Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 23, Issue 4–6, pp 513–545 | Cite as

Identifying Seekers and Suppliers in Social Media Communities to Support Crisis Coordination

  • Hemant Purohit
  • Andrew Hampton
  • Shreyansh Bhatt
  • Valerie L. Shalin
  • Amit P. Sheth
  • John M. Flach
Article

Abstract

Effective crisis management has long relied on both the formal and informal response communities. Social media platforms such as Twitter increase the participation of the informal response community in crisis response. Yet, challenges remain in realizing the formal and informal response communities as a cooperative work system. We demonstrate a supportive technology that recognizes the existing capabilities of the informal response community to identify needs (seeker behavior) and provide resources (supplier behavior), using their own terminology. To facilitate awareness and the articulation of work in the formal response community, we present a technology that can bridge the differences in terminology and understanding of the task between the formal and informal response communities. This technology includes our previous work using domain-independent features of conversation to identify indications of coordination within the informal response community. In addition, it includes a domain-dependent analysis of message content (drawing from the ontology of the formal response community and patterns of language usage concerning the transfer of property) to annotate social media messages. The resulting repository of annotated messages is accessible through our social media analysis tool, Twitris. It allows recipients in the formal response community to sort on resource needs and availability along various dimensions including geography and time. Thus, computation indexes the original social media content and enables complex querying to identify contents, players, and locations. Evaluation of the computed annotations for seeker-supplier behavior with human judgment shows fair to moderate agreement. In addition to the potential benefits to the formal emergency response community regarding awareness of the observations and activities of the informal response community, the analysis serves as a point of reference for evaluating more computationally intensive efforts and characterizing the patterns of language behavior during a crisis.

Key words

coordination crisis informatics cooperative crisis response crisis response coordination organizational sensemaking psycholinguistics spatio-temporal analysis twitris seeker-supplier behavior semantic web 

References

  1. Auer, Sören, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary Ives (2007). Dbpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, Drake (2012). As Sandy Became #Sandy, Emergency Services Got Social. Fast Company, November 2012. http://www.fastcompany.com/3002837sandy-became-sandy-emergency-services-got-social. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  3. Banks, Ken and Erik Hensman (2009). FrontlineSMS and Ushahidi: A Demo. In Proceedings of the Third Information and Communication Technologies and Development, Doha, Qatar, 17–19 April 2009. IEEE, p. 484.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Kevin. B. and John Flach (1992). Graphical Displays: Implications for Divided Attention, Focused Attention and Problem Solving. Human Factors, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 513–533.Google Scholar
  5. Bowker, Geoffrey C. and Susan Leigh Star (2000). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, Zhiyuan, James Caverlee, and Kyumin Lee (2010). You are where you Tweet: A Content-Based Approach to Geo-Locating Twitter Users. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, Toronto, Canada, 26–30 October 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 759–768.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Herbert H. (1979). Responding to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology, vol. 11, pp. 430–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, Herbert H. and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs (1986). Referring as a Collaborative Process. Cognition, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan (1991). Grounding in Communication. Perceptions on Socially Shared Cognition, vol. 13, pp. 127–149.Google Scholar
  10. De Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Bill MacCartney, and Christpher D. Manning (2006). Generating Typed Dependency Parses from Phrase Structure Parses. In Proceedings of the 5th Edition of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Genoa, Italy, 22–28 May 2006. pp. 449–454.Google Scholar
  11. Dietrich, Ranier (2003). Communication in High Risk Environments. Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Dynes, Russell R. and Enrico Quarantelli (1970). Interorganizational Relations in Communities under Stress. 7th World Congress of Sociology, Varna, Bulgaria, 14–19 September 1970. Varna, Bulgaria: Bulgarian Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
  13. Dynes, Russell R. (1983). Problems in Emergency Planning. Energy, vol. 8, nos. 8–9, pp. 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FEMA (2009). Incident Management Handbook. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  15. FEMA (2012). Community Emergency Response Team Basic Training Participant Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, June 2012. https://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=6137. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  16. Fessler, Pam (2013): Thanks, but No Thanks: When Post-disaster Donations Overwhelm. NPR, January 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168946170/thanks-but-no-thanks-when-post-disaster-donations-overwhelm. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  17. Finkel, Jenny Rose, Trond Grenager, and Christopher D. Manning (2005). Incorporating Non-local Information into Information Extraction Systems by Gibbs Sampling. In Proceedings of the 43nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2005), Ann Arbor, MI, 25–30 June 2005. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 363–370.Google Scholar
  18. Flach, John M., Debra Steele-Johnson, Valerie L. Shalin, and Glenn C. Hamilton (2013). Coordination and Control in Emergency Response. In Badiru & Racz (eds.): Handbook of Emergency Response: A Human Factors and Systems Engineering Approach (533–548). New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 533–548.Google Scholar
  19. Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., Gomez, L. M., & Dumais, S. T. (1987). The Vocabulary Problem in Human-System Communication. Communications of the ACM, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 964–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garnett, James L. and Alexander Kouzmin (2007). Communicating Throughout Katrina: Competing and Complementary Conceptual Lenses on Crisis Communication. Public Administration Review, vol. 67, no. s1, pp. 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gigerenzer, Gerd and Daniel G. Goldstein (1996). Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality. Psychological Review, vol. 103, pp. 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodwin, Charles and John Heritage (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 19, pp. 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heath, Christian and Paul Luff (1992). Collaboration and Control: Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 1, nos. 1–2, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
  24. Henson, Cory, Amit P. Sheth, and Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan (2012). Semantic Perception: Converting Sensory Observations to Abstractions. IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgenbotham, James (1997). The Semantics of Questions. In S. Lappin (ed.): The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Homeland Security (2010). Incident management handbook. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Honeycutt, Courtenay and Susan C. Herring (2009). Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration Via Twitter. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS’09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, 5–8 January 2009. The IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  28. Imran, Muhammad, Ioanna Lykourentzou, and Carlos Castillo (2013). Engineering Crowdsourced Stream Processing Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.5463. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/emergency_response/downloads/hazard/Incident%20Management%20Handbook6-09.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  29. Isaacs, Ellen A. and Herbert H. Clark (1987). References in Conversation Between Experts and Novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 116, pp. 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jihan, Satria Hutomo and Aviv Segev (2013). Context Ontology for Humanitarian Assistance in Crisis Response. In T. Comes, F. Fiedrich, S. Fortier, J. Geldermann, and T. Müller (eds.): Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany. Karlsruhe, Germany: KIT, pp. 526–535.Google Scholar
  31. Keßler, Carsten, C. J. Hendrix, and Minu Limbu (2013). Humanitarian eXchange Language (HXL) Situation and Response Standard. Humanitarian Response, January 2013. http://hxl.humanitarianresponse.info/ns/index.html. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  32. Latonero, Mark, and Irina Shklovski (2011). Emergency Management, Twitter, and Social Media Evangelism. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (IJISCRAM), vol. 3, no.4, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  33. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  34. Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, Conversation Analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Limbu, Minu (2012): Management Of A Crisis (MOAC) Vocabulary Specification. ObservedChange, January 2012. http://observedchange.com/moac/ns/. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  36. Livingston, Eric (1987). Making Sense of Ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 86–87.Google Scholar
  37. Malone, Thomas W. and Kevin Crowston (1990). What is Coordination Theory and How Can it Help Design Cooperative Work Systems?. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 7–10 October 1990, Los Angeles, CA. New York: ACM Press, pp. 357–370.Google Scholar
  38. Mark, Gloria. (2002). Extreme Collaboration. Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, pp. 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marz, Nathan (2011): Twitter’s Storm: Distributed Real-Time Computation System. The Apache Software Foundation, 2011. http://storm.incubator.apache.org/documentation/Home.html. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  40. Mathioudakis, Michael and Nick Koudas (2010). Twittermonitor: Trend Detection over the Twitter Stream. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data,Indianapolis, IN, 6–11 June 2010. New York: ACM, pp. 1155–1158.Google Scholar
  41. Myers, Lisa (2005): What Went Wrong in Katrina’s Wake?. NBC News Investigates, September 2005. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9231926/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams-nbc_news_investigates/t/what-went-wrong-katrinas-wake/. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  42. Nagarajan, Meenakshi, Karthik Gomadam, Amit P. Sheth, Ajith Ranabahu, Raghava Mutharaju, and Ashutosh Jadhav (2009). Spatio-Temporal-Thematic Analysis of Citizen-Sensor Data - Challenges and Experiences. In Proceedings from the Tenth International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, 57 October 2009. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 539–553.Google Scholar
  43. Palen, Leysia and Sophia B. Liu (2007). Citizen Communications in Crisis: Anticipating a Future of ICT-Supported Public Participation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 30 April – 3 May 2007, San Jose, CA. New York: ACM Press, pp. 727–736.Google Scholar
  44. Palen, Leysia, Kenneth M. Anderson, Gloria Mark, James Martin, Douglas Sicker, Martha Palmer, and Dirk A. Grunwald (2010). Vision for Technology-Mediated Support for Public Participation & Assistance in Mass Emergencies & Disasters. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-BCS Visions of Computer Science Conference, 13–16 April 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland. Swinton, UK: British Computer Society, p. 8.Google Scholar
  45. Pearson, Christine M. and Judith A. Clair (1998) Reframing Crisis Management. Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 59–76.Google Scholar
  46. Perng, Sung-Yueh, Monika Büscher, Ragnhild Halvorsrud, Lisa Wood, Michael Stiso, Leonardo Ramirez, and Amro Al-Akkad (2012). Peripheral Response: Microblogging During the 22/7/2011 Norway Attacks. In L. Rothkrantz, J. Ristvej, and Z. Franco (eds.): Proceedings from the 9th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response Management (ISCRAM), Vancouver, Canada. 22–25 April 2012. Vancouver, Canada: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  47. Perrow, Charles (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Pinker, Steven (2007). The Evolutionary Social Psychology of Off-Record Indirect Speech Acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pohl, Daniela, Abdelhamid Bouchachia, and Hermann Hellwagner (2012). Automatic Identification of Crisis-Related Subevents Using Clustering. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICLMA), 12–15 December 2012, Boca Raton, FL. IEEE, pp. 333–383Google Scholar
  50. Protégé (2013): Protégé: Ontology Editor and Knowledge-Base Framework. Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University. http://protege.stanford.edu/. Accessed 30 March 2013.
  51. Purohit, Hemant and Amit P. Sheth (2013a). Twitris v3: From Citizen Sensing to Analysis, Coordination and Action. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 8–11 July 2013, Cambridge, MA. Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press, pp. 746–747.Google Scholar
  52. Purohit, Hemant, Jitendra Ajmera, Sachindra Joshi, Ashish Verma, and Amit P. Sheth (2012). Finding Influential Authors in Brand-Page Communities. In Proceedings of the 6th AAAI International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 4–7 June 2012, Dublin, Ireland. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 551–554.Google Scholar
  53. Purohit, Hemant, Carlos Castillo, Patrick Meier, and Amit P. Sheth (2013b). Crisis Mapping, Citizen Sensing and Social Media Analytics: Leveraging Citizen Roles for Crisis Response. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Cambridge, MA, 8–11 July 2013. Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press, p. xxiii.Google Scholar
  54. Purohit, Hemant, Andrew Hampton, Valerie L. Shalin, Amit P. Sheth, John M. Flach, and Shreyansh Bhatt (2013c). What Kind of #Conversation is Twitter? Mining #Psycholinguistic Cues for Emergency Coordination. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2438–2447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Purohit, Hemant, Carlos Castillo, Fernando Diaz, Amit P. Sheth, and Patrick Meier (2014). Emergency-Relief Coordination on Social Media: Automatically Matching Resource Requests and Offers. First Monday, vol. 19, no. 1.Google Scholar
  56. Quarantelli, Enrico Louis (1988). Disaster Crisis Management: A Summary of Research Findings. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Quarantelli, Enrico Louis (2008). Conventional Beliefs and Counterintuitive Realities. Social Research, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 873–904.Google Scholar
  58. RDF Core Working Group (2004). Resource Description Framework (RDF) for Data Inter-Change on the Web. W3C, 25 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/RDF/. Accessed 24 June 2014.
  59. Reuter, Christian, Oliver Heger and Volkmar Pipek (2013). Combining Real and Virtual Volunteers Through Social Media. In T. Comes, F. Fiedrich, S. Fortier, J. Gelderman, and T. Müller, (eds.): Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany. Karlsruhe, Germany: KIT, pp. 780–790.Google Scholar
  60. Schank, R. (1972) Conceptual Dependency: A Theory of Natural Language Understanding, Cognitive Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 552–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmidt, Kjeld and Liam Bannon (1992). Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, vol. 1, nos. 1–2, March 1992 pp. 7–40.Google Scholar
  62. Searle, John R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.): Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
  63. Sheth, Amit P. (2009). Citizen Sensing, Social Signals, and Enriching Human Experience. IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 13, no. 4, July/August 2009, pp. 80–85.Google Scholar
  64. Sheth, Amit P., Christopher Thomas, and Pankaj Mehra (2010). Continuous Semantics to Analyze Real-Time Data, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sheth, Amit P., Ashutosh Sopan Jadhav, Pavan Kapanipathi, Lu Chen, Hemant Purohit, Alan Gary Smith, Wenbo Wang (in press). Twitris- A System for Collective Social Intelligence. In R. Alhajj and J. Rokne (eds): Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining (ESNAM). USA: Springer Reference.Google Scholar
  66. Sicker, Douglas C., Dirk Grunwald, Lisa Blumensaadt, Leysia Palen, and Kenneth M. Anderson (2010). Policy Issues Facing the Use of Social Network Information During Times of Crisis. The 38th Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC) for Public Safety and Emergency session, Arlington, Virginia, 1–3 October 2010. Google Scholar
  67. Simon, Herbert A. (1962). The Architecture of Complexity. Springer US. pp. 457–476.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, Alan Gary, Amit P. Sheth, Ashutosh Sopan Jadhav, Hemant Purohit, Lu Chen, Michael Cooney, Pavan Kapanipathi, Pramod Anantharam, Pramod Koneru, and Wenbo Wang (2012). Twitris+: Social Media Analytics Platform for Effective Coordination. In the NSF Social Computational Systems (SoCS) Symposium, Ann Arbor, MI, 16–18 July 2012.Google Scholar
  69. Star, Susan Leigh and James R. Griesemer (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Starbird, Kate (2011). Digital Volunteerism during Disaster : Crowdsourcing Information Processing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011. New York: ACM Publications, pp. 1071–1080.Google Scholar
  71. Starbird, Kate and Jeannie Stamberger (2010). Tweak the Tweet: Leveraging Microblogging Proliferation with a Prescriptive Grammar to Support Citizen Reporting. In S. French, B. Tomaszewski, and C. Zobel (eds.): The 7th International Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, May 2010. USA: bvdwalle.Google Scholar
  72. Starbird, Kate, Leysia Palen, Amanda L. Hughes, and Sarah Vieweg (2010). Chatter on the Red: What Hazards Threat Reveals about the Social Life of Microblogged Information. In Proceedings of the ACM 2010 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Savannah, GA. New York: ACM Press, pp. 241–250.Google Scholar
  73. Starbird, Kate and Leysia Palen (2010). Pass It On?: Retweeting in Mass Emergencies. In S. French, B. Tomaszewski, and C. Zobel (eds.): The 7th International Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, May 2010. USA: bvdwalle.Google Scholar
  74. Starbird, Kate, Grace Muzny, and Leysia Palen (2012). Learning from the Crowd : Collaborative Filtering Techniques for Identifying On-the-Ground Twitterers during Mass Disruptions. In L. Rothkrantz, J. Ristvej, and Z. Frenco (eds.): Proceedings from the 9th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response Management (ISCRAM), Vancouver, Canada, 22–24 April 2012. Vancouver, Canada: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  75. Swienton, Raymond E. and Italo Subbarao (eds.) (2012). Basic Disaster Life Support, Course Manual (3rd Ed.). USA: American Medical Association.Google Scholar
  76. Tsukayama, Hayley (2014): Twitter Turns 7: Users Send over 400 Million Tweets Per Day. The Washington Post, 21 March 2013. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-21/business/37889387_1_tweets-jack-dorsey-twitter. Accessed 19 June 2014.
  77. Twitter Developer (2013): REST API Rate Limiting in v1.1. Twitter, 15 March 2013. https://dev.twitter.com/docs/rate-limiting/1.1. Accessed 24 June 2013.
  78. Varga, István, Motoki Sano, Kentaro Torisawa, Chikara Hashimoto, Kiyonori Ohtake, Takao Kawai, Jong-Hoon Oh, and Stijn De Saeger (2013). Aid is Out There: Looking for Help from Tweets during a Large Scale Disaster. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sofia, Bulgaria, 4–9 August 2013. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc., vol. 1, pp. 1619–1629.Google Scholar
  79. Verity, Andrej (ed.) (2011): OCHA: Lessons Learned Report on the Collaboration with Volunteer and Technical Community in Libya and Japan. Digital Humanitarian Network, November 2011. http://digitalhumanitarians.com/sites/default/files/resource-field_media/OCHALessonsLearnedCollaborationwithVTCsinLibyaandJapanFinalNov2011.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2014.
  80. Vieweg, Sarah, Amanda L. Hughes, Kate Starbird, and Leysia Palen (2010). Microblogging during Two Natural Hazards Events : What Twitter May Contribute to Situational Awareness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April 2010. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1079–1088.Google Scholar
  81. Weick, Karl E. (1988). Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations. Journal of management studies, vol. 25, no. 4, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hemant Purohit
    • 1
  • Andrew Hampton
    • 2
  • Shreyansh Bhatt
    • 1
  • Valerie L. Shalin
    • 2
  • Amit P. Sheth
    • 1
  • John M. Flach
    • 2
  1. 1.Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge-enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis), Department of Computer ScienceWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge-enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis), Department of PsychologyWright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations