Assignment No.

2 SOLUTIONS

Total Marks: 20
Lectures: 9-11
JAN-2024

QUESTION?

Imagine you are tasked with analyzing a public discourse (e.g., talk shows, discussions, and
news articles) on a specific theme (e.g., women’s rights or general election-2024 in Pakistan).
Describe, justify, and explain two different methodologies you would utilize and how they
would complement each other in conducting your analysis on any specific topic.

SOLUTION 01:

Topic:
Social Media Impact on Mental Health: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction:
The influence of social media on mental health has become a subject of increasing concern and
interest.

Methodology 1:

Sentiment Analysis
Definition:

Sentiment Analysis is a computational method used to determine the sentiment expressed in text
data.

Application:

1. Emotional Tone Identification:

- Utilizing machine learning algorithms to identify the emotional tone of social media content
related to mental health. Sentiment Analysis allows for the categorization of content into positive,
negative, or neutral sentiments.
2. Trend Analysis:

- Analyzing sentiment trends over time to identify shifts in public attitudes and perceptions
towards mental health on social media. Sentiment Analysis provides a quantitative measure of the
evolving discourse.

3. Identification of Triggering Topics:

- Identifying specific topics or events that trigger positive or negative sentiments in mental health
discussions. Sentiment Analysis helps pinpoint key themes driving emotional responses.

Strengths and Limitations:

Strengths:

∙ Scalable for Large Datasets.

∙ Provides Quantitative Insights.

Limitations:

∙ May Lack Contextual Understanding.

∙ Difficulty in Detecting Sarcasm or Irony.
Methodology 2:

In-Depth Interviews:
Definition:

In-Depth Interviews involve conducting open-ended, qualitative interviews with individuals to

gain a deeper understanding of their experiences, perspectives, and attitudes. In the context of
social media and mental health, In-Depth Interviews can provide rich insights into how
individuals navigate mental health discussions online.

Application:

1. Exploration of Personal Experiences:

- Conducting interviews to explore individuals' personal experiences with mental health discussions
on social media. In-Depth Interviews offer a nuanced understanding of the impact of online
interactions on mental well-being.

2. Identification of Coping Mechanisms:

- Probing individuals about their coping mechanisms when exposed to mental health content on
social media. In-Depth Interviews allow for the identification of adaptive or maladaptive strategies
employed by individuals.

3. Contextual Understanding of Sentiments:

- Seeking contextual understanding of sentiments expressed in social media content. In-Depth

Interviews provide insights into the factors influencing individuals' emotional responses,
contributing to a deeper interpretation of sentiment analysis results.
 Strengths and Limitations:

Strengths:

o Rich Qualitative Data.

o Allows for Contextual Understanding.

Limitations:

o Resource-Intensive.
o Limited Generalizability.

Complementary Insights:

1. Bridging Quantitative Trends with Qualitative Narratives:

- Sentiment Analysis provides quantitative trends in emotional tones. In-Depth Interviews

complement this by offering qualitative narratives, bridging the gap between statistical trends
and individual experiences in mental health discussions on social media.

2. Linking Online Sentiments to Offline Realities:

- Sentiment Analysis identifies prevalent sentiments. In-Depth Interviews link these sentiments to
offline realities, providing insights into how online mental health discussions may impact
individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in their daily lives.

3. Informing Supportive Strategies for Online Mental Health:

- The integration of Sentiment Analysis and In-Depth Interviews informs the development of
supportive strategies for online mental health. Sentiment Analysis identifies prevalent emotional
tones, while interviews offer insights into individuals' needs and preferences for supportive online
environments.

Conclusion:

The combination of Sentiment Analysis and In-Depth Interviews provides a comprehensive

methodological approach to understanding the complex interplay between social media and
mental health.

SOLUTION 02:
Topic:

The Ethical Considerations of Genetic Editing: A Dual Analysis

Introduction:

The advancements in genetic editing technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, have opened new
possibilities and ethical dilemmas. This study employs two methodologies, Ethical Discourse
Analysis and Stakeholder Deliberation Forums, to comprehensively explore the ethical
considerations surrounding genetic editing.
 Methodology 1:

Ethical Discourse Analysis

Definition:

Ethical Discourse Analysis is a method that investigates language use and narratives within
discussions related to ethical issues. In the context of genetic editing, it involves examining
language patterns, values, and framing strategies used in discussions surrounding the ethical
implications, risks, and benefits associated with genetic editing technologies.

Application:

1. Identifying Ethical Narratives:

- Researchers such as Jasanoff (2015) have demonstrated the application of Ethical Discourse
Analysis in identifying dominant ethical narratives in discussions around genetic editing. This
includes narratives related to human enhancement, consent, and the potential consequences of
manipulating the human genome.

2. Language Patterns:

- Analyzing language patterns to understand how terms like "designer babies," "genetic
integrity," and "bioethics" are framed and discussed in the discourse around genetic editing.
Ethical Discourse Analysis can reveal nuances in language that shape public perceptions.

3. Stakeholder Perspectives:

- Investigating the different stakeholders involved, including scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and
the general public, and how they contribute to ethical discussions. This analysis provides insights
into the diversity of perspectives within the discourse.

Strengths and Limitations:

Strengths:

- In-depth Understanding of Ethical Narratives.

- Identification of Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives.

Limitations:

- Subjectivity in Interpretation.

- Potential Resource Intensity.

Methodology 2:

Stakeholder Deliberation Forums

Definition:
 Stakeholder Deliberation Forums involve creating forums or platforms for stakeholders to
engage in structured deliberations about ethical considerations.

Application:

1. Multi-Stakeholder Engagement:

- Facilitating deliberation forums that involve scientists, ethicists, religious leaders, policymakers,
and members of the public. Stakeholder Deliberation Forums provide a space for diverse
perspectives to be heard and considered in the ethical decision-making process.

2. Scenario Analysis:

- Engaging stakeholders in scenario analysis where potential applications of genetic editing are
discussed. This allows for a collective exploration of the ethical implications of different use cases
and potential consequences.

3. Consensus Building:

- Working towards consensus on ethical principles and guidelines for the responsible use of genetic
editing technologies. Stakeholder Deliberation Forums enable the development of shared values and
ethical frameworks that reflect the concerns and aspirations of the broader community.

Strengths and Limitations:

Strengths:

- Direct Engagement of Stakeholders.

- Generation of Consensus-Based Ethical Guidelines.

Limitations:

- Time-Intensive.

- Challenges in Achieving Consensus.

Complementary Insights:

1. Bridging Ethical Narratives with Stakeholder Perspectives:

- Ethical Discourse Analysis reveals how ethical concerns are framed and discussed in public discourse.
Stakeholder Deliberation Forums complement this by providing a direct understanding of how these
concerns are perceived and prioritized by various stakeholders.

2. Linking Language Patterns to Deliberative Actions:

- Ethical Discourse Analysis identifies language patterns. Stakeholder Deliberation Forums link
these patterns to deliberative actions, showing how language influences stakeholder decisions
and shaping the development of ethical guidelines.

3. Informing Responsible Policy Development:

 - The integration of Ethical Discourse Analysis and Stakeholder Deliberation Forums informs the
development of responsible policies for genetic editing. Discourse analysis provides foundational
insights into ethical narratives, while deliberation forums offer a participatory approach to shaping
ethical guidelines that align with societal values.

Conclusion:

The combination of Ethical Discourse Analysis and Stakeholder Deliberation Forums offers a
comprehensive methodological approach to understanding and addressing the ethical
considerations of genetic editing.