Stefaan Verhulst

Henry Farrell at SSRC: “The politics of social science access to data are shifting rapidly in the United States as in other developed countries. It used to be that states were the most important source of data on their citizens, economy, and society. States needed to collect and aggregate large amounts of information for their own purposes. They gathered this directly—e.g., through censuses of individuals and firms—and also constructed relevant indicators. Sometimes state agencies helped to fund social science projects in data gathering, such as the National Science Foundation’s funding of the American National Election Survey over decades. While scholars such as James Scott and John Brewer disagreed about the benefits of state data gathering, they recognized the state’s primary role.

In this world, the politics of access to data were often the politics of engaging with the state. Sometimes the state was reluctant to provide information, either for ethical reasons (e.g. the privacy of its citizens) or self-interest. However, democratic states did typically provide access to standard statistical series and the like, and where they did not, scholars could bring pressure to bear on them. This led to well-understood rules about the common availability of standard data for many research questions and built the foundations for standard academic practices. It was relatively easy for scholars to criticize each other’s work when they were drawing on common sources. This had costs—scholars tended to ask the kinds of questions that readily available data allowed them to ask—but also significant benefits. In particular, it made research more easily reproducible.

We are now moving to a very different world. On the one hand, open data initiatives in government are making more data available than in the past (albeit often without much in the way of background resources or documentation).The new universe of private data is reshaping social science research in some ways that are still poorly understood. On the other, for many research purposes, large firms such as Google or Facebook (or even Apple) have much better data than the government. The new universe of private data is reshaping social science research in some ways that are still poorly understood. Here are some of the issues that we need to think about:…(More)”

IADB Working Paper by JEL Codes:”This article challenges recent findings that democracy has sizable effects on economic growth. As extensive political science research indicates that economic turmoil is responsible for causing or facilitating many democratic transitions, the paper focuses on this endogeneity concern. Using a worldwide survey of 165 country-specific democracy experts conducted for this study, the paper separates democratic transitions into those occurring for reasons related to economic turmoil, here called endogenous, and those grounded in reasons more exogenous to economic growth. The behavior of economic growth following these more exogenous democratizations strongly indicates that democracy does not cause growth. Consequently, the common positive association between democracy and economic growth is driven by endogenous democratization episodes (i.e., due to faulty identification)….(More)”

Tracie Neuhaus & Jarasa Kanok  in the Stanford Social Innovation Review: “In 2014, City Year—the well-known national education nonprofit that leverages young adults in national service to help students and schools succeed—was outgrowing the methods it used for collecting, managing, and using performance data. As the organization established its strategy for long-term impact, leaders identified a business problem: The current system for data collection and use would need to evolve to address the more-complex challenges the organization was undertaking. Staff throughout the organization were citing pain points one might expect, including onerous manual data collection, and long lag times to get much-needed data and reports on student attendance, grades, and academic and social-emotional assessments. After digging deeper, leaders realized they couldn’t fix the organization’s challenges with technology or improved methods without first addressing more fundamental issues. They saw City Year lacked a common “language” for the data it collected and used. Staff varied widely in their levels of data literacy, as did the scope of data-sharing agreements with the 27 urban school districts where City Year was working at the time. What’s more, its evaluation group had gradually become a default clearinghouse for a wide variety of service requests from across the organization that the group was neither designed nor staffed to address. The situation was much more complex than it appeared.

With significant technology roadmap decisions looming, City Year engaged with us to help it develop its data strategy. Together we came to realize that these symptoms were reflective of a single issue, one that exists in many organizations: City Year’s focus on data wasn’t targeted to address the very different kinds of decisions that each staff member—from the front office to the front lines—needed to make. …

Many of us in the social sector have probably seen elements of this dynamic. Many organizations create impact reports designed to satisfy external demands from donors, but these reports have little relevance to the operational or strategic choices the organizations face every day, much less address harder-to-measure, system-level outcomes. As a result, over time and in the face of constrained resources, measurement is relegated to a compliance activity, disconnected from identifying and collecting the information that directly enables individuals within the organization to drive impact. Gathering data becomes an end in itself, rather than a means of enabling ground-level work and learning how to improve the organization’s impact.

Overcoming this all-too-common “measurement drift” requires that we challenge the underlying orthodoxies that drive it and reorient measurement activities around one simple premise: Data should support better decision-making. This enables organizations to not only shed a significant burden of unproductive activity, but also drive themselves to new heights of performance.

In the case of City Year, leaders realized that to really take advantage of existing technology platforms, they needed a broader mindset shift….(More)”

Springwise: “As Euro 2016 captures the attention of soccer fanatics around the world, a new app is tapping into the popularity of the event, and using it bring about positive education. EduKicks is a new game for kids that teaches anti-discrimination through gaming and soccer.

Launched earlier this week, the multiplayer game focuses on personal, social, and health education for children aged between 9-13. After downloading the app on their smartphone or tablet, users take turns spinning a wheel, and face either a movement card or an education card. The movement cards asks players to complete a soccer-related activity, such as tick-tocking with the insides of their feet. Education cards require them to answer a question. For example, the app might ask “How many women working in the football industry have experienced sexism?” and users choose between 22 percent, 66 percent, or 51 percent. Topics cover racism, religious discrimination, sexism, homophobia, disability, and more. The aim is to use the momentum and popularity of football to make learning more engaging and enjoyable….(More)”

Marc Gunther at The Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Can pregnant women in Zambia be persuaded to deliver their babies in hospitals or clinics rather than at home? How much are villagers in Cambodia willing to pay for a simple latrine? What qualities predict success for a small-scale entrepreneur who advises farmers?

Governments, foundations, and nonprofits that want to help the world’s poor regularly face questions like these. Answers are elusive. While an estimated $135 billion in government aid and another $15 billion in charitable giving flow annually to developing countries, surprisingly few projects benefit from rigorous evaluations. Those that do get scrutinized in academic studies often don’t see the results for years, long after the projects have ended.

IDinsight puts data-driven research on speed. Its goal is to produce useful, low-cost research results fast enough that nonprofits can use it make midcourse corrections to their programs….

IDinsight calls this kind of research “decision-focused evaluation,” which sets it apart from traditional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and academic research. M&E, experts say, is mostly about accountability and outputs — how many training sessions were held, how much food was distributed, and so on. Usually, it occurs after a program is complete. Academic studies are typically shaped by researchers’ desire to break new ground and publish on topics of broad interest. The IDinsight approach aims instead “for contemporaneous decision-making rather than for publication in the American Economic Review,” says Ruth Levine, who directs the global development program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

A decade ago, Ms. Levine and William Savedoff, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, wrote an influential paper entitled “When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation.” They lamented that an “absence of evidence” for the effectiveness of global development programs “not only wastes money but denies poor people crucial support to improve their lives.”

Since then, impact evaluation has come a “huge distance,” Ms. Levine says….

Actually, others are. Innovations for Poverty Action recently created the Goldilocks Initiative to do what it calls “right fit” evaluations leading to better policy and programs, according to Thoai Ngo, who leads the effort. Its first clients include GiveDirectly, which facilitates cash transfers to the extreme poor, and Splash, a water charity….All this focus on data has generated pushback. Many nonprofits don’t have the resources to do rigorous research, according to Debra Allcock Tyler, chief executive at Directory of Social Change, a British charity that provides training, data, and other resources for social enterprises.

All this focus on data has generated pushback. Many nonprofits don’t have the resources to do rigorous research, according to Debra Allcock Tyler, chief executive at Directory of Social Change, a British charity that provides training, data, and other resources for social enterprises.

“A great deal of the time, data is pointless,” Allcock Tyler said last year at a London seminar on data and nonprofits. “Very often it is dangerous and can be used against us, and sometimes it takes away precious resources from other things that we might more usefully do.”

A bigger problem may be that the accumulation of knowledge does not necessarily lead to better policies or practices.

“People often trust their experience more than a systematic review,” says Ms. Levine of the Hewlett Foundation. IDinsight’s Esther Wang agrees. “A lot of our frustration is looking at the development world and asking why are we not accountable for the money that we are spending,” she says. “That’s a waste that none of us really feels is justifiable.”…(More)”

Report by Paul Hitlin (Pew): “How scholars, companies and workers are using Mechanical Turk, a ‘gig economy’ platform, for tasks computers can’t handle

Report by Mike Loukides and Ben Lorica: “Defining artificial intelligence isn’t just difficult; it’s impossible, not the least because we don’t really understand human intelligence. Paradoxically, advances in AI will help more to define what human intelligence isn’t than what artificial intelligence is.

But whatever AI is, we’ve clearly made a lot of progress in the past few years, in areas ranging from computer vision to game playing. AI is making the transition from a research topic to the early stages of enterprise adoption. Companies such as Google and Facebook have placed huge bets on AI and are already using it in their products. But Google and Facebook are only the beginning: over the next decade, we’ll see AI steadily creep into one product after another. We’ll be communicating with bots, rather than scripted robo-dialers, and not realizing that they aren’t human. We’ll be relying on cars to plan routes and respond to road hazards. It’s a good bet that in the next decades, some features of AI will be incorporated into every application that we touch and that we won’t be able to do anything without touching an application.

Given that our future will inevitably be tied up with AI, it’s imperative that we ask: Where are we now? What is the state of AI? And where are we heading?

Welcome to iStreetWatch: “We track racist and xenophobic harassment in public spaces. Incidents of racist and anti-migrant abuse are becoming ever more public and ever more prolific. If you have witnessed or experienced racist or xenophobic harassment, please submit your experience here.

We aim to:

• Make these now everyday incidents visible to a wider community.
• Help people at risk map which areas are safer to be in.
• Collect data over time to help monitor the correlation between these incidents and inflammatory speech from the media and politicians.

Everyone has the right to feel safe on the street. For many people, leaving their house means risking verbal and sometimes physical abuse. This site has been created in response to the rise in hate crime following the referendum result. We all have a role to play in making our streets safe for everyone.

If you witness racist or xenophobic harassment, there are other things you can do:

• Say something: Show you won’t accept this behaviour on our streets.
• Film it: Providing evidence can be key to making an arrest or charge.
• Report abuse to the police: There are laws to protect people from abuse and harassment which should be enforced
• Be safe: Don’t intervene if you think you will escalate the situation….(More)”

Data Driven Journalism: “A new project has developed an innovative means to approximate socioeconomic indicators by analyzing the network of international postal flows.

The project used 14 million aggregated electronic postal records from 187 countries collected by the Universal Postal Union over a four-year period (2010-2014) to create an international network showing the way post flows around the world.

In addition, the project builds upon previous research efforts using global flow networks, derived from the five following open data sources:

• World Trade Network available from the MIT Atlas Project
• Global Migration Network available from the Global Migration Project
• IP Traceroute Network available from the DIMES Project
• Digital Communications Network available from the Mesh of Civilizations Project
• Flight Network data available from ICAO

For each network, a country’s degree of connectivity for incoming and outgoing flows was quantified using the Jaccard coefficient and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient….

To understand these connections in the context of socioeconomic indicators, the researchers then compared these positions to the values of GDP, Life expectancy, Corruption Perception Index, Internet penetration rate, Happiness index, Gini index, Economic Complexity Index, Literacy, Poverty, CO2 emissions, Fixed phone line penetration, Mobile phone users, and the Human Development Index.

Image: Spearman rank correlations between global flow network degrees and socioeconomic indicators (CC BY 4.0).

From this analysis, the researchers revealed that:

• The best-performing degree, in terms of consistently high performance across indicators is the global degree, suggesting that looking at how well connected a country is in the global multiplex can be more indicative of its socioeconomic profile as a whole than looking at single networks.
• GDP per capita and life expectancy are most closely correlated with the global degree, closely followed by the postal, trade and IP weighed degrees – indicative of a relationship between national wealth and the flow of goods and information.
• Similarly to GDP, the rate of poverty of a country is best represented by the global degree, followed by the postal degree. The negative correlation indicates that the more impoverished a country is, the less well connected it is to the rest of the world.
• Low human development (high rank) is most highly negatively correlated with the global degree, followed by the postal, trade and IP degrees. This shows that high human development (low rank) is associated with high global connectivity and activity in terms of incoming and outgoing flows of information and goods. ….Read the fully study here.”