Abstract
This chapter investigates whether and how argumentative collaboration for policy and decision-making can be effectively supported by an appropriately developed information system. The research method adopted for this purpose follows the ’Design Science Paradigm’, which has been extensively used in information systems research. We used this paradigm to develop a Web-based system for supporting: (a) the collaboration required for public policy and decision-making; as well as (b) the creation, leveraging and utilisation of relevant knowledge. The proposed system allows for distributed (synchronous or asynchronous) collaboration and aims at aiding the involved parties by providing them with a series of argumentation, decision-making and knowledge management features. The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: the first section comments on literature related to the issue of argumentative collaboration; the second section presents the features and functionalities of the proposed system; the third section describes its application in a real public policy problem. Finally, the last section discusses set of critical issues related to the proposed solution and draws conclusions.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (1999). Computer supported collaborative work. New York: Wiley.
Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., & Loui, R. (2000). Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 337–383.
Cohendet, P., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2000). The codification of knowledge: A conceptual and empirical exploration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 195–209.
Conklin, E. J. (1996) Designing organisational memory: Preserving intellectual assets in a knowledge economy. Group Decision Support Systems Working Paper [http://www.gdss.com/wp/DOM.htm; accessed 22/01/2007].
Conklin, E. J., & Begeman, M. L. (1987) gIBIS: A hypertext tool for team design deliberation. In: Proceedings of the Hypertext’89 Conference. ACM Press, New York, pp. 247–252.
de Moor, A., & Aakhus, M. (2006). Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Communication of ACM, 49(3), 93–98.
Fischer, G., McCall, R., & Morch, A. (1989) JANUS: Integrating hypertext with a knowledge-based design environment. In: Proceedings of the Hypertext’89 Conference. ACM Press, New York, pp. 105–117.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
Holsapple, C. W., & Whinston, A. B. (1996). Decision support systems: A knowledge-based approach. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Jonassen, D. H., & Carr, C. S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple representations for learning. In S. P. Lajoiem (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II. No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (pp. 165–196). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259–277.
Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., & Carr, C. (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
Lee, J. (1990) SIBYL: A tool for managing group decision rationale. In: Proceedings of the CSCW’90 Conference. ACM Press, New York, pp. 79–92.
Lococo, A., & Yen, D. (1998). Groupware: Computer supported collaboration. Telematics and Informatics, 15(1–2), 85–101.
MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Questions, options and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. HCI, 6(3–4), 210–250.
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1990) What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? In: Proceedings of CSCW 90 Conference. ACM Press, New York, pp. 357–370.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. organisation Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Paul, R. W. (1989). Critical thinking in North America: A new theory of knowledge learning and literacy. Argumentation, 3(2), 197–235.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.
Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2001). Araucaria: Software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XML. Technical Report. Dundee: Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee.
Rescher, N. (1970). The coherence theory of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rolf, B., & Magnusson, C. (2002) Developing the art of argumentation: A software approach. In: Proceedings of ISSA 2002 [http://www.athenasoft.org/; accessed 22/01/2007].
Selvin, A. M., & Sierhuis, M. (1999) Case studies of project compendium in different organisations. In: Proceedings of Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation for Learning Communities. Workshop held at Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning‘99, Stanford.
Smolensky, P., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (1987). Computer-aided reasoned discourse, or how to argue with a computer. In R. Guindon (Ed.), Cognitive science and its applications for human-computer interaction (pp. 109–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Streitz, N., Hannemann, J., & Thuring, M. (1989) From ideas and arguments to hyperdocuments: Travelling through activity spaces. In: Proceedings of the Hypertext’89 Conference. ACM Press, New York, pp. 343–364.
Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., & Paolucci, M. (1995) Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED ‘95), Washington, DC, pp. 266–273.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Gelder, T. J. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.
Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (1998) Learning through computer-mediated collaborative argumentation [http://eduweb.fsw.ruu.nl/ar-ja/PhD2.html; accessed 22/01/2007].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karacapilidis, N. (2010). Managing Argumentative Discourses in Multi-Actor Environments. In: Cerreta, M., Concilio, G., Monno, V. (eds) Making Strategies in Spatial Planning. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3105-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3106-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)