Knowledge Federation as Hypermedia Discourse
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Knowledge Federation as Hypermedia Discourse

on

  • 2,706 views

Presentation at Knowledge Federation 2008, Dubrovnik

Presentation at Knowledge Federation 2008, Dubrovnik

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,706
Views on SlideShare
2,701
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
39
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://debategraph.org 4
http://metamaps.cc 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Knowledge Federation as Hypermedia Discourse Knowledge Federation as Hypermedia Discourse Presentation Transcript

  • Knowledge Federation 2008, Dubrovnik, 20-22 Oct Knowledge Federation as Hypermedia Discourse Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute The Open University Milton Keynes, UK www.kmi.open.ac.uk/people/sbs sbs@acm.org Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License © Simon Buckingham Shum 1
  • About me ! Psychology -> Ergonomics -> Human- Computer Interaction -> Hypermedia -> Design Rationale -> Organisational Memory -> Collaboration Tools -> eLearning/ePublishing/eScience --> Sensemaking and Collective Intelligence Work in Knowledge Media Institute at Open U., Europe’s largest university (>220,000 students/yr) based in Milton Keynes © Simon Buckingham Shum 2
  • The Challenge
  • Our context (1) “I want to talk about the challenge of our generation. […] Our challenge, our generation’s unique challenge, is learning to live peacefully and sustainably in an extraordinarily crowded world. “The way of solving problems requires one fundamental change, a big one, and that is learning that the challenges of our generation are not us versus them, they are not us versus Islam, us versus the terrorists, us versus Iran, they are us, all of us together on this planet against a set of shared and increasingly urgent problems.” Je!rey Sachs: 2007 Reith Lectures http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007 © Simon Buckingham Shum 4
  • Our context (2) “With these “minds”, a person will be well equipped to deal with what is expected, as well as with what cannot be anticipated; without these minds, a person will be at the mercy of forces that he or she can’t understand, let alone control. “The disciplined mind… the synthesizing mind… the creating mind… the respectful mind… the ethical mind.” Howard Gardner: Five Minds for the Future. Harvard Univ. Press, 2006: p.2 © Simon Buckingham Shum 5
  • What I may have to o!er
  • What I may have to o!er… Human-centred hypermedia perspective on knowledge structuring and its literacy Some elements of a prototype KF infrastructure? Access to communities and research resources to develop and test KF ideas © Simon Buckingham Shum 7
  • Ideas
  • Ideas… Foundations for Civilization… Weapons of Mass Destruction… © Simon Buckingham Shum 9
  • Ideas… (aren’t everything) So what’s he got that I haven’t got? © Simon Buckingham Shum 10
  • Significance
  • Ideas… Foundations for Civilization… Weapons of Mass Destruction… © Simon Buckingham Shum 12
  • Significance?… =? © Simon Buckingham Shum 13
  • Significance?… = ? © Simon Buckingham Shum 14
  • Significance?… = ? http://flickr.com/photos/pewari/354960548 http://flickr.com/photos/voetmann/274550156 © http://flickr.com/photos/notorious_indian/540058288 Simon Buckingham Shum 15
  • Significance?… context =? © Simon Buckingham Shum 16
  • Significance?… =? =? =? =? =? =? =? © Simon Buckingham Shum 17
  • Significance?… = © Simon Buckingham Shum 18
  • Significance?… = © Simon Buckingham Shum 19
  • Hypermedia Discourse Research published claims and arguments as hypermedia discourse networks Scaffold emergent models of contested worlds by scaffolding team deliberations discourse as hypermedia about them… discourse networks © Simon Buckingham Shum 20
  • Sense / Making
  • Sensemaking “Sensemaking is about such things as placement of items into frameworks, comprehending, redressing surprise, constructing meaning, interacting in pursuit of mutual understanding, and patterning.” Karl Weick, 1995, p.6 Sensemaking in Organizations © Simon Buckingham Shum 22
  • In sensemaking communities Ideas and ways to argue truth/plausibility are of first order importance © Simon Buckingham Shum 23
  • In sensemaking communities Ideas and ways to argue truth/plausibility are of first order importance Representations externalise and distribute cognition, mediate discourse, negotiate boundaries © Simon Buckingham Shum 24
  • In sensemaking communities Ideas and ways to argue truth/plausibility are of first order importance Representations externalise and distribute cognition, mediate discourse, negotiate boundaries Arguably, social computing for sensemaking will make it easy to share and annotate representations and overlay conceptual and social networks © Simon Buckingham Shum 25
  • Knowledge Cartography ! “Maps are one of the oldest forms of human communication. Map-making, like painting, pre-dates both number systems and written language. Primitive peoples made maps to orientate themselves in both the living environment and the spiritual worlds. Mapping enabled them to transcend the limitations of private, individual representations of terrain in order to augment group planning, reasoning and memory. Shared, visual representations opened new possibilities for focusing collective attention, re-living the past, envisaging new scenarios, coordinating actions and making decisions.” (Okada et al, 2008) © Simon Buckingham Shum 26
  • Knowledge Cartography 1. Clarify the intellectual moves and commitments at di!erent levels. (e.g. Which concepts are seen as more abstract? What relationships are legitimate? What are the key issues? What evidence is being appealed to?) 2. Incorporate further contributions from others, whether in agreement or not. The map is not closed, but rather, has a!ordances designed to make it easy for others to extend and restructure it. 3. Provoke, mediate, capture and improve constructive discourse. This is central to sensemaking in unfamiliar or contested domains, in which the primary challenge is to construct plausible narratives about how the world was, is, or might be, often in the absence of complete, unambiguous data. © Simon Buckingham Shum 27
  • An Approach
  • In a nutshell… Knowledge Federation research has most value to add in contested, poorly understood domains We have to talk… KF infrastructure is intrinsically Social as well as Technical. We need to understand the di!erent kinds of discourse we must support © Simon Buckingham Shum 29
  • Sensemaking Infrastructure …Beyond Annotation and Tagging <movies/demos to illustrate approaches>
  • • personal or group concept mapping • real time meeting Compendium capture • participatory modelling • discourse as semantic hypertext
  • Discourse grounded in Horst Rittel’s IBIS: Issue-Based Information System © Simon Buckingham Shum 32
  • Key elements of Compendium • Shared visual display • Simple notation • Template patterns • Node transclusions Knowledge • Tagging • Hypermedia Media • Interoperability with other data, services and user interfaces Modelling Practitioner skills Frameworks e.g. • Cognitive skills to chunk and link ideas e.g. (Buckingham Shum) • IBIS • Dialogue Mapping (Conklin) • CommonKADS • Conversational Modelling (Sierhuis & Selvin) • World Modelling • Participatory Hypermedia Construction • Critical Systems Heuristics (Selvin) © Simon Buckingham Shum 33
  • Compendium: hypertext discourse mapping/conceptual modelling © Simon Buckingham Shum 34
  • Compendium: hypertext discourse mapping/conceptual modelling © Simon Buckingham Shum 35
  • Compendium: Descendent of gIBIS © Simon Buckingham Shum 36
  • Modelling using Issue-templates
  • Modelling organisational processes in Compendium using a Template © Simon Buckingham Shum 38
  • Completing a Compendium template © Simon Buckingham Shum 39
  • Generating Custom Documents and Diagrams from Compendium Templates Field Integrated/ Deviations/ Specific Installation Assignable Approvals Revised Changes Assignments Details/ Inventory Requirements (Engr Sched) /Assignment Specs/NDO Notice (E1) List Build Assignable Inventory Assignable Inventory © Simon Buckingham Shum 40
  • Structure management in Compendium ! Associative linking nodes in a shared context connected by graphical Map links ! Categorical membership nodes in di!erent contexts connected by common attributes via metadata Tags ! Hypertextual Transclusion reuse of the same node in di!erent views ! Templates reuse of the same structure in di!erent views ! HTML, XML and RDF data exports for interoperability ! Java and SQL interfaces to add services © Simon Buckingham Shum 41
  • Heuristic for balanced Dialogue Mapping (from Je! Conklin’s book “Dialogue Mapping”, 2003) © Simon Buckingham Shum 42
  • Using Compendium for personnel recovery planning Example of Conversational Modelling: real time dialogue mapping combined with model driven templates (AI+IA) Co-OPR Project (with Austin Tate): http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/co-opr
  • Mission Briefing: Intent template Answers to template issues provided in the JTFC Briefing. Answers may be constrained by predefined options, as specified in the XML schema © Simon Buckingham Shum 44
  • Capturing political deliberation/rationale Dialogue Map capturing the planners’ discussion of this option © Simon Buckingham Shum 45
  • Planning Engine input to Compendium Issues on which the I-X planning engine provided candidate Options © Simon Buckingham Shum 46
  • Modelling a document corpus: The Iraq Debate © Simon Buckingham Shum http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/compendium/iraq 47
  • Annotating a document corpus: Chomsky’s article in the Iraq Debate © Simon Buckingham Shum http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/compendium/iraq 48
  • Large scale NASA e-science field trials: Interoperability with other databases, software agents and collaboration tools www.kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/coakting/nasa Clancey, W.J., Sierhuis, M., Alena, R., Berrios, D., Dowding, J., Graham, J.S., Tyree, K.S., Hirsh, R.L., Garry, W.B., Semple, A., Buckingham Shum, S.J., Shadbolt, N. and Rupert, S. (2005). “Automating CapCom Using Mobile Agents and Robotic Assistants.” 1st Space Exploration Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 31 Jan-1 Feb, 2005, Orlando, FL. Available from: AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc [CD-ROM]: Reston, VA, and as Advanced Knowledge Technologies ePrint 375: http://eprints.aktors.org/375
  • © Simon Buckingham Shum 50 Image Credits--- Mars: NASA/JPL/MSSS; Earth: NASA/JSC; Composite: MSSS
  • NASA e-science field trials (2004 and 2005) Distributed Mars-Earth planning and data analysis tools for Mars Habitat field trial in Utah desert, supported from US+UK © Simon Buckingham Shum www.kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/coakting/nasa 51
  • NASA Mobile Agents Architecture © Simon Buckingham Shum 52
  • Collaboration Configuration Compendium used as a collaboration medium at all intersections: humans+agents, reading+writing maps Scientist Software Agent (Earth) Architecture (Mars) Scientist Scientist Scientist Scientist (Earth) (Earth) (Mars) (Mars) RST-telecon-2005-04-11.i.avi 00:49:08 © Simon Buckingham Shum 53
  • NASA testbed: Compendium activity plans for surface exploration, constructed by scientists on ‘Earth’, interpreted by software agents on ‘Mars’ Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission The Compendium nodes and relationships in this plan were interpreted by Brahms software agents for monitoring and coordinating astronaut and robot activity during surface explorations. RST-telecon-2005-04-11.i.avi © Simon Buckingham Shum 54 1:11:57
  • CoAKTinG NASA testbed: Compendium science data map, generated by software agents, for interpretation by Mars+Earth scientists Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission The Compendium maps were autonomously created and populated with science data by Brahms software agents that use models of the © Simon Buckingham work process, data flow and science data relationships to create the maps. mission plan, Shum 55
  • CoAKTinG NASA testbed: Compendium-based photo analysis by geologists on ‘Mars’ Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used © Simon Buckingham Shum without permission 56
  • NASA testbed: Compendium scientific feedback map from Earth scientists to Mars colleagues Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used © Simon Buckingham Shum without permission 57
  • Using Compendium to map and automatically index replayable video conferences CoAKTinG Project: www.aktors.org/coakting Memetic Project: www.memetic-vre.net e-Dance project: kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/e-dance
  • Collaborative sensemaking in e-Science: Meeting Replay tool for Earth scientists, synchronising video of Mars crew’s discussion as they annotate their mission plans Copyright, 2004, RIACS/NASA Ames, Open University, Southampton University Not to be used without permission NASA MR Clip: 00:50 © Simon Buckingham Shum 59
  • Memetic Meeting Replay The CoAKTinG project’s results are now mainstreamed in the Access Grid by the JISC Memetic VRE project © Simon Buckingham Shum 60
  • Memetic Meeting Replay The CoAKTinG project’s results are now mainstreamed in the Access Grid by the JISC Memetic VRE project © Simon Buckingham Shum 61
  • Embedding time/location-dependent semantic annotations inside video clips using Compendium © Simon Buckingham Shum 62
  • Compendium ‘literacy’? …understanding how to write, read, talk and think in hypermedia IBIS …approaches from consultancy in the field, and video analysis in the lab…
  • Literacy: significant user community www.CompendiumInstitute.org www.CompendiumInstitute.org © Simon Buckingham Shum 64
  • Literacy: Cognitive task analysis ! Cognitive tasks involved in using a graphical argumentation scheme (Buckingham Shum 1996) ! A!ordances of graphical DR for coordinating group design (Buckingham Shum et al 1997)
  • Literacy: the craft skill of IBIS mapping in meetings: “Dialogue Mapping” Je! Conklin: CogNexus Institute: www.CogNexus.org © Simon Buckingham Shum 66
  • Literacy: expertise analysis (Albert Selvin) ! What is the nature of expert human performance in creating and modifying real time conceptual structures for groups? ! The NASA knowledge mapper role: Conventional ! Listening and interpreting facilitation ! Intervening in ‘normal’ conversation flow skills ! Getting validation for captured material ! Building hypertext representations on Knowledge the fly media ! Interrelating data and objects facilitation ! Adding metadata skills ! Software-specific skills Aesthetic and Ethical Implications of Participatory Hypermedia Practice: First Year Report Selvin, A. (2005), Technical Report KMI-05-17, Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK © Simon Buckingham Shum 67
  • • Web publishing of Scholarly scholarly claims and Ontologies argumentation • discourse as semantic Project hypertext Will scientific publishing in 2020 still depend solely on the reading, writing, and discovery of written texts? What might a more network-centric complement look like?
  • In Gutenberg’s shadow (or standing on his shoulders) Newspapers + Invisible Colleges = Scholarly Journals Le Journal des Sçavans Philosophical Transactions of January 1665 the Royal Society of London © Simon Buckingham Shum March 1665 69
  • Jumping forward 343 years… Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Digital Research Discourse? Computational Thinking Seminar Series, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 25 Apr. 2007. http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse/docs/Simon-Edin-CompThink.pdf © Simon Buckingham Shum 70
  • 2007: Ideas are now digital …digital paper! © Simon Buckingham Shum 71
  • What if we could get search results like this?… “What is the Turing Debate?” One of seven maps in the Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think? Series. MacroVU Press. www.macrovu.com (Horn, 2003; Yoshimi, 2006) © Simon Buckingham Shum 72
  • Horn (zoomed in) MacroVU Press. www.macrovu.com © Simon Buckingham Shum 73
  • Beyond document citations… These annotations are freeform summaries of an idea, as one would find in researchers’ Making formal connections journals, fieldnotes, lit. review notes or between ideas creates a blog entries semantic citation network —> novel literature navigation, “People try to maximise querying and visualization their rate of gaining “Information scent information” models” Method “Web User Flow by applies Theory “Information Information Scent foraging (WUFIS)” Claim theory” ? Paper: “The Scent of a Site: A System for Analyzing and Predicting Information Scent, Usage, and Usability of a Web Site” Addressable triple which can be contested Paper: “Information e.g. supported/challenged foraging” © Simon Buckingham Shum 74
  • Scholarly discourse as CKS… Connecting freeform tags with naturalistic connections (“dialects”) grounded in a formal set of relations (from semiotics and coherence relations) © Simon Buckingham Shum 75
  • How to help scholars engage in CKS? Pilot study: paper-based literature modelling S. Buckingham Shum, V. Uren, G. Li, B. Sereno, and C. Mancini. Computational Modelling of Naturalistic Argumentation in Research Literatures: Representation and Interaction Design Issues. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1):17–47, 2006 © Simon Buckingham Shum 76
  • How to help scholars engage in CKS? From paper prototype to semiformal mapping tool ! The ClaiMapper tool Starting from paper-based modelling, move from literature sketches… …to formal argument maps Evaluated in: V. Uren, S. Buckingham Shum, G. Li, and M. Bachler. Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5):420–445, 2006 © Simon Buckingham Shum 77
  • How to help scholars engage in CKS? Pilot study: paper-based annotation Pilot study reported in: B. Sereno, S. Buckingham Shum, and E. Motta. (2005). ClaimSpotter: an Environment to Support Sensemaking with Knowledge Triples. Proc. Int. Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 199–206, ACM © Simon Buckingham Shum 78
  • How to help scholars engage in CKS? ! The ClaimSpotter annotation tool: Web 2.0-style tagging with optional community/system tag recommendations © Simon Buckingham Shum 79
  • “Semantic del.icio.us”: KMi’s ClaimSpotter assigning and linking freeform tags Sereno, B., Buckingham Shum, S. and Motta, E. (2007). Formalization, User Strategy and Interaction Design: Users’ Behaviour with Discourse Tagging Semantics. Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge, 16th Int. World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), Banff, 8-12 May 2007. http://www2007.org/workshops/paper_30.pdf © Simon Buckingham Shum 80
  • Interaction Design how behaviour is shaped by the tool’s a!ordances ! ‘Flip’ left/right tags to match the link type © Simon Buckingham Shum 81
  • Visualising claims and arguments When multiple analysts annotate web documents via a server, they can generate a shared view of how they see the field, and where they agree/disagree © Simon Buckingham Shum claimfinder.open.ac.uk 82
  • “Semantic Google Scholar” KMi’s ClaimFinder © Simon Buckingham Shum 83
  • Semantic Literature Analysis [ClaimFinder expt: 1:59:17] Problem: “What advantages and disadvantages does CiteSeer have compared to the ISI citation databases?” Victoria Uren, Simon Buckingham Shum, Michelle Bachler, Gary Li, (2006) Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, Vol.64, 5, (420-445). © Simon Buckingham Shum 84
  • “What papers contrast with this paper?” 1. Extract concepts for this document 2. Trace concepts on which they build 3. Trace concepts challenging this set 4. Show root documents © Simon Buckingham Shum 85
  • Focusing on a concept incoming+outgoing links © Simon Buckingham Shum 86
  • “Semantic Google Scholar” KMi’s ClaimFinder © Simon Buckingham Shum 87
  • Lineage tree (the roots of a concept) © Simon Buckingham Shum 88
  • ClaiMaker literacy: searching for negative links EvalStudy Clip: 00:01:10 © Simon Buckingham Shum 89
  • Indicators of ClaiMaker literacy? Victoria Uren, Simon Buckingham Shum, Michelle Bachler, Gary Li, (2006) Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and User Evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, Vol.64, 5, (420-445). © Simon Buckingham Shum 90
  • Example: ‘argumentation’ on YouTube Movie posted by National Front on YouTube to demonstrate their activities Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm © Simon Buckingham Shum 91
  • Example: a “scientific argument” on National Front website www.natfront.com/prejudic.html Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm © Simon Buckingham Shum 92
  • Mapping the structure of the National Front’s “negro intelligence” argument © Simon Buckingham Shum 93
  • Refuting the NF “negro intelligence” argument using argument mapping Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm © Simon Buckingham Shum 94
  • Refuting the NF “negro intelligence” argument using argument mapping Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm © Simon Buckingham Shum 95
  • Importing an Argumentation Scheme as an IBIS template compendium.open.ac.uk © Simon Buckingham Shum 96
  • Refuting the NF “negro intelligence” argument using argument mapping The structure of an “Argument from Bias” can be exposed.. The structure of an “Argument from Analogy” can be exposed.. © Simon Buckingham Shum 97
  • Template for an “Argument from Analogy” Buckingham Shum, S. (2007). Undermining Mimetic Contagion on the Net: Argumentation Tools as Critical Voices. COV&R 2007: Colloquium on Violence & Religion, Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit July, 4-8 2007 http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/girard/c/c2007_Buckingham-Shum_Simon_abstract.htm © Simon Buckingham Shum 98
  • Template for an “Argument from Analogy” Instantiating the “Argument from Analogy” template © Simon Buckingham Shum 99
  • Cohere: Web 2.0 mapping of Ideas
  • Ideas as embeddable social objects, overlayed on a social network http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/sbs/2008/10/science-web2-social-notworking cohereweb.net © Simon Buckingham Shum 101
  • Sensemaking on the Social Web ! Connected via the Open U’s SocialLearn API, they could smoothly exchange important learner-centric data API API API API © Simon Buckingham Shum 102
  • SocialLearn - from 30,000 feet… Micro 2Learner Learner micro-blog your manage your thoughts, learning goals learning goals • Identity and resources SocialLearn • Portfolio server • Activity History and Website • Social Network Cohere cohereweb.net manage connections between learning goals/resources/ideas © Simon Buckingham Shum 103
  • International Devpt. examples
  • Visual software for dialogue and sensemaking ! International Labour Organisation: The UN specialized agency promoting social justice and human and labour rights ! Annual Learning Conference to review its HIV/AIDS in the Workplace Programme ! Compendium was used to capture, integrate and annotate a week’s discussions sharing and debating best practices, creating a visual Web database © Simon Buckingham Shum 105
  • Visual capture of ILO success stories © Simon Buckingham Shum 106
  • ! World Vision International: global relief and development agency ! Reviewing its quality control programme through an international series of workshops ! Compendium was used to classify and connect the key ideas creating a visual Web database © Simon Buckingham Shum 107
  • Visual database of WVI workshop feedback © Simon Buckingham Shum 108
  • Upcoming Testbeds (candidate KF testbeds?…)
  • Global Sensemaking network ! www.GlobalSensemaking.net ! Online deliberation technology ! Particular focus on climate change © Simon Buckingham Shum 110
  • ESSENCE: E-Science/Sensemaking/Climate Change ! Challenge: bring together deliberation tool developers/researchers* with climate change experts ! Engage in meaningful debate ! Reflect on process at f-f conference (Apr 2009) ! Improve how climate science debate is conducted ! www.GlobalSensemaking.net © Simon Buckingham Shum 111
  • OLnet: Open Learning Network (proposal under review) ! Challenge: develop a sociotechnical infrastructure to catalyse and sca!old an emergent research community ! Domain: Open Educ. Resources ! How to nurture social and conceptual networks to pool our collective intelligence in a field? ! Go beyond wikis or Freebase ! Layers of evidence in di!erent modalities ! Explicit support for contesting claims © Simon Buckingham Shum 112
  • Minds + Hearts
  • In conclusion… ! YES… we are certainly interested in improving information management, sharpening critical thinking and promoting sound argumentation ! BUT… these are only part of the story. Those who are engaged in conflict resolution remind us that the key to making true progress is to establish the context for open dialogue in which stakeholders learn to listen to each other properly, and co-construct new realities (Isaacs, 1999; Kahane, 2004). ! We need both critical thinking and open listening as we strive collectively to make sense of, and act on, the complexities and controversies now facing us. © Simon Buckingham Shum 114