Professor Dr. Justin Grimmer of Stanford University and Brandon M. Stewart of Harvard University have published Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts, forthcoming in Political Analysis.
Here is the abstract:
Politics and political conflict often occur in the written and spoken word. Scholars have long recognized this, but the massive costs of analyzing even moderately sized collections of texts have hindered their use in political science research. Here lies the promise of automated text analysis: it substantially reduces the costs of analyzing large collections of text. We provide a guide to this exciting new area of research and show how, in many instances, the methods have already obtained part of their promise. But there are pitfalls to using automated methods—they are no substitute for careful thought and close reading and require extensive and problem-specific validation. We survey a wide range of new methods, provide guidance on how to validate the output of the models, and clarify misconceptions and errors in the literature. To conclude, we argue that for automated text methods to become a standard tool for political scientists, methodologists must contribute new methods and new methods of validation.
The paper includes discussion of automated content analysis of legislative texts.
HT @treycausey
Tags: Automated content analysis of legal texts, Automated content analysis of legislative texts, Brandon Stewart, Justin Grimmer, Legal communication methodologies, Legal informatics methodologies, Legal natural language processing, Legal text analysis, Legal text processing, Legislation as data, Legislative text analysis, Legislative text processing, Legislative texts as data, Natural language processing of legal texts, Natural Language Processing of legislative texts, Political Analysis, Semantic processing of legal texts, Semantic processing of legislative texts, Text analysis of legal documents, Text analysis of legislative documents
