Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Roots of Computer Supported Argument Visualization

  • Chapter
Visualizing Argumentation

Part of the book series: Computer Supported Cooperative Work ((CSCW))

Abstract

This chapter considers some of the “roots” to Computer-Supported Argument Visualization (CSAV). The definitions above point to historical ancestors and conceptual foundations, and this chapter seeks to identify the most influential work to whom CSAV owes an intellectual debt. Specifically, we will consider individuals who invented paper-based precursors of argument maps, and/or who envisioned the possibilities that computers opened up. In mapping CSAV’s intellectual terrain, I may well omit important branches to its roots that I have not encountered, but hope that this chapter will serve to stimulate the forging of further connections to other traditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aleven V. & Ashley K. D. (1994). An instructional environment for practising argumentation skills. AAAI’94: Proceedings of Annual Conferrence American Assoc. Artificiallntelligence, 485–492. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen J., Baker M., & Suthers D. (Ed.). (in press). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker M.J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In J. Andriessen & P. Coier (Eds.) Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begeman M. and Conklin J. (1988). The right tool for the right job. BYTE, Oct. 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Leng, P. H., & Stanford, G. (1998). A computer supported environment for the teaching of legal argument. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/98-3/capon.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Bootstrap Institute. Available from http://www.bootstrap.org

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J. S. (1986). From cognitive ergonomics to social ergonomics and beyond. In D. Norman & S. Draper (Ed.), User Centered System Design (pp. 457–486). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown/MIT (1995). Brown/MIT Bush Symposium. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.cs.brown.edu/memex/

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum S., & Hammond N. (1994). Argumentation-Based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(4), 603–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.theadantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushfhtm

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, T. (1974). Useyour head. London: BBC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20(9), 1741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(6), 303-331.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSILE: Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://csile.olse.utoronto.ca/

    Google Scholar 

  • Diagrammatic Reasoning (2002). Gateway to the diagrammatic reasoning website. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/gal/Diagrams/

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastgate Systems: Storyspace. Available from http://www.eastgate.com

    Google Scholar 

  • ConceptFrameworkInd.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbart, D. C. (1963). A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect. In P. Howerton & D. Weeks (Eds.), Vistas in information handling (pp. 129). Washington, DC: Spartan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., & Morch, A. I. (1991). Making Argumentation Serve Design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3&4), 393–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H., & Chandrasekaran, B. (Ed.). (1995). Diagrammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greif, I (ed.), Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings. Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, California, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 92-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halasz, F. G., Moran, T. P., & Trigg, R. H. (1987). NoteCards in a nutshell. Proceedings of CHI and GI’87: Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphic Interface, 45-52. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, R. (1989). Mapping hypertext. The analysis, organisation, and display of knowledge for the nextgeneration of on-line text and graphics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, R. (1998). Visual language: Global communication for the 21st century. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVIJ, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowledge Forum. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.learn.motion.com/lim/kf/KFO.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb D. (1994). Socrates in the Labyrinth: Hypertext, Argument, Philosophy (A Hypertext. Watertown: Eastgate Systems. http://www.eastgate.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. (1997). Scholarly hypertext: Self-represented complexity. Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext, (Southampton), 29-37. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http.//journals.ecs.soton.ac.uk/-lac/ht97/pdfs/kolb.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (1991). Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, 114-125. New York: IEEE-ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, A. Bellotti, V. and Buckingham Shum, S. (1993). Developing the design space with design space analysis. In P. F. Byerley, P. J. Barnard, and J. May (Eds.). Computers, Communication and Usability: Design issues, research and methods for integrated services. (North Holland Series in Telecommunication) pp.197-219. Amsterdam: Elsevier%

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3, 4), 201250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W., Grant, K. R., Lai, K.-Y., Rao, R., & Rosenblitt, D. (1987). Semistructured messages are surprisingly useful for computer-supported coordination. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 5,(2), 115-131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C. C. (1989). Representing the structure of legal arguments. Proceedings of the International Conference on AI and Law, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C. C., & Rogers, R. A. (1992). Two years before the mist: Experiences with aquanet. Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Hypertext (pp. 53-62)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Ed.). (1989). Mindweave: communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://wwvv-icdl.open.ac.uk/hteraturestore/mindweave/mindweave.html

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, R. J. (1991). PHI: A conceptual foundation for design hypermedia. Design Studies, 12(1), 30-41

    Google Scholar 

  • MindMap.com-Tony Buzan. Available from http://www.mind-map.com/

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (Ed.). (1996). Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • MouseSite: Sloan School of Management, Stanford University, CA. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1976). Understanding the learning process and effectiveness of teaching methods in the Classroom, laboratory, and field. Science Education, 60(4), 493-512. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetorzc., A Treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN.: Notre Dame University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, R. M., Hartley, J. R., Hintze, D., & Moore, D. J. (1992). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: An interface for computer-based dialogue games. Journal of ArtificialIntelligence in Education, 3(3), 275-285.

    Google Scholar 

  • PPIG (2002). Psychology of Programming Interest Group: Workshops. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.ppig.org/workshops

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, A. (2000). Designing argumentation for conceptual development. Computers and Education, 34, 241-255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, G. L., & Ellis, C. A. (1991). rIBIS: A real-time group hypertext system. International f ournal of Man Machine Studies, 24(3), 349-367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J. (1972). Second generation design methods. Interview in: Design Methods Group 5th Anniversary Report: DMG Occasional Paper, 1, 5-10. Reprinted in: Developments in Design Methodology, N. Cross (Ed.), 1984, pp. 317-327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamaha, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51-68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, W., & Smith, J. (1990). Author’s Argumentation Assistant (AAA): A hypertextbased authoring tool for argumentative texts. Proceedings of ECHT’90: European

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference on Hypertext. Argumentation, Design & Knowledge Acquisition, 137-151. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvin, A. (1999). Supporting collaborative analysis and design with hypertext functionality. Journal of Digital Information, 1(4). Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/104/Selvin/

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipman, F. M., & Marshall, C. C. (1999). Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in Interactive systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Fork, 8(4), 333-352. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://bush.cs.tamu.edu:80/-shipman/cscw.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • SIGWEB Special Interest Group in Hypertext, Hypermedia and the Web. New York: ACM. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.acm.org/slgweb/

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillince, J. A. A. (1997). Intelligent argumentation systems: Requirements, models, research agenda and applications. In A. Kent (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Library and Information Science, 59(22) (pp. 176-218). New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillince, J. A. A., & Saeedi, M. H. (1999). Computer-Mediated communication: problems and potentials of argumentation support systems. Decision Support Systems, 26, 287-306. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://staff.abs.aston.ac.uk/jsillince/ARTICLE8.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, C., & Timpka, T. (1995). Inside multidisciplinary design in medical informatics: Experiences from the use of an argumentative design method. MEDINPO’95: Triannual Ilorld Conference in Medical Informatics, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefik, M. (1986). The next knowledge medium. AI Magazine, 7(1), 34-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D. G., Kahn, K., Lanning, S., and Suchman, L. (1987). Communications of the ACM, 30(1), 32-47

    Google Scholar 

  • Streitz, N., Hanneman, J., & Thuring, M. (1989). From ideas and arguments to hyperdocuments: Travelling through activity spaces. Proceedings of Hypertext’89, 343364. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995, October). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. Paper presented at CSCL’95: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, D. G., Foster, G., & Bobrow, D. G. (1991). Design for conversation: Lessons from cognoter. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 34, 185-209. Reprinted from Computer supported cooperative work and Groupware, 55-80, by S. Greenberg, Ed., 1991, London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. Toulmin:ICAIL (2002). Results of a search on “Toulmin” in proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Digital Library. Retrieved on August 1 2002 from http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=2680449&CFTOKEN=58630376

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin: Research Index (2002). Results of a search on “Toulmin” in computer Science literature. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=toulmin&cs=1

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigg, R., & Weiser, M. (1983). TEXTNET: A network-based approach to text handling. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(l).

    Google Scholar 

  • Turoff M. (1970). Delphi conferencing: computer based conferencing with anonymity. Journal of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3(2), 159–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren F., Grootendorst R., Jackson S., & Jacobs S. (1983). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn K. (1985). Theory reform caused by an argumentation tool (Technical Report ISL11). Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman A., Andriessen J. E. B., & Kanselaar G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. In C. Hoadly & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 640–650). Palo Alto, California: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. G. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore H. J. A. (1913). The principles of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and General experience and illustrated in judicial trials. Boston: Little Brown (2nd Edition, 1931. Reprint 2000, William S. Hein & Co., Inc.).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK

    Simon Buckingham Shum

Authors
  1. Simon Buckingham Shum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Open University of the Netherlands, Educational Technology Expertise Center, PO Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Paul A. Kirschner BA, MEd, PhD (Professor of Educational Technology) (Professor of Educational Technology)

  2. Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK

    Simon J. Buckingham Shum BSc, MSc, PhD (Senior Lecturer in Knowledge Media) (Senior Lecturer in Knowledge Media)

  3. Retail Stores Training, Sears Roebuck and Co, 3333 Beverly Road, E2-213B, Hoffman Estates, Illinois, IL, 60179, USA

    Chad S. Carr BA, MA, PhD (Curriculum Development Manager) (Curriculum Development Manager)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Buckingham Shum, S. (2003). The Roots of Computer Supported Argument Visualization. In: Kirschner, P.A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., Carr, C.S. (eds) Visualizing Argumentation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-664-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0037-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation