Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Epistemic Frames and Political Discourse Modeling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Quantitative Ethnography (ICQE 2021)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1312))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper proposes an analytic framework for political discourse that takes place over digital social media. It focuses largely on hostile or acrimonious discourse and why much of that discourse should be considered dysfunctional. The framework applies principles of epistemic frame theory and quantitative ethnography to classify and investigate relationships in political discourse patterns, to situate and visualize broad discourse patterns, and to facilitate ethnographic analysis that incorporates emotion as paramount to explaining these patterns. Commentary threads following political articles from two legacy news outlets are modeled with the Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) software tool, for purposes of illustrating the viability of a political discourse coding system for the proposed framework. The paper also introduces the constructs of discursive transactions and emotional grammars to extend the explanatory value of the proposed framework. The framework is meant to contribute to a broader dialog on functional discourse patterns, and to help researchers articulate both the spiraling nature of dysfunctional political discourse and the profound damage it inflicts on social goals of fairness, well-being, and prosperity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Karadenizova, Z., Dahle, K.-P.: Analyze this! Thematic analysis: hostility, attribution of intent, and interpersonal perception bias. J. Interpers. Viol. p. 0886260517739890 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hamblin, J.: My outrage is better than your outrage. Atlantic 31 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sanfey, A.G., et al.: The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300(5626), 1755–1758 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dawes, C.T., et al.: Neural basis of egalitarian behavior. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 109(17), 6479–6483 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Iyengar, S., et al.: The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Ann. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22, 129–146 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Klofstad, C.A.: Enchanted America: How Intuition and Reason Divide Our Politics. Public Opinion Quarterly, University of Chicago Press. (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Khalili-Mahani, N., Smyrnova, A., Kakinami, L.: To each stress its own screen: a cross-sectional survey of the patterns of stress and various screen uses in relation to self-admitted screen addiction. J. Med. Internet Res. 21(4), e11485 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tucker, J.A., et al.: Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature (2018). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139

  9. Bail, C.A., et al.: Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 115(37), 9216–9221 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zettle, R.D., Hayes, S.C.: Rule-governed behavior: A potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behavioral therapy (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Comput. Educ. 46(3), 223–234 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy, P.K., et al.: Examining epistemic frames in conceptual change research: implications for learning and instruction. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 13(3), 475–486 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hart, W., et al.: Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psych. Bull. 135(4), 555 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaffer, D.W., et al.: Epistemic network analysis: a prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. Int. J. Learn. Media 1(1), 1–21 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wooldridge, A.R., et al.: Quantifying the qualitative with epistemic network analysis: A human factors case study of task-allocation communication in a primary care team. IISE Trans. Healthc. Syst. Eng. 8(1), 72–82 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Marquart, C., et al.: Epistemic network analysis (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Koole, S.L., Rothermund, K.: Revisiting the past and back to the future: Horizons of cognition and emotion research. Cogn. Emot. 33(1), 1–7 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gratch, J., Marsella, S.: A domain-independent framework for modeling emotion. Cogn. Syst. Res. 5(4), 269–306 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Scherer, K.R., Schorr, A., Johnstone, T.: Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nash, P., Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic Youth Development: Educational Games as Youth Development Activities. American Educational Research Education, Vancouver (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic games to improve professional skills and values. Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development: Paris (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Crigler, A.N.: The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. University of Chicago Press (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brader, T.: The political relevance of emotions: “reassessing” revisited. Polit. Psychol. 32(2), 337–346 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Orrill, C.H., Shaffer, D.W.: Exploring connectedness: applying ENA to teacher knowledge. In: International Conference of the Learning Sciences (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shaffer, D.W., Ruis, A.R.: Epistemic network analysis: A worked example of theory-based learning analytics. In: Handbook of Learning Analytics (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Resnick, P., et al.: Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lane, D.S., et al.: Social media expression and the political self. J. Commun. 69(1), 49–72 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Annoni, M.: Reasons and Emotions. In: Boniolo, G., Sanchini, V. (eds.) Ethical Counselling and Medical Decision-Making in the Era of Personalised Medicine: A Practice-Oriented Guide, pp. 39–48. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27690-8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Wheatley, T., Haidt, J.: Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychol. Sci. 16(10), 780–784 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Luo, J., Yu, R.: Follow the heart or the head? The interactive influence model of emotion and cognition. Front. Psychol. 6(573) 2015

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gross, J.J., Feldman Barrett, L.: Emotion generation and emotion regulation: one or two depends on your point of view. Emot. Rev. 3(1), 8–16 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. TenHouten, W.D.: Anger, social power, and cognitive appraisal: application of octonionic sociocognitive emotion theory. J. Polit. Power 12(1), 40–65 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zinchenko, A., et al.: Moving towards dynamics: emotional modulation of cognitive and emotional control. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 147, 193–201 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Roseman, I.J.: A model of appraisal in the emotion system. In: Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, pp. 68–91 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cacioppo, J.T., et al.: The psychophysiology of emotion. In: Handbook of Emotions, vol. 2, pp. 173–191 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shaffer, D.W.: Quantitative Ethnography. Cathcart Press, Madison (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shaffer, D.W., Collier, W., Ruis, A.: A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. J. Learn. Anal. 3(3), 9–45 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shaffer, D.W., Ruis, A.R.: Epistemic network analysis: A worked example of theory-based learning analytics. In: Lang, C., et al.: Handbook of Learning Analytics, pp. 175–187. Soc. for Learning Analytics Research (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Marquart, C.L., et al.: ncodeR: Techniques for automated classifiers (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Marquart, C.L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic Network Analysis (Version 1.7.0) [Software]. (2018). http://app.epistemicnetwork.org

  41. Garrison, D.R., et al.: Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet High. Educ. 9(1), 1–8 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Siebert-Evenstone, A.L., et al.: In search of conversational grain size: modeling semantic structure using moving stanza windows. J. Learn. Anal. 4(3), 123–139 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Arastoopour, G., et al.: Epistemic Network Analysis as a tool for engineering design assessment. American Society for Engineering Education (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sullivan, S., et al.: Using epistemic network analysis to identify targets for educational interventions in trauma team communication. Surgery 163(4), 938–943 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chamlee-Wright, E.: Classical liberalism #1: What is classical liberalism? (2020). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVNgLEvhL5Y

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance Dr. Andrew Hurford and Ms. Chen Huang in coding media commentary threads and in reviewing the text of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, 90263, USA

    Eric Hamilton & Woodson Hobbs

Authors
  1. Eric Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Woodson Hobbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Hamilton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Andrew R. Ruis

  2. Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA

    Seung B. Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hamilton, E., Hobbs, W. (2021). Epistemic Frames and Political Discourse Modeling. In: Ruis, A.R., Lee, S.B. (eds) Advances in Quantitative Ethnography. ICQE 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1312. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67788-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67788-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-67787-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-67788-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation