Towards a Computational Analysis of Status and Leadership Styles on FDA Panels

  • David A. Broniatowski
  • Christopher L. Magee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6589)

Abstract

Decisions by committees of technical experts are increasingly impacting society. These decision-makers are typically embedded within a web of social relations. Taken as a whole, these relations define an implicit social structure which can influence the decision outcome. Aspects of this structure are founded on interpersonal affinity between parties to the negotiation, on assigned roles, and on the recognition of status characteristics, such as relevant domain expertise. This paper build upon a methodology aimed at extracting an explicit representation of such social structures using meeting transcripts as a data source. Whereas earlier results demonstrated that the method presented here can identify groups of decision-makers with a contextual affinity (i.e., membership in a given medical specialty or voting clique), we now can extract meaningful status hierarchies, and can identify differing facilitation styles among committee chairs. Use of this method is demonstrated on the transcripts of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel meeting transcripts; nevertheless, the approach presented here is extensible to other domains and requires only a meeting transcript as input.

Keywords

Linguistic analysis Bayesian inference committee decision-making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Broniatowski, D., Magee, C.L.: Analysis of Social Dynamics on FDA Panels using Social Networks Extracted from Meeting Transcripts. In: 2nd IEEE Conference on Social Computing, 2nd Symposium on Social Intelligence and Networking (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quinn, K.M., et al.: How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs. American Journal of Political Science 54, 209–228 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gelijns, A.C., et al.: Evidence, Politics, And Technological Change. Health Affairs 24, 29–40 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosen-Zvi, M., et al.: The author-topic model for authors and documents. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 487–494 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porter, M.F.: Snowball: A language for stemming algorithms (October 2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griffiths, T.L., Steyvers, M.: Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 5228–5235 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luo, J., et al.: Measuring and Understanding Hierarchy as an Architectural Element in Industry Sectors. SSRN eLibrary (2009), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1421439

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Broniatowski
    • 1
  • Christopher L. Magee
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering Systems DivisionMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations