How should we tell quantitative stories?
Beginning of a deeper dive on multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism (MuSIASEM)
Here is a little secret about research. Read the thing and then dig around the citations and go a little deeper. I found an interesting paper recently that has dislodged a few ideas I was having trouble weaving together.
We suggest an alternative approach – which we term quantitative story-telling – which encourages a major effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis as to map a socially robust universe of possible frames, which represent different lenses through which to perceive what the problem is. This is followed by an analysis where the emphasis in not on confirmatory checks or system optimization but – the opposite – on an attempt to refute the frames if these violate constraints of feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control); viability (compatibility with processes under human control), and desirability (compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to the system’s actors). Saltelli and Giampietro
Slowly and quite independently I have been thinking about the stories hidden in our data. The data we collect, the data we bring to the surface, and the data that informs what we should think about next. The dialogue we have with our data. The frames allow us to share different perspectives and to be honest, be more receptive to building out better questions.
Not to over simplify a complicated process — quantitative storytelling — but think of it as a better way to examine externalities often buried in a problem. For example, when we create mathematical models we aren’t mapping for externalities that we don’t even know exist. But make no mistake there are nth order effects that we should consider. Creating different frames for different perspectives allows rational discussion around considerations across a broad spectrum of frameworks.
This might not appear clear on first pass but I plan on detailing this better with a few examples coming up in subsequent articles.
Saltelli and Giampietro use this example that I think clarifies the process a bit better.
Opposition to GMO food is normally portrayed an unfounded ‘scare’, and this because GMOs are treated as a nutritional ‘risk to health issue’ (the given frame). According to upholders of this technology science has given a clear message already by declaring GMO’s safe for human consumption. As a result, within this framing of the issue, society or the law should permit its production and consumption.
This framing was found ‘irrelevant’ in the context of an experimental study where citizens were polled in relation to their GMO concerns (Marris et al., 2001). Apparently citizens are largely indifferent or unconcerned about risk posed by GMO to their health. Instead they voiced concern about a rather different set of issues.
“Why do we need GMOs? What are the benefits?
Who will benefit from their use?
Who decided that they should be developed and how?
Why were we not better informed about their use in our food, before their arrival on the market?
Why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy and consume these products?
Do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers and resources to effectively counter-balance large companies who wish to develop these products?”
Stay tuned…
