Opportunities and limitations of using big text data in Russian and foreign political science on the example of GDELT database
https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2024-3-30-46
Abstract
In a comparative way the article considers the practice of quantitative analysis of large textual data in Russian and foreign political science using the example of the GDELT (Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone) database. Based on the review of scientific publications by Russian and foreign researchers, the article shows a variety of research tasks that can be solved using GDELT data. At the same time, the tasks solved by national political scientists using GDELT data are mainly descriptive in nature, while the works of foreign scientists are characterized by the incorporation of GDELT data into complex mathematical models in order to determine the nature and direction of relationships between variables. It is revealed that the variability of research is due to the wide functionality of the GDELT database. The main advantages of using GDELT are, firstly, the possibility for automated event and content analysis of large textual data, secondly, an additional option for operationalizing and validating political phenomena and processes, and thirdly, the possibility of falsifying the results of the analysis. The limitations of working with the database were identified as, firstly, the imperfections of the CAMEO ontology, secondly, the incompleteness of the data contained in the database, and thirdly, the technical limitations of working with the GDELT database. Thereby, the author concluded that GDELT data should be used with extreme caution, and that measurements should be checked for validity in each case.
About the Author
D. O. Vakarchuk
Russian State University for the Humanities
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Denis O. Vakarchuk, Cand. of Sci. (History)
6, Miusskaya Sq., Moscow, 125047
References
1. Agafonov, Yu.G. and Sokolov, M.M. (2023), “Russian political science in 2021. Social and intellectual landscape”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 2, pp. 54–71.
2. Ahremenko, A.S., Stukal, D.K. and Petrov, A.P. (2020), “Web or text? Factors of protest spreading in social media. Theory and data analysis”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 2, pp. 73–91.
3. Badrutdinova, K.R., Degterev, D.A. and Stepanova, A.A. (2017), “Interconnections among the United States, Russia and China. Whether G. Kissinger’s leadership formula is being followed?”, International Organisations Research Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 81–109.
4. Bodas-Sagi, D. and Labeaga, J. (2016), “Using GDELT data to evaluate the confidence on the Spanish government energy policy”, International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Inteligence, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 38–43.
5. Bunte, J. and Vinson, L. (2016), “Local power-sharing institutions and interreligious violence in Nigeria”, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 49–65.
6. Davis, C., Fuchs, A. and Johnson, K. (2019), “State control and the effects of foreign relations on bilateral trade”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 405–438.
7. Degterev, D.A. (2015), “Quantitative methods in international studies”, International Trends, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 35–54.
8. Degterev, D.A. (2019), Kolichestvennye metody v prikladnom analize mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Quantitative methods in the applied analysis of international relations], D. Sc. Thesis (Political Science), Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
9. Degterev, D.A. (2019), “ ‘The Second Great Controversy’ in the context of the formation of the Russian science on international relations”, International Trends, vol. 17, no. 2 (57), pp. 43–63.
10. Degterev, D.A., Piskunov, D.A. and Eremin, A.A. (2023), “U.S. – China 5G-rivalry in Latin America. At the origins of technological decoupling”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 3, pp. 20–38.
11. Fenenko, A.V. (2021), “The illusory discipline. Once again on quantitative methods in international relations”, International Trends, vol. 19, no. 4 (67), pp. 163–191.
12. Fenenko A.V. (2018), “Statistics versus History”, International, vol. 16, no. 3 (54), pp. 56–83.
13. Halterman, A., Bagozzi, V., Beger, V., Schrodt, P.A. and Scraborough, G. “PLOVER and POLECAT. A new political event ontology and dataset”, in SocArXiv. 2023, available at: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/rm5dw/download (Accessed 25 March 2024), DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/rm5dw.
14. Istomin, I.A., Baikov, A.A. and Khudolei, K.K. (2019), “International relations. Science without method?”, International Trends, vol. 17, no. 2 (57), pp. 63–90.
15. Jazayeri, K. (2016), “Identity-based political inequality and protest. The dynamic relationship between political power and protest in the Middle East and North Africa”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 400–422.
16. Quaranta, M. (2016), “Protesting in ‘hard times’. Evidence from a comparative analysis of Europe, 2000–2014”, Current Sociology, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 736–756.
17. Schrodt, P.A. and Van Brackle, D. (2013), “Automated coding of political event data”, in Subrahmanian, V., ed., Handbook of computational approaches to counterterrorism, Springer, New York, USA, pp. 23–49.
18. Sun, X., Gao, J., Liu, B. and Wang, Z. (2021), “Big data-based assessment of political risk along the belt and road”, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 7. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073935.
19. Sytnik, A.N. (2022), Tsifrovizatsiya i “bol’shie dannye” v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh: teoreticheskie, metodologicheskie i prikladnye aspekty [Digitalization and “big data” in international relations. Theoretical, methodological and applied aspects], Ph.D. Thesis (Political Science), Sintt Petersburg University, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
20. Timofeev, I.N. (2022), “An executive power dimension of the U.S. Sanctions policy”, Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 23–32.
21. Tsvetkova, N.A. and Sytnik, A.N. (2018), “Public diplomacy in Afghanistan, 2002–2018. Impact of the USA on social networks, political system and universities”, Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 11, iss. 4, pp. 344–361.
22. Tsvetkova, N.A., Khudoley, K.K., Jeifets, V.L., Garbuzov, V.N., Istomin, I.A. and Kharkevich, M.V. (2023), “Scientific journals in the context of the transformation of international relations. Issues, challenges and prospects. Part 1”, Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 294–315.
23. Vakarchuk, D.O. (2023), “Empirical verification of the regional leadership concept on the example of rising powers”, Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 255–274.
24. Vakarchuk, D.O. (2020), “Differences among the member states of the European Union and its influence on their relations with the Russian Federation: 2014–2019”, RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. “Political Science. History. International Relations” Series, no. 4, pp. 57–73.
25. Vakarchuk, D.O. (2021), “World war II in the context of contemporary Russian-Polish relations”, RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. “Political Science. History. International Relations” Series, no. 2, pp. 80–90.
26. Yartseva, N.V. (2021), “Analysing large amounts of data. GDELT project’s opportunities using the Python programming language. A humanities scholar’s experience with Big Data, Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny, no. 1, pp. 351–367.
27. Zavadskaya, M.A. (2015), “Time to choose. Manipulating electoral cycles in present-day authoritarian regimes”, Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Politologiya, no. 4, pp. 5–28.
Review
For citations:
Vakarchuk D.O. Opportunities and limitations of using big text data in Russian and foreign political science on the example of GDELT database. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations". 2024;(3):30-46. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2024-3-30-46
Views:
88
Email this article 