Abstract
This article presents a method for representing social conflict under disagreements over its representation, with the view that the resolution of such disagreements often affects the resolution of the conflict itself. The Argumentative Analysis of Options (AAO) method proposed here extends Howard's Analysis of Options method for conflict analysis. The AAO method highlights the role of policy discourse in resolving the disagreed representation, and models arguments made in these social processes. In this method, people's arguments are folded into a "strategic map" of a conflict, using a new coding system based on modal logic. The method is designed to be incorporated into group support systems (GSS) as a non-exclusive, non-specialist communication medium for both principal players and grassroots people. An experimental study is reported in which use of a prototype of GSS with the AAO method resulted in an assembly of rational and structured arguments in an attempt to resolve a hypothetical conflict. An evaluation by users of the prototype GSS suggested that it was less simple and more difficult to use, but richer than a more traditional electronic mail system. Design implications and potential pitfalls of this approach to GSS are discussed based on the results of the experimental study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allan, P. and C. Schmidt. (1994). Game Theory and International Relations: Preferences, Information, and Empirical Evidence. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Alvarado, S. J., M. G. Dyer and M. Flowers. (1990). “Argument Representation for Editorial Text”, Knowledge-Based Systems 3, 87–107.
Ball, W. J. (1994). “Using Virgil to Analyze Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal Logic”, Social Science Computer Review 12, 26–37.
Beck, R. J. and D. Wood. (1993). “The Dialogic Socialization of Aggression in a Family's Court of Reason and Inquiry”, Discourse Processes 16, 341–362.
Bennett, P. (1990). “Mixing Methods: Combining Conflict Analysis, SODA, and Strategic Choice”, in C. Eden and J. Radford (eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: the Role of Group Decision Support. London: Sage.
Bennett, P., S. Cropper and C. Huxham. (1989) “Modelling Interactive Decisions: The Hypergame Focus”, in J. Rosenhead (ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester; John Wiley.
Bennett, P. and P. McQuade. (1996). “Experimental Dramas: Prototyping a Multiuser Negotiation Simulation”, Group Decision and Negotiation 5, 119–136.
Bradley, R. and N. Swartz. (1979). Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and Its Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bremer, S. and M. Mihalka. (1977). “Machiavelli in Machina: Or Politics among Hexagons”, in K. W. Deutsch, B. Fritsch, H. Jaquaribe and A. S. Markovits (eds.), Problems of World Modeling: Political and Social Implications. Massachusetts: Ballinger.
Conklin, J. and M. L. Begeman. (1988). “gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion”, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6, 303–331.
Eden, C. (1996). “The Stakeholder/Collaborator Strategy Workshop”, in C. Huxham (ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. California: University of California Press.
Garcia, A. C. B. and H. C. Howard. (1992). “Acquiring Design Knowledge through Design Decision Justification”, AI EDAM 6, 59–71.
Garcia, A. C. B., H. C. Howard and M. J. Stefik. (1994). “Improving Design and Documentation by Using Partially Automated Synthesis”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 8, 335–354.
Gasper, D. R. and R. V. George. (1998). “Analyzing Argumentation in Planning and Public Policy: Assessing, Improving, and Transcending the Toulmin Model”, Environment and Planning B-Planning and Design 25, 367–390.
Gilbert, M. A. (1994). “Multi-modal Argumentation”, Philosophy of the Social Science 24, 159–177.
Hardin, G. (1968). “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science 162, 1243–1248.
Hoover, D. and D. Kowalewski. (1992). “Dynamic Models of Dissent and Repression”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 36, 150–182.
Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Howard, N. (1994a). “Drama Theory and Its Relation to Game Theory. Part 1: Dramatic Resolution vs. Rational Solution”, Group Decision and Negotiation 3, 187–206.
Howard, N. (1994b). “Drama Theory and Its Relation to Game Theory. Part 2: Formal Model of the Resolution Process”, Group Decision and Negotiation 3, 207–235.
Howard, N., P. Bennett, J. Bryant and M. Bradley. (1993). “Manifesto for a Theory of Drama and Irrational Choice”, Journal of Operational Research Society 44, 99–103.
Huxharn, C. and P. Bennett. (1984) “Floating Ideas-An Experiment in Enhancing Hypergames with Maps”, OMEGA 13, 33–347.
Jankowski, R, T. L. Nyerges, A. Smith, T. J. Moore and E. Horvath. (1997). “Spatial Group Choice: A SDSS Tool for Collaborative Spatial Decision-Making”, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 11, 577–602.
Jelassi, M. T. and A. Foroughi. (1989). “Negotiation Support Systems”, Decision Support Systems 5, 167–181.
Johnson, D. E. (1995). “Transactions in Symbolic Resources-a Resource Dependence Model of Congressional Deliberation”, Sociological Perspective 38, 151–173.
Lowe, D. G. (1985). “Co-operative Structuring of Information: the Representation of Reasoning and Debate”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 23, 97–111.
Malone, T. W., K.-Y. Lai and C. Fry. (1995). “Experiments with Oval: A Radically Tailorable Tool for Cooperative Work”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems 13, 177–205.
Mhashi, M., R. Rada, E. Beck, A. Michailidis and A. Zeb. (1992). “Computer-supported Discussion and Annotation”, Information Processing and Management 218, 589–607.
Norman, G. and M. La Manna. (1992). The New Industrial Economics: Recent Developments in Industrial Organization, Oligopoly and Game Theory. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Salo, A. A. (1995). “Interactive Decision Aiding for Group Decision Support”, European Journal of Operational Research 84, 134–149.
Shakun, M. F. (1988). Evolutionary Systems Design: Policy Making Under Complexity and Group Decision Support Systems. California: Holden-Day.
Siegel, S. and N. J. Castellan. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sillince, A. A. J. (1994). “Multi-agent Conflict Resolution: A Computational Framework for an Intelligent Argumentation Program”, Knowledge-Basd Systems 7, 75–90.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.
Sylvan, D. A. and S. J. Thorson. (1992). “Ontologies, Problem Representation, and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, Journal of Conflict Resultion 36, 709–732.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. (1972). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 3rd ed. Princtone: Princeton University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wisniewski, A. (1996). “The Logic of Questions as a Theory of Erotetic Arguments”, Syntheses 109, 1–25.
Yuen, H.-K. and T. J. Richards. (1994). “Knowledge Representation for Grounded Theory Construction in Qualitative Data Analysis”, Journal of Mathematical Sociology 17, 279–298.
Zmud, R. M. Lind and F. Young. (1990). “An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels”, Information Systems Research 1, 440–444.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horita, M. Folding Arguments: A Method for Representing Conflicting Views of a Conflict. Group Decision and Negotiation 9, 63–83 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008796822813
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008796822813