ODET 2010: Online Deliberation Emerging Tools Workshop
                  Fourth International Conference on Online Deliber...
Our Approach

We investigate different aspects and issues of Public Participation in Urban
Planning and Decision-Making fo...
Two Research Strands


  Improving transparency:

 Supporting deliberation capturing and representation
 By recording del...
Two hypermedia tools to support
Moderated Vs Open Deliberation




  Compendium




               olnet.org
Two deliberation Models: Moderated
Deliberation VS Open Deliberation



          Compendium


Compendium supports a moder...
Argument Maps vs
Dynamic Collective Claims maps



      Compendium

Deliberation result is a discourse   Deliberation res...
Challenges:
Coherence vs Open Participation


      Compendium

On one side moderated argument     On one hand enabling th...
For Moderated Deliberation
Compendium




              olnet.org
Social View
Exploration Path
Dialogical/Argumentative View
Geographical View of Deliberation contents
Design Rational View backed on deliberation contents
Temporal View of Deliberation contents
Open Deliberation model




Watch the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthygbKA2Mg
Creating structure



Compendium




              Crowdsourcing
              participation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

De Liddo - ODET 2010: Online Deliberation Emerging Tools Workshop

1,131 views
1,061 views

Published on

Presentation for ODET 2010: Online Deliberation Emerging Tools (Leeds, 30 June), a workshop co-located with the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation (30 June–2 July, 2010).

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,131
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
49
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

De Liddo - ODET 2010: Online Deliberation Emerging Tools Workshop

  1. 1. ODET 2010: Online Deliberation Emerging Tools Workshop Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation (Leeds, 30 June–2 July, 2010) Moderated VS Open Deliberation: Hypermedia Technologies to Enhance Public Participation Anna De Liddo & Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute Open University, UK a.deliddo@open.ac.uk ; S.Buckingham.Shum@open.ac.uk olnet.org
  2. 2. Our Approach We investigate different aspects and issues of Public Participation in Urban Planning and Decision-Making focusing on the key role of  deliberation practice,  deliberation tracking and  deliberation representation to enable more effective public participation. We look at Hypermedia discourse technologies to help move us from a deliberation process which is often ephemeral, ill-structured and disempowering, to deliberation which is persistent, more coherent and participatory.
  3. 3. Two Research Strands  Improving transparency: Supporting deliberation capturing and representation By recording deliberation and discourse digitally to make it possible to interrogate later on and use deliberation contents to actively inform decision making  Empowering Community voices and ideas: Facilitating Open Public Inquiry and Collective Intelligence By developing a “virtual agora” for open public inquiry on common policy issues
  4. 4. Two hypermedia tools to support Moderated Vs Open Deliberation Compendium olnet.org
  5. 5. Two deliberation Models: Moderated Deliberation VS Open Deliberation Compendium Compendium supports a moderated Cohere supports an open deliberation deliberation model in which a facilitator/ model in which issues are created and mapper interprets deliberations (either live or discussed without pre-defined communication post-hoc) in order to create hypermedia maps by language, without facilitation and in an open naming, classifying, linking and summarizing deliberation environment. deliberation contents. All participants have equal editing privileges, and The mapper is entrusted to create coherent create together new ideas, raise issues, ask argument maps out of several dialogues and questions, provide answers and propose deliberation processes. arguments and counterarguments with an open semantic framework (not necessarily IBIS). olnet.org
  6. 6. Argument Maps vs Dynamic Collective Claims maps Compendium Deliberation result is a discourse Deliberation result is a Collective arguments map, which is crafted Claims map, which is a dynamic by the information/knowledge map of claims cooperatively manager; who facilitate by generated by many hands and  Selecting/Filtering watched by many eyes, and  Structuring continuously changing. This map  Highlighting is structured by an ongoing un-  Representating moderated debate and potentially deliberation contents. can involve all citizens. It is the dynamic result of an “open virtual agora”.
  7. 7. Challenges: Coherence vs Open Participation Compendium On one side moderated argument On one hand enabling the creation of mapping improves coherence unframed dynamic maps of claims, and unambiguity in the message cooperatively generated, opens up to who is communicated. wider participation, since it lowers usability and cognitive barriers users have to overcome to contribute to the conversation. On the other side it introduces an important level of discretion On the other hand it hampers coherence and increases noise since the mapper filters what is and ambiguity of what are relevant meant to be relevant to inform messages to inform decision-making. decision making.
  8. 8. For Moderated Deliberation Compendium olnet.org
  9. 9. Social View Exploration Path
  10. 10. Dialogical/Argumentative View
  11. 11. Geographical View of Deliberation contents
  12. 12. Design Rational View backed on deliberation contents
  13. 13. Temporal View of Deliberation contents
  14. 14. Open Deliberation model Watch the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthygbKA2Mg
  15. 15. Creating structure Compendium Crowdsourcing participation

×