Conference Paper

Evaluation of an Argument Visualisation Platform by Experts and Policy Makers.

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_7 Conference: Electronic Participation - Third IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2011, Delft, The Netherlands, August 29 - September 1, 2011. Proceedings
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT Argument visualisation (AV) tools enable structured debates around issues, positions and arguments. These tools have the potential
to substantially improve transparency e.g. by enabling understanding complex legislation and debating. In this paper we present
the results of the evaluation of an AV platform by experts and policy makers. The results suggest the potential of such tools
is large particularly for understanding complex legislation and debates. The results indicate an AV tool can be also potentially
used for massive deliberations when however usability is further improved. They further suggest an AV tool seems particularly
relevant to the analysis and policy formation stages of policy making, where identification, elaboration and presentation
of complex topics are needed. In this paper we employed a mature AV tool and concentrate on evaluating general aspects of
such platforms hence we believe the results can also apply to other AV platforms.

1 Bookmark
 · 
60 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are wicked problems, whereas science has developed to deal with tame problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about optimal solutions to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no solutions in the sense of definitive and objective answers.
    Policy Sciences 01/1973; 4(2):155-169. · 2.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper we discuss the development of tools to support a system for e- democracy that is based upon and makes use of existing theories of argument rep- resentation and evaluation. The system is designed to gather public opinions on political issues from which conclusions can be drawn concerning how government policies are presented, justified and viewed by the users of t he system. We describe how the original prototype has been augmented by the addition of well motivated tools to enable it to handle multiple debates and to provide analyses of the opinions submitted, from which it is possible to pinpoint specific grou nds for disagreement on an issue. The tool set now supports both argumentation schemes and argumenta- tion frameworks to provide representation and evaluation facilities. We contrast our system with existing fielded approaches designed to facilit ate public consultation on political issues and show the particular benefits that our approach can bring in attempting to improve the quality of such engagement online.
    Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, May 28-30, 2008.; 01/2008
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Students, researchers and professional analysts lack effective tools to make personal and collective sense of problems while working in distributed teams. Central to this work is the process of sharing—and contesting—interpretations via different forms of argument. How does the “Web 2.0” paradigm challenge us to deliver useful, usable tools for online argumentation? This paper reviews the current state of the art in Web Argumentation, describes key features of the Web 2.0 orientation, and identifies some of the tensions that must be negotiated in bringing these worlds together. It then describes how these design principles are interpreted in Cohere, a web tool for social bookmarking, idea-linking, and argument visualization.
    01/2008;

Full-text

Download
26 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014