The Quality of Social Simulation: An Example from Research Policy Modelling which should Consist of 4 modules which is Explained Below. PFA Chapter Notes

• CHAPTER SUMMARY: Summarize chapter presented during the week. Identify the main point (as in “What’s your point?”), thesis, or conclusion of the key ideas presented in the chapter.
• SUPPORT: Do research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the material presented in the textbook. Show something you have discovered from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond what is contained in the chapter itself. 
• EVALUATION: Apply the concepts from the appropriate chapter. Hint: Be sure to use specific terms and models directly from the textbook in analyzing the material presented and include the page in the citation.
• SOURCES: Include citations with your sources. Use APA style citations and references.

ITS 832
Chapter 3

The Quality of Social Simulation: AnExample
from Research Policy Modelling

Information Technology in a Global Economy

Professor Miguel Buleje

Introduction

• The Quality of Social Simulation:
• An Example from Research Policy Modelling

• A simulation is good
• “… when we get from it what we originally would have liked to get

from the target”

• Different views
• Standard

• Constructionist

• User community

• Chapter focus
• Different approaches to assessing the quality of a simulation

Simulation comparison

Standard View
• Verification

• Does the code do what it is supposed to do?

• Refers to well know method of verification.

• In SW, does the code is working as expected or has defects?

• Validation
• Do the outputs resemble observations of the target?

• Relies on the observability of reality
• Must be able to compare simulation output to reality

• Compares the REAL with artificial data produced by simulation

• Standard view may suffer from under-determination
• Multiple incompatible theories may result from the same data

Constructionist View

• Compares
• What you observe in the real world with,

• What you observe as simulation output

• Seems similar to Standard view, right?
• Constructionists view all observations as constructions

• Constructionists reject the possibility of evaluation because
there is no common reality to refer to.

• Evaluation is not possible
• Even observations of reality lack the ability to pass validation

User Community View

• Evaluation is carried out
• Using the observations of the affected user community

• Not just based on prior knowledge

• Closer to “real” results

• Often, results are influenced by multiple related factors

• The evaluations of any simulation would be impacted by:
• Expectations

• Anticipations

• Experience of the Community that uses it.

Policy Modelling for Ex-ante Evaluation
of EU Funding Programs

Horizon 2020 Study Workflow

Summary

• Simulation quality depends on simulation process

• Three different simulation views
• Standard

• Constructionist
• User community

• User community view
• Most promising

• Most work-intensive