skip to main content
10.1145/3176349.3176892acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Analysis of Open Answers to Survey Questions through Interactive Clustering and Theme Extraction

Published:01 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper describes design principles for and the implementation of Gavagai Explorer---a new application which builds on interactive text clustering to extract themes from topically coherent text sets such as open text answers to surveys or questionnaires. An automated system is quick, consistent, and has full coverage over the study material. A system allows an analyst to analyze more answers in a given time period; provides the same initial results regardless of who does the analysis, reducing the risks of inter-rater discrepancy; and does not risk miss responses due to fatige or boredom. These factors reduce the cost and increase the reliability of the service. The most important feature, however, is relieving the human analyst from the frustrating aspects of the coding task, freeing the effort to the central challenge of understanding themes. Gavagai Explorer is available on-line.

References

  1. Douglass R Cutting, David R Karger, Jan O Pedersen, and John W Tukey. 1992. Scatter/gather: A cluster-based approach to browsing large document collections. In Proceedings of the 15th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Gavagai. 2016. What do you most wish for the coming year? Stockholm. http: //gavagai.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/AMFPension-CustomerCase.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gavagai. 2017. What makes airline passengers happy? Stockholm. http://gavagai. se/blog/2017/04/24/what-makes-airline-passengers-happy/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Amaru Cuba Gyllensten and Magnus Sahlgren. 2015. Navigating the Semantic Horizon using Relative Neighborhood Graphs. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Svenska institutet. 2016. Feministisk utrikespolitik: rott skynke eller vit flagg' ¨ Stockholm. https://si.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Sverigebilden-Rapportom synen pa -jamstalldhet.pdf (In Swedish; A slide deck with a summary in English is at http://gavagai.se/Gender Equality Study.pdf).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nick Jardine and Cornelis Joost van Rijsbergen. 1971. The use of hierarchic clustering in information retrieval. Information storage and retrieval 7, 5 (1971).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Sofus A. Macskassy, Arunava Banerjee, Brian D. Davison, and Haym Hirsh. 1998. Human Performance on Clustering Web Pages: A Preliminary Study. In Proceedings of the Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Andrew McCallum, Kamal Nigam, Jason Rennie, and Kristie Seymore. 1999. A machine learning approach to building domain-specific search engines. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Alicia O'Cathain and Kate J Thomas. 2004. " Any other comments?" Open questions on questionnaires--a bane or a bonus to research? BMC medical research methodology 4, 1 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Peter Pirolli, Patricia Schank, Marti Hearst, and Christine Diehl. 1996. Scatter/gather browsing communicates the topic structure of a very large text collection. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dmitri G Roussinov and Hsinchun Chen. 1999. Document clustering for electronic meetings: an experimental comparison of two techniques. Decision Support Systems 27, 1 (1999). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Magnus Sahlgren, Amaru Cuba Gyllensten, Fredrik Espinoza, Ola Hamfors, Jussi Karlgren, Fredrik Olsson, Per Persson, Akshay Viswanathan, and Anders Holst. 2016. The Gavagai Living Lexicon. In Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. ELRA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark Sanderson and Bruce Croft. 1999. Deriving concept hierarchies from text. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Greg Schohn and David Cohn. 2000. Less is More: Active Learning with Support Vector Machines. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Analysis of Open Answers to Survey Questions through Interactive Clustering and Theme Extraction

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHIIR '18: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval
          March 2018
          402 pages
          ISBN:9781450349253
          DOI:10.1145/3176349

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 March 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHIIR '18 Paper Acceptance Rate22of57submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate55of163submissions,34%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader