Community engagement processes in representative political contexts, like school districts, generate massive volumes of feedback that overwhelm traditional synthesis methods, creating barriers to shared understanding not only between civic leaders and constituents but also among community members. To address these barriers, we developed StoryBuilder, a human-AI collaborative pipeline that transforms community input into accessible first-person narratives. Using 2,480 community responses from an ongoing school rezoning process, we generated 124 composite stories and deployed them through a mobile-friendly StorySharer interface. Our mixed-methods evaluation combined a four-month field deployment, user studies with 21 community members, and a controlled experiment examining how narrative composition affects participant reactions. Field results demonstrate that narratives helped community members relate across diverse perspectives. In the experiment, experience-grounded narratives generated greater respect and trust than opinion-heavy narratives. We contribute a human-AI narrative synthesis system and insights on its varied acceptance and effectiveness in a real-world civic context.

Most US school districts draw geographic "attendance zones" to assign children to schools based on their home address, a process that can replicate existing neighborhood racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status (SES) segregation in schools. Redrawing boundaries can reduce segregation, but estimating expected rezoning impacts is often challenging because families can opt-out of their assigned schools. This paper seeks to alleviate this societal problem by developing a joint redistricting and choice modeling framework, called redistricting with choices (RWC). The RWC framework is applied to a large US public school district to estimate how redrawing elementary school boundaries might realistically impact levels of socioeconomic segregation. The main methodological contribution of RWC is a contextual stochastic optimization model that aims to minimize district-wide segregation by integrating rezoning constraints with a machine learning-based school choice model. The study finds that RWC yields boundary changes that might reduce segregation by a substantial amount (23%) -- but doing so might require the re-assignment of a large number of students, likely to mitigate re-segregation that choice patterns could exacerbate. The results also reveal that predicting school choice is a challenging machine learning problem. Overall, this study offers a novel practical framework that both academics and policymakers might use to foster more diverse and integrated schools.

Public school districts across the United States (US) play a pivotal role in shaping access to quality education through their student assignment policies---most prominently, school attendance boundaries. Community engagement processes for changing such policies, however, are often opaque, cumbersome, and highly polarizing---hampering equitable access to quality schools in ways that can perpetuate disparities in achievement and future life outcomes. In this paper, we describe a collaboration with a large US public school district serving nearly 150,000 students to design and evaluate a new sociotechnical system, "BoundarEase", for fostering more constructive community engagement around changing school attendance boundaries. Through a formative study with 16 community members, we first identify several frictions in existing community engagement processes during boundary planning, like individualistic over collective thinking; a failure to understand and empathize with different community members when considering policy impacts; and challenges in accessing and understanding the impacts of boundary changes. We then use these frictions to inspire the design and development of BoundarEase, a web platform that allows community members to explore and offer feedback on potential boundaries based on their preferences. A user study with 12 community members reveals that BoundarEase prompts reflection among community members on how policies might impact families beyond their own, and increases transparency around the details of policy proposals. Our paper offers education researchers insights into the challenges and opportunities involved in community engagement for designing student assignment policies; human-computer interaction researchers a case study of how new sociotechnical systems might help mitigate polarization in local policymaking; and school districts a practical tool they might use to facilitate community engagement to foster more equitable student assignment policies.

The ability for individuals to constructively engage with one another across lines of difference is a critical feature of a healthy pluralistic society.This is also true in online discussion spaces like social media platforms.To date, much social media research has focused on preventing ills-like political polarization and the spread of misinformation.While this is important, enhancing the quality of online public discourse requires not just reducing ills but also promoting foundational human virtues.In this study, we focus on one particular virtue: "intellectual humility" (IH), or acknowledging the potential limitations in one's own beliefs.Specifically, we explore the development of computational methods for measuring IH at scale.We manually curate and validate an IH codebook on 350 posts about religion drawn from subreddits and use them to develop LLM-based models for automating this measurement.Our best model achieves a Macro-F1 score of 0.64 across labels (and 0.70 when predicting IH/IA/Neutral at the coarse level), higher than an expected naive baseline of 0.51 (0.32 for IH/IA/Neutral) but lower than a human annotator-informed upper bound of 0.85 (0.83 for IH/IA/Neutral).Our results both highlight the challenging nature of detecting IH online-opening the door to new directions in NLP research-and also lay a foundation for computational social science researchers interested in analyzing and fostering more IH in online public discourse.1

Identity spans multiple dimensions; however, the relative salience of a dimension of identity can vary markedly from person to person. Furthermore, there is often a difference between one’s internal identity (how salient different aspects of one's identity are to oneself) and external identity (how salient different aspects are to the external world). We attempt to capture the internal and external saliences of different dimensions of identity for influential users (“influencers”) on Twitter using the follow graph. We consider an influencer’s “ego-centric” profile, which is determined by their personal following patterns and is largely in their direct control, and their “audience-centric” profile, which is determined by the following patterns of their audience and is outside of their direct control. Using these following patterns we calculate a corresponding salience metric that quantifies how important a certain dimension of identity is to an individual. We find that relative to their audiences, influencers exhibit more salience in race in their ego-centric profiles and less in religion and politics. One practical application of these findings is to identify "bridging" influencers that can connect their sizeable audiences to people from traditionally underheard communities. This could potentially increase the diversity of views audiences are exposed to through a trusted conduit (i.e. an influencer they already follow) and may lead to a greater voice for influencers from communities of color or women.

Educational data scientists often conduct research with the hopes of translating findings into lasting change through policy, civil society, or other channels. However, the bridge from research to practice can be fraught with sociopolitical frictions that impede, or altogether block, such translations-especially when they are contentious or otherwise difficult to achieve. Focusing on one entrenched educational equity issue in US public schools-racial and ethnic segregation-we conduct randomized email outreach experiments and surveys to explore how local school districts respond to algorithmically-generated school catchment areas ("attendance boundaries") designed to foster more diverse and integrated schools. Cold email outreach to approximately 4,320 elected school board members across over 800 school districts informing them of potential boundary changes reveals a large average open rate of nearly 40%, but a relatively small click-through rate of 2.5% to an interactive dashboard depicting such changes. Board members, however, appear responsive to different messaging techniques---particularly those that dovetail issues of racial and ethnic diversity with other top-of-mind issues (like school capacity planning). On the other hand, media coverage of the research drives more dashboard engagement, especially in more segregated districts. A small but rich set of survey responses from school board and community members across several districts identify data and operational bottlenecks to implementing boundary changes to foster more diverse schools, but also share affirmative comments on the potential viability of such changes. Together, our findings may support educational data scientists in more effectively disseminating research that aims to bridge educational inequalities through systems-level change.

Homophily - our tendency to surround ourselves with others who share our perspectives and opinions about the world - is both a part of human nature and an organizing principle underpinning many of our digital social networks. However, when it comes to politics or culture, homophily can amplify tribal mindsets and produce "echo chambers" that degrade the quality, safety, and diversity of discourse online. While several studies have empirically proven this point, few have explored how making users aware of the extent and nature of their political echo chambers influences their subsequent beliefs and actions. In this paper, we introduce Social Mirror, a social network visualization tool that enables a sample of Twitter users to explore the politically-active parts of their social network. We use Social Mirror to recruit Twitter users with a prior history of political discourse to a randomized experiment where we evaluate the effects of different treatments on participants' i) beliefs about their network connections, ii) the political diversity of who they choose to follow, and iii) the political alignment of the URLs they choose to share. While we see no effects on average political alignment of shared URLs, we find that recommending accounts of the opposite political ideology to follow reduces participants» beliefs in the political homogeneity of their network connections but still enhances their connection diversity one week after treatment. Conversely, participants who enhance their belief in the political homogeneity of their Twitter connections have less diverse network connections 2-3 weeks after treatment. We explore the implications of these disconnects between beliefs and actions on future efforts to promote healthier exchanges in our digital public spheres.