligence of human groups as an optimization tool for complex problems. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2018, 110, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A Theoretical Framework for the DSI Index. Available online: https://digitalsocial.eu/images/upload/7-A_theoretical_framework_for_the_DSI_index (accessed on 26 May 2019).
- Mansbridge, J.J. The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. J. Politi. Philos. 2010, 18, 64–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaržauskienė, A. Social Technologies and Collective Intelligence; Mykolas Romeris University: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Wise, S.; Paton, R.A.; Gegenhuber, T. Value co-creation through collective intelligence in the public sector. Vine 2012, 42, 251–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Bourdieu, P. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education; Richardson, J.G., Ed.; Greenwood Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
- Burt, R.S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Sforzi, J.; Bianchi, M. Fostering social capital: The case of community-owned pubs. Soc. Enterp. J. 2020. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almond, M. Decline without fall. Romania under Ceaucescu. In Europe in Turmoil: The Struggle for Pluralism; Frost, G., Ed.; Adamantine Press: London, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Svendsen, G.; Lind, H.; Patulny, R. Exploring the social capital grid. Bonding, bridging, qualitative, quantitative. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Paldam, M.; Svendsen, G.T. Missing social capital and the transition in Eastern Europe. J. Inst. Innov. Dev. Transit. 2002, 5, 21–34. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H.T.; Li, X. The contribution of mobile social media to social capital and psychological well-being: Examining the role of communicative use, friending and self-disclosure. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 958–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Zuniga, H.G. Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. J. Comput. Commun. 2012, 17, 319–336. [Google Scholar]
- Steinfield, C.; Ellison, N.B.; Lampe, C. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2008, 29, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wellman, B.; Quan-Haase, A.; Witte, J.; Hampton, K. Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. Am. Behav. Sci. 2001, 45, 436–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Svendsen, G.L.H.; Svendsen, G.T. The Creation and Destruction of Social Capital: Entrepreneurship, Co-Operative Movements and Institutions; Edvard Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, N.; Cook, K.S.; Burt, R.S. Social capital: Theory and research. Contemp. Sociol. 2001, 31, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borzaga, C.; Sforzi, J. Social capital, cooperatives and social enterprises. In Social Capital and Economics. Social Values, Power, and Social Identity; Christoforou, A., Davis, J.B., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 193–214. [Google Scholar]
- Owen, D. Nietzsche, Politics and Modernity; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Sutton, R.I.; Barry, M.S. What theory is not. Adm. Sci. Q. 1995, 40, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Torraco, R.J. Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005, 4, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappella, J.N.; Zhang, J.; Price, V. Collective intelligence: The wisdom and foolishness of deliberating groups. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication; Kenski, K., Jamieson, K.H., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poblet, M.; Casanovas, P.; Rodríguez-Doncel, V. Deliberative and epistemic approaches to democracy. In Linked Democracy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- De Liddo, A.; Sándor, A.; Buckingham Shum, S. Contested collective intelligence: Rationale, technologies, and a human-machine annotation study. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 2012, 21, 417–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longo, J. The future of computer-supported policy analysis: Collaboration, openness, collective intelligence, and competition. In A Subtle Balance. Expertise, Evidence, and Democracy in Public Policy and Governance, 1970–2010; Parsons, E.A., Ed.; McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2015; pp. 183–206. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, V.T.; Benchoufi, M.; Young, B.; Ghosn, L.; Ravaud, P.; Boutron, I. A scoping review provided a framework for new ways of doing research through mobilizing collective intelligence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2019, 110, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Gurkan, A.; Iandoli, L.; Klein, M.; Zollo, G. Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: Evidence from the field. Inf. Sci. 2010, 180, 3686–3702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, P.; Lauder, H. Human capital, social capital and collective intelligence. In Social Capital: Critical Perspectives; Baron, S., Field, J., Schuller, T., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001; pp. 226–242. [Google Scholar]
- Goyal, A.; Akhilesh, K.B. Interplay among innovativeness, cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence and social capital of work teams. Team Perform. Manag. Int. 2007, 13, 206–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avis, J. Social capital, collective intelligence and expansive learning: Thinking through the connections, education and the economy. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 2002, 50, 308–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|CI Research Method||Research Technique||Civic Debate Models: Aspects Possible to Examine||Social Bridging Capital: Aspects Possible to Examine|
|Calculating metrics of online communication|
Detecting meaningful patterns;
Extracting issues, ideas, arguments, users’ clusters, users’ relations, decisions.
Experiment organized in a dedicated ICT environment;
Directly obtained numerical data;
Highly independent of the subjective opinion of the researcher.
|Deliberative debate: High level of equality (no dominant leaders); low polarisation and/or balkanisation; low conflict level; low level of controversy in the top rated contributions; low level of distrust and criticality; consistent arguments.|
Agonistic debate: High level of inequality (clear leaders), high level of polarisation and/or balkanisation combined with high groupthink metric, high conflicts level, high level of controversy in the top rated contributions, high independence, noticeable level of distrust and criticality.
|Extent of networks; density of relationships; intensity of relationships.|
|Using composite indexes to evaluate diverse aspects of CI in a graded scale of points|
Valuating: Effectiveness of problem solving; self-organisation, quality outputs (ideas, activity, structured opinions); creativity, critical mass, independence, transparent structure and culture, adaptability, social impact, motivation, orientation
No need to integrate with any specific analytic environment;
Unobtrusive research of live communities or experiment;
Valuation dependent on the opinion of a researcher.
|Deliberative debate: Value of the arguments; respect for the opponents’ arguments; sensitivity of community members; inclusiveness and diversity; inclusiveness and diversity; shared responsibility; sense of common interest; focus on consensus; decentralization. Result of debate: consensual agreement.|
Agonistic debate: Competitiveness; group identity; strong rivalry among participants; respect for outstanding adversaries; focus on recognition, precedence and acclaim; the existence of highly influential participants.
Result of debate: A preference ranking
|Group cooperation to achieve common interests; mutual trust; reciprocity; common knowledge; operating norms; sanctions for breaking rules.|
|Creating qualitative CI assessments|
Verbally explaining and classifying the structures, processes, goals, and incentives in CI projects;
Describing contextually the incentives, interests and emotions related with communication processes.
Illustrating phenomena that are not directly transferable to numerical indicators.
|Deliberative debate: Civic duty is legitimate incentive, emotions and self-interest are in some situations acceptable, but should not dominate the communication rationality and the pursuit of consensus.|
Agonistic debate: Interests and emotions are seen as an important element of group differentiation; especially the pursuit of glory and contestation are the important incentives engaging people in debate.
|Trust and motivations on an individual level; respecting people of different ethnicity, culture, values, and beliefs.|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Olszowski, R.; Chmielowski, M. Collective Intelligence in Polish-Ukrainian Internet Projects. Debate Models and Research Methods. Future Internet 2020, 12, 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12060106
Olszowski R, Chmielowski M. Collective Intelligence in Polish-Ukrainian Internet Projects. Debate Models and Research Methods. Future Internet. 2020; 12(6):106. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12060106Chicago/Turabian Style
Olszowski, Rafał, and Marcin Chmielowski. 2020. "Collective Intelligence in Polish-Ukrainian Internet Projects. Debate Models and Research Methods" Future Internet 12, no. 6: 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12060106