IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01577-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reformulating computational social science with citizen social science: the case of a community-based mental health care research

Author

Listed:
  • Isabelle Bonhoure

    (Universitat de Barcelona
    Universitat de Barcelona Institute of Complex Systems UBICS)

  • Anna Cigarini

    (Universitat de Barcelona
    Universitat de Barcelona Institute of Complex Systems UBICS
    Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, Open University of Catalonia)

  • Julián Vicens

    (Universitat de Barcelona
    Universitat de Barcelona Institute of Complex Systems UBICS
    Fundació Eurecat)

  • Bàrbara Mitats

    (Federació Salut Mental Catalunya)

  • Josep Perelló

    (Universitat de Barcelona
    Universitat de Barcelona Institute of Complex Systems UBICS)

Abstract

Computational social science is being scrutinised and some concerns have been expressed with regards to the lack of transparency and inclusivity in some of the researches. However, how computational social science can be reformulated to adopt participatory and inclusive practices? And, furthermore, which aspects shall be carefully considered to make possible this reformulation? We present a practical case that addresses the challenge of collectively studying social interactions within community-based mental health care. This study is done by revisiting and revising social science methods such as social dilemmas and game theory and by incorporating the use of digital interfaces to run experiments in-the-field. The research can be framed within the emergent citizen social science or social citizen science where shared practices are still lacking. We have identified five key steps of the research process to be considered to introduce participatory and inclusive practices: research framing, research design, experimental spaces, data sources, and actionable knowledge. Social dilemmas and game theory methods and protocols need to be reconsidered as an experiential activity that enables participants to self-reflect. Co-design dynamics and the building of a working group outside the academia are important to initiate socially robust knowledge co-production. Research results should support evidence-based policies and collective actions put forward by the civil society. The inclusion of underserved groups is discussed as a way forward to new avenues of computational social science jointly with intricate ethical aspects. Finally, the paper also provides some reflections to explore the particularities of a further enhancement of social dimensions in citizen science.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabelle Bonhoure & Anna Cigarini & Julián Vicens & Bàrbara Mitats & Josep Perelló, 2023. "Reformulating computational social science with citizen social science: the case of a community-based mental health care research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01577-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01577-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01577-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01577-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael J. Leach, 2019. "N of 1," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 28-28, December.
    2. Helga Nowotny, 2003. "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 151-156, June.
    3. Mirta Galesic & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Jonas Dalege & Scott L. Feld & Frauke Kreuter & Henrik Olsson & Drazen Prelec & Daniel L. Stein & Tamara van der Does, 2021. "Human social sensing is an untapped resource for computational social science," Nature, Nature, vol. 595(7866), pages 214-222, July.
    4. Betsy Sparrow, 2018. "The importance of contextual relevance," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 607-607, September.
    5. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Alexandra Albert, 2021. "Citizen social science in practice: the case of the Empty Houses Project," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Mario Gutiérrez-Roig & Carlota Segura & Jordi Duch & Josep Perelló, 2016. "Market Imitation and Win-Stay Lose-Shift Strategies Emerge as Unintended Patterns in Market Direction Guesses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    8. Jukka Jouhki & Epp Lauk & Maija Penttinen & Niina Sormanen & Turo Uskali, 2016. "Facebook’s Emotional Contagion Experiment as a Challenge to Research Ethics," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 75-85.
    9. Mario Guti'errez-Roig & Carlota Segura & Jordi Duch & Josep Perell'o, 2016. "Market Imitation and Win-Stay Lose-Shift strategies emerge as unintended patterns in market direction guesses," Papers 1604.01557, arXiv.org.
    10. Claudia Göbel & Sylvi Mauermeister & Justus Henke, 2022. "Citizen Social Science in Germany—cooperation beyond invited and uninvited participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Aisling Irwin, 2018. "No PhDs needed: how citizen science is transforming research," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7728), pages 480-482, October.
    12. Julián Vicens & Josep Perelló & Jordi Duch, 2018. "Citizen Social Lab: A digital platform for human behavior experimentation within a citizen science framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Julian Vicens & Nereida Bueno-Guerra & Mario Gutiérrez-Roig & Carlos Gracia-Lázaro & Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes & Josep Perelló & Angel Sánchez & Yamir Moreno & Jordi Duch, 2018. "Resource heterogeneity leads to unjust effort distribution in climate change mitigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Loreta Tauginienė & Eglė Butkevičienė & Katrin Vohland & Barbara Heinisch & Maria Daskolia & Monika Suškevičs & Manuel Portela & Bálint Balázs & Baiba Prūse, 2020. "Citizen science in the social sciences and humanities: the power of interdisciplinarity," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Jake M. Hofman & Duncan J. Watts & Susan Athey & Filiz Garip & Thomas L. Griffiths & Jon Kleinberg & Helen Margetts & Sendhil Mullainathan & Matthew J. Salganik & Simine Vazire & Alessandro Vespignani, 2021. "Integrating explanation and prediction in computational social science," Nature, Nature, vol. 595(7866), pages 181-188, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Henke, 2022. "Can Citizen Science in the Humanities and Social Sciences Deliver on the Sustainability Goals?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Gael Poux-Medard & Sergio Cobo-Lopez & Jordi Duch & Roger Guimera & Marta Sales-Pardo, 2021. "Complex decision-making strategies in a stock market experiment explained as the combination of few simple strategies," Papers 2103.06121, arXiv.org.
    3. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Claudia Göbel & Sylvi Mauermeister & Justus Henke, 2022. "Citizen Social Science in Germany—cooperation beyond invited and uninvited participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Julián Vicens & Josep Perelló & Jordi Duch, 2018. "Citizen Social Lab: A digital platform for human behavior experimentation within a citizen science framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Bianca Vienni-Baptista & María Goñi Mazzitelli & María Haydeé García Bravo & Inta Rivas Fauré & Daniel Felipe Marín-Vanegas & Cecilia Hidalgo, 2022. "Situated expertise in integration and implementation processes in Latin America," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Chiasson, Guy & Angelstam, Per & Axelsson, Robert & Doyon, Frederik, 2019. "Towards collaborative forest planning in Canadian and Swedish hinterlands: Different institutional trajectories?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 334-345.
    8. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    9. J. Doyne Farmer & John Geanakoplos & Matteo G. Richiardi & Miquel Montero & Josep Perelló & Jaume Masoliver, 2024. "Discounting the Distant Future: What Do Historical Bond Prices Imply about the Long-Term Discount Rate?," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Yonatan Dinku & Boyd Hunter & Francis Markham, 2020. "How might COVID-19 affect the Indigenous labour market?," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 23(2), pages 189-209.
    11. Niina Sormanen & Epp Lauk, 2016. "Issues of Ethics and Methods in Studying Social Media," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 63-65.
    12. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    13. Poon, Abner Weng Cheong & Cassaniti, Maria & Karan, Prasheela & Ow, Rosaleen, 2022. "Perceived needs and wellbeing of Vietnamese parents caring for children with disability," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    14. Alessandro Del Ponte & Aidas Masiliūnas & Noah Lim, 2023. "Information about historical emissions drives the division of climate change mitigation costs," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, December.
    15. Roggenkamp, Hauke C., 2024. "Revisiting ‘Growth and Inequality in Public Good Provision’—Reproducing and Generalizing Through Inconvenient Online Experimentation," OSF Preprints 6rn97, Center for Open Science.
    16. Ron Ammar & Pitchumani Sivakumar & Gabor Jarai & John Ryan Thompson, 2019. "A robust data-driven genomic signature for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with applications for translational model selection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.
    17. Evangelos Katsamakas, 2024. "Business models for the simulation hypothesis," Papers 2404.08991, arXiv.org.
    18. Margherita Borella & Mariacristina De Nardi & Fang Yang, 2023. "Are Marriage-Related Taxes and Social Security Benefits Holding Back Female Labour Supply?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 102-131.
    19. Michael Barnett, 2016. "Accountability and global governance: The view from paternalism," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 134-148, June.
    20. Sasha Marie Woods & Maria Daskolia & Alexis Joly & Pierre Bonnet & Karen Soacha & Sonia Liñan & Tim Woods & Jaume Piera & Luigi Ceccaroni, 2022. "How Networks of Citizen Observatories Can Increase the Quality and Quantity of Citizen-Science-Generated Data Used to Monitor SDG Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01577-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.