Advertisement

Computer Supported Argument Visualisation: Modelling in Consultative Democracy Around Wicked Problems

  • Ricky Ohl
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

In this case study, computer supported argument visualisation has been applied to the analysis and representation of the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan Consultation discourse, demonstrating how argument mapping can help deliver the transparency and accountability required in participatory democracy. Consultative democracy for regional planning falls into a category of problems known as “wicked problems”. Inherent in this environment are heterogeneous viewpoints, agendas and voices, all built on disparate and often contradictory logic. An argument ontology and notation that was designed specifically to deal with consultative urban planning around wicked problems is the Issue Based Information System (IBIS) and IBIS notation (Rittel & Webber, 1984). The software used for argument visualisation in this case was Compendium, a derivative of IBIS. The high volume of stakeholders and discourse heterogeneity in this environment calls for a unique approach to argument mapping. The map design model developed from this research has been titled a “Consultation Map”. The design incorporates the IBIS ontology within a hybrid of mapping approaches, amalgamating elements from concept, dialogue, argument, debate, thematic and tree-mapping. The consultation maps developed from the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan Consultation provide a transparent visual record to give evidence of the themes of citizen issues within the consultation discourse. The consultation maps also link the elicited discourse themes to related policies from the SEQ Regional Plan providing explicit evidence of SEQ Regional Plan policy-decisions matching citizen concerns. The final consultation map in the series provides explicit links between SEQ Regional Plan policy items and monitoring activities reporting on the ongoing implementation of the SEQ Regional Plan. This map provides updatable evidence of and accountability for SEQ Regional Plan policy implementation and developments.

Keywords

Concept Mapping Public Consultation Government Report Wicked Problem Participatory Democracy 
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.

References

  1. Bentivegna, S. (2006). Rethinking Politics in the World of ICTs. European Journal of Communication, 21(3), 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, E., Jelinek, F., Lafferty, J., Mercer, R., & Roukos, S. (1992). Decision tree models applied to the labeling of text with parts of speech. Paper presented at the 1992 DARPA Speech and Natural Language Workshop.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckingham Shum, S. (1997, 24–26, March). Representing Hard-to-Formalise,Contextualised, Multidisciplinary, Organisational Knowledge. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Artificial Intelligence in Knowledge Management, Stanford University, Palo Alto: US.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. New York, US: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. Chintalapani, G., Plaisant, C., & Shneiderman, B. (2004). Extending the Utility of Treemaps with Flexible Hierarchy. Paper presented at the Information Visualisation, Eighth International Conference on (IV’04) London, England.Google Scholar
  7. Clift, S. (2002). E-Governance to E-Democracy: Progress in Australia and New Zealand toward Information-Age Democracy. Retrieved 15th April, 2004, from http://www.publicus.net/
  8. Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, S., & Norris, D. (2005). A New Agenda for e-Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford Internet Institute (OII): Oxford University.Google Scholar
  10. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Brisbane, Australia: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Dansereau, D. (2005). Node-Link Mapping Principles for Visualizing Knowledge and Information. In S. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization: Searching for Synergies. (pp. 61–81). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaper, D. (2004). Understanding Task Analysis for Human—Computer Interaction. In D. Diaper & N. Stanton (Eds.), The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human—Computer Interaction. (pp. 650). New Jersey, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Elliman, T., Macintosh, A., & Irani, Z. (2006, July 6–7 2006). Argument Maps as Policy Memories for Informed Deliberation: A Research Note. Paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS), Costa Blanca, Alicante, Spain.Google Scholar
  14. Englebart, D. (1963). Conceptual Framework for the Augmentation of Man’s Intellect. In Vistas in Information Handling (pp. 1–29). Washington, DC: London: Spartan Books.Google Scholar
  15. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, US: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, T., Macintosh, A., & Renton, A. (2007). Argumentation Support Systems. UK: DEMO-net: The Democracy Network.Google Scholar
  17. Heuer, R. (1999). Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Retrieved 15 May, 2007, from http://www.odci.gov/csi/books/19104/index.html
  18. Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., & Carr, C.E. (2003). Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirshchner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., & Carr, C.E. (2003). Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuklinski, J. (2001). Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macintosh, A. (2006). eParticipation in policy-making: the research and the challenges. In P. Cunningham and M. Cunningham (Eds.), Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications and Case Studies. (pp. 364–369). Washington, US: IOS press.Google Scholar
  22. Macintosh, A., & Renton, A. (2004, 27–29 October). Argument Visualisation to Support Democratic Decision-Making. Paper presented at the eChallenges e.2004 Conference, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  23. Mackenzie, A., Pidd, M., Rooksby, J., Sommerville, I., Warren, I., & Westcombe, M. (2005). Wisdom, decision support and paradigms of decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, Article in Press, 19.Google Scholar
  24. Maguitman, A., Leake, D., Reichherzer, T., & Menczer, F. (2004, November 8–13). Dynamic Extraction of Topic Descriptors and Discriminators: Towards Automatic Context-Based Topic Search. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’04), Washington, D.C., US.Google Scholar
  25. Marshall, B., & Madhusudan, T. (2004, June 7–11). Element Matching in Concept Maps. Paper presented at the the fourth ACM and IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL-2004), Tucson: US.Google Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York, US: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, G. (1956). The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity to Process Information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, M., & Riechert, B. (1994). Identifying Themes via Concept Mapping: A New Method of Content Analysis. Paper presented at the the Theory and Methodology Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  29. Nguyen, Q., & Huang, M. (2005). EncCon: an approach to constructing interactive visualization of large hierarchical data. Information Visualization, 4, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novak, J., & Canas, A. (2006). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them.: Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.Google Scholar
  31. OECD. (2004). Promise and Problems of e-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  32. Parsons, W. (2006). Innovation in the public sector: spare tyres and fourth plinths. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 11(2), 10.Google Scholar
  33. Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term Retention of Individual Verbal Items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Queensland Government: Office of Urban Management. (2005). South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005–2026. Brisbane: Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation.Google Scholar
  35. Renton, A., & Macintosh, A. (2007). Computer-Supported Argument Maps as a Policy Memory. The Information Society, 23(2), 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Repovs, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The Multi-Component Model of Working Memory: Explorations in Experimental Cognitive Psychology. Neuroscience, 139, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1984). Planning Problems are Wicked Problems. New Jersey, US: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Shneiderman, B. (1992). Tree visualization with tree-maps: 2-d space-filling approach. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 11(1), 92–99.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Shneiderman, B. (2006). Treemaps for space-constrained visualization of hierarchies. Retrieved 14 May, 2007, from http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/treemap-history/
  41. Shneiderman, B., & Wattenberg, M. (2001). Ordered Treemap Layouts. Paper presented at the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization., Los Alamitos, US.Google Scholar
  42. Slocum, T., McMaster, R., Kessler, F., & Howard, H. (2005). Thematic Cartography and Geographic Visualization. 2nd Edition. New York, US: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, US: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, US: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Tillers, P. (2007). Introduction: Visualizing Evidence and Inference in Legal Settings. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. United Nations (2004). United Nations Global E-Government Readiness Report 2004: Towards Access for Opportunity. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management.Google Scholar
  47. United Nations (2005). United Nations Global e-Government Readiness Report 2005: From e-Government to E-Inclusion. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management.Google Scholar
  48. Vedel, T. (2006). The Idea of Electronic Democracy: Origins, Visions and Questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Whyte, A., & Macintosh, A. (2001). Transparency and Teledemocracy: Issues from an ‘E-Consultation. Journal of Information Science, 27(4), 187–198.Google Scholar
  50. Yoshimi, J. (2004). Mapping the Structure of Debate. Informal Logic, 24(1).Google Scholar
  51. Zhao, S., McGuffin, M., & Chignell, M. (2005). Elastic Hierarchies: Combining Treemaps and Node-Link Diagrams. Paper presented at the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, Washington: US.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations