When Communication Meets Computation: Opportunities, Challenges, and Pitfalls in Computational Communication Science

References

• Alvarez, R. M. (Ed.). (2016). Computational social science: Discovery and prediction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• An, W. (2016). Fitting ERGMs on big networks. Social Science Research, 59, 107–119. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.04.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Araujo, T., Wonneberger, A., Neijens, P., & de Vreese, C. (2017). How much time do you spend online? understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of internet use. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(3), 173–190. doi:10.1080/19312458.2017.1317337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barabási, A. (2016). Network science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodo, B., Helberger, N., Irion, K., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Moller, J., van de Velde, B., … de Vreese, C. (2017). Tackling the algorithmic control crisis-the technical, legal, and ethical challenges of research into algorithmic agents. Yale JL & Technical, 19, 133.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295. doi:10.1038/nature11421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boumans, J. W., & Trilling, D. (2016). Taking stock of the toolkit: An overview of relevant automated content analysis approaches and techniques for digital journalism scholars. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 8–23. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1096598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., Boyd-Graber, J. L., & Blei, D. M. (2009). Reading tea leaves: How humans interpret topic models. Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 288–296). New York, NY: Curran Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 317–332. doi:10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collingwood, L., & Wilkerson, J. (2012). Tradeoffs in accuracy and efficiency in supervised learning methods. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(3), 298–318. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.669191
   Google Scholar
• Costera Meijer, I., & Groot Kormelink, T. (2015). Checking, sharing, clicking and linking: Changing patterns of news use between 2004 and 2014. Digital Journalism, 3(5), 664–679. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.937149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crosas, M., King, G., Honaker, J., & Sweeney, L. (2015). Automating open science for big data. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 260–273. doi:10.1177/0002716215570847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Choudhury, M., Lin, Y.-R., Sundaram, H., Candan, K. S., Xie, L., & Kelliher, A. (2010). How does the data sampling strategy impact the discovery of information diffusion in social media? Icwsm, 10, 34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Diesner, J., Frantz, T. L., & Carley, K. M. (2005). Communication networks from the enron email corpus “it’s always about the people. enron is no different”. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 11(3), 201–228. doi:10.1007/s10588-005-5377-0
   Google Scholar
• Dovidio, J. F. (1992). New technologies for the direct and indirect assesment of attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 204–237). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Falk, E. B., Cascio, C. N., & Coronel, J. C. (2015). Neural prediction of communication-relevant outcomes. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(1–2), 30–54. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.999750
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill, J. (2018). Comments from the new editor. Political Analysis, 26(1), 1–2. doi:10.1017/pan.2017.41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González-Bailón, S., & Paltoglou, G. (2015). Signals of public opinion in online communication: A comparison of methods and data sources. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 95–107. doi:10.1177/0002716215569192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J. (2016). Measuring representational style in the house: The tea party, obama, and legislators’ changing expressed priorities. In R. M. Alvarez (Ed.), Computational social science: Discovery and prediction (p. 307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. Retrieved from https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E. (2015). Is bigger always better? potential biases of big data derived from social network sites. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 63–76. doi:10.1177/0002716215570866
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse, B. W., Moser, R. P., & Riley, W. T. (2015). From big data to knowledge in the social sciences. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 16–32. doi:10.1177/0002716215570007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hindman, M. (2015). Building better models: Prediction, replication, and machine learning in the social sciences. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 48–62. doi:10.1177/0002716215570279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann, M. A. (2015). Searching for effects in big data: Why p-values are not advised and what to use instead. Proceedings of the 2015 winter simulation conference (pp. 725–736). New York, NY: IEEE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huberman, B. A. (2012). Sociology of science: Big data deserve a bigger audience. Nature, 482(7385), 308. doi:10.1038/482308d
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobi, C., Van Atteveldt, W., & Welbers, K. (2016). Quantitative analysis of large amounts of journalistic texts using topic modelling. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 89–106. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1093271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagadish, H., Gehrke, J., Labrinidis, A., Papakonstantinou, Y., Patel, J. M., Ramakrishnan, R., & Shahabi, C. (2014). Big data and its technical challenges. Communications of the ACM, 57(7), 86–94. doi:10.1145/2622628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A. (2014). The logic of political coverage on twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 239–259. doi:10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, G., Schneer, B., & White, A. (2017). How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas. Science, 358(6364), 776–780. doi:10.1126/science.aao1100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, T., & Boase, J. (2012). No such effect? The implications of measurement error in self-report measures of mobile communication use. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 126–143. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679243
   Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, T., Boase, J., Suzuki, T., & Suzuki, T. (2015). Emerging from the cocoon? revisiting the tele-cocooning hypothesis in the smartphone era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(3), 330–345. doi:10.1111/jcc4.2015.20.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Gosling, S. D., Popov, V., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. American Psychologist, 70(6), 543. doi:10.1037/a0039210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802–5805. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218772110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazer, D., Pentland, A. S., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., … Alstyne, M. V. (2009). Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science (New York, NY), 323(5915), 721. doi:10.1126/science.1167742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek, J. T., & Peng, R. D. (2015). Statistics: P values are just the tip of the iceberg. Nature News, 520(7549), 612. doi:10.1038/520612a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lungeanu, A., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L., & Contractor, N. (2018). How Team Interlock Ecosystems Shape the Assembly of Scientific Teams: A Hypergraph Approach. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 175–199. doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1430756
   Google Scholar
• Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., ... Adam, S. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 93–118. doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Monroe, B. L., Pan, J., Roberts, M. E., Sen, M., & Sinclair, B. (2015). No! formal theory, causal inference, and big data are not contradictory trends in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(1), 71–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanan, A., & Shmatikov, V. (2008). Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. Security and privacy, 2008. sp 2008. ieee symposium on (pp. 111–125). New York, NY: IEEE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, M. (2017). Measurement errors in network data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07376.
   Google Scholar
• Nie, N. H., Bent, D. H., & Hull, C. H. (1970). Spss: Statistical package for the social sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, D. T. (2016). Using small data to interpret big data: 311 reports as individual contributions to informal social control in urban neighborhoods. Social Science Research, 59, 83–96. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.04.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odijk, D., Burscher, B., Vliegenthart, R., & de Rijke, M. (2013). Automatic thematic content analysis: Finding frames in news. In Jatowt, A. et al. (eds.), Social informatics, SocInfo 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8238. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Palazzolo, E. T., Serb, D. A., She, Y., Su, C., & Contractor, N. S. (2006). Coevolution of communication and knowledge networks in transactive memory systems: Using computational models for theoretical development. Communication Theory, 16(2), 223–250. doi:10.1111/comt.2006.16.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parks, M. R. (2014). Big data in communication research: Its contents and discontents. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 355–360. doi:10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, M. J., & Dredze, M. (2011). You are what you tweet: Analyzing twitter for public health. Icwsm, 20, 265–272.
   Google Scholar
• Peng, R. D. (2011). Reproducible research in computational science. Science, 334(6060), 1226–1227. doi:10.1126/science.1213847
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilny, A., Schecter, A., Poole, M. S., & Contractor, N. (2016). An illustration of the relational event model to analyze group interaction processes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 181. doi:10.1037/gdn0000042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., … Rand, D. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082. doi:10.1111/ajps.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudkowsky, E., Haselmayer, M., Wastian, M., Jenny, M., Emrich, S., & Sedlmair, M. (2018). More than Bags of Words: Sentiment Analysis with Word Embeddings. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 140–157. doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1455817
   Google Scholar
• Russell Neuman, W., Guggenheim, L., Mo Jang, S., & Bae, S. Y. (2014). The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 193–214. doi:10.1111/jcom.2014.64.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharkow, M., & Bachl, M. (2017). How measurement error in content analysis and self-reported media use leads to minimal media effect findings in linkage analyses: A simulation study. Political Communication, 34(3), 323–343. doi:10.1080/10584609.2016.1235640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V., Cappella, J. N., & Neuman, W. R. (2015). Big data, digital media, and computational social science: Possibilities and perils. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 6–13. doi:10.1177/0002716215572084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soroka, S., Young, L., & Balmas, M. (2015). Bad news or mad news? sentiment scoring of negativity, fear, and anger in news content. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 108–121. doi:10.1177/0002716215569217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. S., Ogilvie, D. M. (1966). The general inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tan, C., Niculae, V., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Lee, L. (2016). Winning arguments: Interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web (pp. 613–624). ACM Digital Library, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. J. (2013). Real scientists make their own data. Retrieved from https://seanjtaylor.com/post/41463778912/real-scientists-make-their-own-data
   Google Scholar
• Trilling, D. (2017). Big data, analysis of. In The J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, R. F. Potter (Eds.), international encyclopedia of communication research methods. New York, NY: Wiley Online Library.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, J. A., Nagler, J., MacDuffee, M., Metzger, P. B., Penfold-Brown, D., & Bonneau, R. (2016). Big data, social media, and protest. In R. M. Alvarez (Ed.), Computational social science: Discovery and prediction (p. 307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Atteveldt, W. (2008). Semantic network analysis: Techniques for extracting, representing, and querying media content ( dissertation). Charleston, SC: BookSurge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Atteveldt, W., Sheafer, T., Shenhav, S., & Fogel-Dror, Y. (2017). Clause analysis: Using syntactic information to automatically extract source, subject, and predicate from texts with an application to the 2008–2009 Gaza War. Political Analysis, 25(2), 207–222. doi:10.1017/pan.2016.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeulen, I., Beukeboom, C. J., Batenburg, A., Avramiea, A., Stoyanov, D., van de Velde, B., & Oegema, D. (2015). Blinded by the light: How a focus on statistical “significance” may cause p-value misreporting and an excess of p-values just below. 05 in communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(4), 253–279. doi:10.1080/19312458.2015.1096333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidgen, B., & Yasseri, T. (2016). P-values: Misunderstood and misused. Frontiers in Physics, 4, 6. doi:10.3389/fphy.2016.00006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallach, H. (2016). Computational social science: Towards a collaborative future. In R. M. Alvarez (Ed.), Computational social science: Discovery and prediction (p. 307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (2018). Methods and Approaches to Using Web Archives in Computational Communication Research. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 200–215. doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1447657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, R., Mangus, J. M., & Huskey, R. (2015). Brain imaging in communication research: A practical guide to understanding and evaluating fmri studies. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(1–2), 5–29. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.999754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westlake, B. G., & Bouchard, M. (2016). Liking and hyperlinking: Community detection in online child sexual exploitation networks. Social Science Research, 59, 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.04.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, S., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Who says what to whom on twitter. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on world wide web (pp. 705–714). ACM Digital Library, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, P., Wu, Y., Wei, E., Peng, T.-Q., Liu, S., Zhu, J. J., & Qu, H. (2013). Visual analysis of topic competition on social media. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12), 2012–2021. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, J., & Leskovec, J. (2010). Modeling information diffusion in implicit networks. Data mining (icdm), 2010 IEEE 10th international conference on (pp. 599–608). New York, NY: IEEE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, M., Adomavicius, G., Burtch, G., & Ren, Y. (2018). Mind the gap: Accounting for measurement error and misclassification in variables generated via data mining. Information Systems Research, 29, 4–24. doi:10.1287/isre.2017.0727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar