Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
Hello Andrew,
I am not quite sure if this is what you are looking for. A general framework for Wikipedia research... I wonder how general that can be. Some authors have tried to make use of systems theory, but this is not what I would recommend. It all depends what your research is about, so the framework would come from media science? computer science? social science? linguistics? etc.
A book I that I found useful for my thought process was this one:
Jerome Kagan: The Three Cultures. Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et.al. 2009.
It reminded me of the different approaches that are common in different disciplines.
In "Wikis und die Wikipedia verstehen" I have written some lines about it, here in a rough semi-automatic translation. See below.
Kind regards Ziko
Kagan speaks of "three cultures" that offer different approaches to reality. The three cultures differ in which main questions are asked in a science, which sources are collected, and what control one has over the circumstances under which evidence is collected, to what degree one generalizes, to what extent one takes into account historical phenomena, and what importance one attaches to ethical values. Kagan suspects that humanists and social scientists are more similar to each other in their ideas and methods than they are to the natural scientists (Kagan 2009: 2/3). If necessary, one can speak of a socio-cultural approach.
Natural scientists, according to Kagan, are concerned with predicting and explaining natural phenomena. One observes the material in a controlled way in experiments and works in both small and large groups. Scholars in the Humanities are interested in how people react to events and what meaning they ascribe to an experience. Historical circumstances and the influence of the ethical are of the highest importance to them. They usually work alone and delight in "semantically coherent arguments described in elegant prose." Social scientists are concerned with the predictability and explanation of human behavior (ibid.: 4/5).
In this book, therefore, we distinguish between the following three levels or dimensions in which wiki-related phenomena take place or can be described.
- The technical dimension refers to the technical and scientific subjects, including subjects from computer science and mathematics. One focus is the wiki as a technical medium including user accounts and pages. - The cultural dimension deals with typical humanities issues, especially with regard to the wiki content. - The (human) social dimension is concerned with the social relations between the actors. This communicative dimension is to be understood comprehensively, and it deals not only with questions of the actual social sciences, but also of law and politics. <<
Am Do., 3. Feb. 2022 um 17:28 Uhr schrieb Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for sharing this question and the two references. In the field of Computational Social Science, [1-3] are key references to me, I hope they inspire you too.
Best,
[1] Salganik, M. J. (2019). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age. Princeton University Press. https://www.bitbybitbook.com
[2] González-Bailón, S. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science and the unintended consequences of communication. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/decoding-social-world
[3] Lazer, D. M., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., ... & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060-1062.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I'd like to also call out the trace ethnography approach that R. Stuart Geiger and others have used to great effect in studying Wikipedia -- e.g., see https://stuartgeiger.com/trace-ethnography-hicss-geiger-ribes.pdf
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:47 AM Pablo Aragón paragon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for sharing this question and the two references. In the field of Computational Social Science, [1-3] are key references to me, I hope they inspire you too.
Best,
[1] Salganik, M. J. (2019). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age. Princeton University Press. https://www.bitbybitbook.com
[2] González-Bailón, S. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science and the unintended consequences of communication. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/decoding-social-world
[3] Lazer, D. M., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., ... & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060-1062.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive
science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
+1 for Stu Geiger's approach. I also like to take an ethnographic approach to understanding Wikipedia as a project/workspace/community. I used to conduct a *lot* of interviews with Wikipedia community members, and the best reference I've found for how to do ethnographic interviewing well is James Spradley's appropriately-named classic methods manual https://www.waveland.com/browse.php?t=688. If you're curious whether this is the right approach for you, you can find sample chapters of that work in various places on the web, like here (PDF http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Spradley.pdf).
Jonathan
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:20 AM Isaac Johnson isaac@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like to also call out the trace ethnography approach that R. Stuart Geiger and others have used to great effect in studying Wikipedia -- e.g., see https://stuartgeiger.com/trace-ethnography-hicss-geiger-ribes.pdf
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:47 AM Pablo Aragón paragon@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for sharing this question and the two references. In the field of Computational Social Science, [1-3] are key references to me, I hope they inspire you too.
Best,
[1] Salganik, M. J. (2019). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital
age.
Princeton University Press. https://www.bitbybitbook.com
[2] González-Bailón, S. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science
and
the unintended consequences of communication. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/decoding-social-world
[3] Lazer, D. M., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., ... & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060-1062.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive
science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Isaac Johnson (he/him/his) -- Research Scientist -- Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi all,
Great thread! CAT Lab takes a collaborative approach to full-cycle research that we call citizen behavioral science. We describe it here:
Matias, J. N., & Mou, M. (2018, April). CivilServant: Community-led experiments in platform governance https://natematias.com/media/Community_Led_Experiments-CHI_2018.pdf. In *Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems* (pp. 1-13).
Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Full‐cycle social psychology for theory and application https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00239.x?casa_token=l8rsm5lpC0oAAAAA%3AufzQ9CAdDx5v5qGwMrema8F5LI87VLGepu-GCxjompZDZwI2VOfLxz7AdFxhhub5qABbPIhwFh0yE4c. *Social and Personality Psychology Compass*, *4*(1), 53-63.
--Nathan
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Jonathan Morgan jonnymorgan.esq@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for Stu Geiger's approach. I also like to take an ethnographic approach to understanding Wikipedia as a project/workspace/community. I used to conduct a *lot* of interviews with Wikipedia community members, and the best reference I've found for how to do ethnographic interviewing well is James Spradley's appropriately-named classic methods manual https://www.waveland.com/browse.php?t=688. If you're curious whether this is the right approach for you, you can find sample chapters of that work in various places on the web, like here (PDF http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Spradley.pdf).
Jonathan
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:20 AM Isaac Johnson isaac@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like to also call out the trace ethnography approach that R. Stuart Geiger and others have used to great effect in studying Wikipedia --
e.g.,
see https://stuartgeiger.com/trace-ethnography-hicss-geiger-ribes.pdf
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 3:47 AM Pablo Aragón paragon@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for sharing this question and the two references. In the field
of
Computational Social Science, [1-3] are key references to me, I hope
they
inspire you too.
Best,
[1] Salganik, M. J. (2019). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital
age.
Princeton University Press. https://www.bitbybitbook.com
[2] González-Bailón, S. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science
and
the unintended consequences of communication. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/decoding-social-world
[3] Lazer, D. M., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., ... & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060-1062.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 5:28 PM Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in)
research
about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best
describe
the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social
Science
and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive
science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and
the
Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Isaac Johnson (he/him/his) -- Research Scientist -- Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Also consider the widely used textbook by Creswell & Creswell, "Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches" (5th Edition, ISBN 978-1506386706), as a general reference for the social sciences with relevance to much of the research literature about Wikipedia.
It's pretty long and comprehensive (perhaps overly so for some purposes), with e.g. * entire chapters about how to do a literature review and on how to use theory * detailed checklists for various research designs (such as the two reproduced here http://study.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/26101_08ca.doc, for surveys and experiments), * and "recipes" for writing research study proposals and papers in various contexts.
The book emphasises the importance of identifying the particular "philosophical worldview" guiding the choice of research approach (qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods) and other aspects of a particular research project. In chapter 1 (available online https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/55588_Chapter_1_Sample_Creswell_Research_Design_4e.pdf for the 4th edition), Creswell & Creswell describe four such worldviews in detail, which I personally found quite useful in keeping track of the different beliefs and assumptions underlying research publications bout Wikipedia from various fields:
*1. Postpositivism (aka the scientific method)* characterized by an emphasis on causality, the reduction of ideas and theories to research questions and testable hypotheses, etc. "The postpositivist assumptions have represented the traditional form of research, and these assumptions hold true more for quantitative research than qualitative research. This worldview is sometimes called the scientific method, or doing science research. It is also called positivist/postpositivist research, empirical science, and postpositivism."
*2. (Social) Constructivism* "typically seen as an approach to qualitative research" (such as ethnography or case studies), emphasizing the social construction of meaning "The goal of the research is to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied", with subjective meanings "formed through interaction with others (hence social constructivism) and through historical and cultural norms that operate in individuals’ lives."
*3. "The Transformative Worldview"* "This position arose during the 1980s and 1990s from individuals who felt that the postpositivist assumptions imposed structural laws and theories that did not fit marginalized individuals in our society or issues of power and social justice, discrimination, and oppression that needed to be addressed. There is no uniform body of literature characterizing this worldview, but it includes groups of researchers that are critical theorists; participatory action researchers; Marxists; feminists; racial and ethnic minorities; persons with disabilities; indigenous and postcolonial peoples; and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer communities. [...] these inquirers felt that the constructivist stance did not go far enough in advocating for an action agenda to help marginalized peoples." "Transformative research uses a program theory of beliefs about how a program works and why the problems of oppression, domination, and power relationships exist."
*4. "The Pragmatic Worldview"* (kind of a pick-and-choose stance about worldviews, which the authors appears to sympathize with) "Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality. This applies to mixed methods research in that inquirers draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they engage in their research." "Truth is what works at the time. It is not based in a duality between reality independent of the mind or within the mind."
Regards, Tilman
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:28 AM Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Much research lately studies current communities of X (say, Wikipedians), as something like a finite-game within the relatively stable and self-limiting framework set up by X once it became an institution (say, the post-2007 framework of WP and sibling projects).
I haven't seen as much research into the infinite-game aspect: the generation and seeding of projects with self-governing wiki nature https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-Prinzip. Offline examples might include large-scale short-notice events, incl. some festivals, disaster relief, mass migration + rebuilding.
Scaling often involves building tools, but seeing the community and its work tools through the lens of whatever tools persist, in communities that survive long enough to be studied, can have two levels of survivorship bias built in. There may be a lot of subcommunities, mindsets, and tools that are essential to pulling off a broad collaboration, but are just a phase. One framework is to ground observations of a surviving group by studying the many similar efforts that fail https://mako.cc/academic/hill-almost_wikipedia-DRAFT.pdf.
I wonder if there are good examples of Stu's approach or others applied to the genesis of such communities. Or communities that explicitly try to seed and propagate new projects like them, which are then studied from the start.
//S
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:28 AM Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi!
Thanks so so much for all your recommendations, everyone! Wow, tons of food for thought. :)
I received one additional reference that was sent off-list, in response to this thread. It is:
Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research. /The American Political Science Review/, /95/(3), 529–546. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3118231
I hope to find some time in the next few days to make a list of the texts recommended here and put it somewhere accessible. After I do, I'll update this thread with the link.
Thanks again!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
On 2022-02-06 19:37, Samuel Klein wrote:
Much research lately studies current communities of X (say, Wikipedians), as something like a finite-game within the relatively stable and self-limiting framework set up by X once it became an institution (say, the post-2007 framework of WP and sibling projects).
I haven't seen as much research into the infinite-game aspect: the generation and seeding of projects with self-governing wiki nature https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-Prinzip. Offline examples might include large-scale short-notice events, incl. some festivals, disaster relief, mass migration + rebuilding.
Scaling often involves building tools, but seeing the community and its work tools through the lens of whatever tools persist, in communities that survive long enough to be studied, can have two levels of survivorship bias built in. There may be a lot of subcommunities, mindsets, and tools that are essential to pulling off a broad collaboration, but are just a phase. One framework is to ground observations of a surviving group by studying the many similar efforts that fail https://mako.cc/academic/hill-almost_wikipedia-DRAFT.pdf.
I wonder if there are good examples of Stu's approach or others applied to the genesis of such communities. Or communities that explicitly try to seed and propagate new projects like them, which are then studied from the start.
//S
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:28 AM Andrew Greenagreen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are [1] and [2].
I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
Many thanks in advance!!!!! :) Cheers, Andrew
[1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
[2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling. With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
-- Andrew Green (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list --wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email towiki-research-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org