Advertisement

Argument Visualization for eParticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool

  • Neil Benn
  • Ann Macintosh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6847)

Abstract

This paper describes research that aims to develop an argument visualization tool and associated method for supporting eParticipation and online deliberation. Based on the state-of-the-art in the field of computer-supported argument visualization, the tool will support the work of relevant eParticipation actors by enabling them to navigate through arguments contained in relevant consultation and policy documents. This tool will form the core of our investigation into the mediating role that large, Web-based argument maps can play in eParticipation scenarios. In particular, we intend to investigate the method and practice of how various eParticipation actors use the tool in the policy-making process. To this end, this paper sets out a clear research agenda for research at the intersection of eParticipation and computer-supported argument visualization.

Keywords

Argument visualization technologies for eParticipation online deliberation 

References

  1. 1.
    Macintosh, A.: Moving Towards “Intelligent” Policy Development. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24(5), 79–82 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of reasoning with evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2-3), 125–165 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirschner, P., Buckingham Shum, S., Carr, C.: Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumler, J.G., Gurevitch, M.: The New Media and Our Political Communication Discontents: Democratizing Cyberspace. Information, Communication & Society 4(1), 1–13 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dahlgren, P.: The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication 22(2), 147–162 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., Schneeberger, A.: eParticipation: The Research Gaps. In: Macintosh, A., Tambouris, E. (eds.) ePart 2009. LNCS, vol. 5694, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coleman, S., Blumler, J.G.: The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. Cambridge University Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Sherborne, T.: Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macintosh, A., Gordon, T.F., Renton, A.: Providing Argument Support for eParticipation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6(1), 43–59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snaith, M., Lawrence, J., Reed, C.: Mixed Initiative Argument in Public Deliberation. From e-Participation to Online Deliberation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation, OD 2010, Leeds, UK, pp. 2–13 (2010) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Liddo, A., Buckingham Shum, S.: Capturing and Representing Deliberation in Participatory Planning Practices. In: De Cindio, F., Macintosh, A., Peraboni, C. (eds.) From e-Participation to Online Deliberation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation (OD 2010), Leeds, UK, pp. 27–40 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolb, D.: The Revenge of the Page. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (HT 2008), pp. 89–96. ACM, Pittsburgh (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buckingham Shum, S.: Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation. In: 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pp. 97–108. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13, 961–980 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Snaith, M., Lawrence, J., Reed, C.: Mixed Initiative Argument in Public Deliberation. In: From e-Participation to Online Deliberation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation, OD 2010, Leeds, UK, pp. 2–13 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Betz, G., Bohse, H., Voight, C.: Perspectives for Argunet in eParticipation. Paper presented at the DEMO-net Workshop on Argumentation Support Systems for eParticipation, Berlin, Germany (March 5, 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordon, T.F.: An Overview of the Carneades Argumentation Support System. In: Tindale, C.W., Reed, C. (eds.) Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning, pp. 145–156. College Publications (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selvin, A.M., Buckingham Shum, S.: Hypermedia as a Productivity Tool for Doctoral Research. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 11(1), 91–101 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karacapilidis, N., Tzagarakis, M., Karousos, N., Gkotsis, G., Kallistros, V., Christodoulou, S., et al.: Tackling cognitively-complex collaboration with CoPe_it! International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies 4(3), 22–38 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Debategraph. Debategraph: the global debate map (2011), http://debategraph.org/home (retrieved March 15, 2011)
  21. 21.
    Klein, M., Iandoli, L.: Supporting Collaborative Deliberation Using a Large-Scale Argumentation System: The MIT Collaboratorium. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing Symposium and the Third International Conference on Online Deliberation (DIAC 2008/OD 2008), Berkeley, California, pp. 5–12 (2008) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider, D., Voigt, C., Betz, G.: Argunet : A software tool for collaborative argumentation analysis and research. Paper presented at the 7th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2007), Hyderabad, India (2007) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Gelder, T.: The rationale for Rationale. Law, Probability and Risk 6(1-4), 23–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ESTRELLA Project: Deliverable 4.1 – The Legal Knowledge Interchange Format (LKIF) (2008), http://carneades.berlios.de/files/LKIF-Specification.pdf

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Benn
    • 1
  • Ann Macintosh
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Communications StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations