Advertisement

Improving Government Services Using Social Media Feedback

  • Stephen Wan
  • Cécile ParisEmail author
  • Dimitrios Georgakopoulos
Chapter

Abstract

Governments are making increasing use of social media technologies, both to inform citizens of available public government services, and to measure the effectiveness of existing services. We describe Vizie, a social media monitoring system designed to help analysts identify how current government services can be improved, by drawing on the commentary and feedback provided in social media by the public using those services. The Vizie system is designed to support the monitoring of arbitrary web and social media content, independent of topical domain and media type. It utilises a variety of natural language processing and information retrieval methods to highlight, distill, and present public feedback. We describe our analysis of the real-world constraints in which the system operates, based on a user requirements analysis which governed our research and development path, including our choice of text analysis methods. The end result is a system that (1) provides an ability to see an overview of the data as well as drill into explore the data in detail, (2) performs text analytics on the social media retrieved and (3) presents contextual information to enable users to decide when to engage with online communities.

Keywords

Government communication Data mining Social media Communication teams 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially funded under the Human Services Delivery Research Alliance (HSDRA) between the CSIRO and the Australian Government Department of Human Services, the CSIRO, and the “Early Adopters Group” Programme. We would like to thank P. Aghaei Pour, B. Jin, J. McHugh, A. Gall and H. Asghar for their work on the system, all the communications staff at the Australian Government’s Department of Human Services for their support in this work, and all our other users for their invaluable support and feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    Abel, F., Hauff, C., Houben, G.-J., Stronkman, R., & Ke, T. (2012). Semantics+filtering+search=twitcident. Exploring information in social web streams. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA (285—294). ACM, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barwick, K., Joseph, M., Paris, C., & Wan, S. (2014). Hunters and collectors: Seeking social media content for cultural heritage collection. In Proceedings of the 7th VALA Biennial Conference, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernoff, J. (2008). People don’t trust company blogs. What you should do about it. http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2008/12/people-dont-tru.html. Last viewed August 21, 2015.
  4. 4.
    Bernstein, M. S., Suh, B., Hong, L., Chen, J., Kairam, S., & Chi, Ed H. (2010). Eddi: interactive topic-based browsing of social status streams. Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 303–312). New York, NY, USA: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bian, J., Topaloglu, U., & Yu, F. (2012). Towards large-scale Twitter mining for drug-related adverse events. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Workshop on Smart Health and Wellbeing (SHB ’12), New York, NY, USA, 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bielby, N. (2015). NSW state library wants how-to-vote cards and other election parphenalia. In The Maitland Mercury, March 22 nd , 2015. http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/story/3350977/word-watch-a-great-apostrophe-epidemic/?cs=179. Accessed September 15th, 2015.
  7. 7.
    Carbonell, J. G., & Goldstein, J. (1998). The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. The Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’98) (pp. 335–336). New York, NY, USA: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donegan, J. (2015). From Pamphlets to Tweets: Collecting New South Wales Election Material Through the Ages. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/election-tweets-added-to-nsw-library-election-collection/6306490. March 12th, 2015. Accessed September 15th, 2015.
  9. 9.
    Gooch, D. (2015). Library monitors Twitter Posts as Part of State’s Social History. The Sydney Morning Herald, January 16 th , 2015. Accessed on line September 15th, 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffin, G., Jones, R., Paris, C. (2013). Strategic implications of social media for emergency management. In M. Clarke., & G. Griffin (Eds.), Next Generation Disaster and Security Management. Canberra, Australia: Australian Security Research Centre. Publisher: Collaborative Publications. 213-240. ISBN: 978-0-9874332-0-6. 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Government 2.0 Taskforce. (2009). The Government 2.0 Taskforce’s final report: Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0. December 22nd 2009. http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/gov20taskforcereport/index.html. Last viewed April 15th, 2015.
  12. 12.
    Jacsó, P. (2004). Thoughts about federated searching, information today, 21(9).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S1–S8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karimi, S., Wang, C., Alejandro, M. J., Raj, G., Paris, C., & Harvey, B. (2015). Text and data mining techniques in adverse drug reaction detection. ACM Computing Surveys, 47, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kulshrestha, J., Zafar, M. B., Noboa, L. E., Hummadi, K. P., & Ghosh, S. (2015). Characterizing information diets of social media users. In The Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 218–227). UK:Oxford, AAAI.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leaman, R., Wojtulewicz, L., Sullivan, R., Skariah, A., Yang, J., & Gonzalez, G. (2010). Towards internet-age pharmacovigilance: extracting adverse drug reactions from user posts to health-related social networks. In Proceedings of the Workshop On Biomedical Natural Language Processing (pp. 117–125), Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ladiges, C. (2015). http://csironewsblog.com/2015/03/26/the-election-collection-tracking-trends-on-twitter/ March 26th, 2015. Accessed September 15th, 2015.
  18. 18.
    Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielssen. (2009). Global Advertising Consumers Trust Real Friends and Virtual Strangers the Most. Published 07/07/2009. http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2009/global-advertising-consumers-trust-real-friends-and-virtual-strangers-the-most.html. Last viewed April 15th, 2015.
  21. 21.
    Nikfarjam, A., Sarker, A., O’Connor, K., Ginn, R., & Gonzalez, G. (2015). Pharmacovigilance from social media: Mining adverse drug reaction mentions using sequence labeling with word embedding cluster features. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. The Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nugroho, R., Yang, J., Zhong, Y., Paris, C., & Nepal, S. (2015). Deriving topics in Twitter by exploiting tweet interactions. In The Proceedings of IEEE Big Data Cloud 2015. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paris, C., Wan, S. (2011). Listening to the community: Social media monitoring tasks for improving government services. In The Proceedings of CHI 2011 Work-In-Progress. April 2011, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paul, M., Dredze, M. (2011), You are what you tweet: Analyzing Twitter for public health. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference On Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) (pp. 265–272), Barcelona, Spain, 2011.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramage, D., Hall, D., Nallapati, R., & Manning, C. D. (2009). Labeled LDA: A supervised topic model for credit attribution in multi-labeled corpora. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on EMNLP. Singapore, August, 248—256. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D/D09/D09-1026.
  26. 26.
    Ramage, D., Dumais, S., & Liebling, D. (2010). Characterizing microblogs with topic models. In Proceedings of the 4 th AAAI International Conference on Weblog and Social Media (ICWSM 2010) (pp. 130–137). Washington D.C., USA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rowlands, T., Thomas, P., & Wan, S. (2009). Web indexing on a diet: template removal with the sandwich algorithm. In The Proceedings of the Australasian Document Computing Symposium (ADCS). Available at http://es.csiro.au/adcs2009/proceedings/poster-presentation/06-rowlands.pdf.
  28. 28.
    Sadilek, A., Kautz, H. A., & Silenzio, V. (2012). Predicting disease transmission from geo-tagged micro-blog data. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time event detection by social sensors. The Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ‘10), Raleigh, North Carolina, USA (pp. 851–860). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sankaranarayanan, J., Samet, H., Teitler, B. E, Lieberman, M. D., & Sperling, J. (2009). TwitterStand: News in tweets. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (pp. 42–51). Seattle, Washington. ACM, New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1145/1653771.1653781.
  31. 31.
    Sriram, B., Fuhry, D., Demir, E., Ferhatosmanoglu, H., & Demirbas, M. (2010). Short text classification in Twitter to improve information filtering. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International ACM SIGIR (SIGIR’10) (pp. 841–842). Geneva, Switzerland. ACM, New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1145/1835449.1835643.
  32. 32.
    Verma, S., Vieweg, S., Corvey, W., Palen, L., Martin, J., Palmer, M., Schram, A., & Anderson, K. (2011). Natural language processing to the rescue? Extracting “situational awareness” tweets during mass emergency. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wan, S., Paris, C., & Dale, R. (2009). Whetting the appetite of scientists: Producing summaries tailored to the citation context. In Proceedings of the 2009 Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 59–69), Austin, Texas (USA), June 15–19.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wan, S., & Paris, C. (2014). Improving government services with social media feedback. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2014) (pp. 27–36). Haifa, Israel, Feb 22–27, 2014.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wan, S., & Paris, C. (2015). Ranking election issues through the lens of social media. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities. Beijing, July 2015.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yin, J., Lampert, A., Cameron, M., Robinson, B., & Power, R. (2012). Using social media to enhance emergency situation awareness. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(6), 52–59. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Wan
    • 1
  • Cécile Paris
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dimitrios Georgakopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIRO Data61SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations