What are the benefits and
challenges of mapping
debates with large groups?
This exploratory study reports on the use of
an online tool to map the collective
intelligence of 25 European projects during
an international event organised
by the ENGAGE team.
Alexandra Okada, Lia Rossi and Alexandre M Costa
Used to prepare the RRI Report
Andriessen, J., Baker, M. and Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to Learn. Kluwer.
Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping. Chichester: Wiley
Okada, A. et al. (2014) Knowledge Cartography Springer: London
Okada, A. et al. (2015) Responsible Research and Innovation & Science Education report http://engagingscience.eu
Sutcliffe, Hilary (2011). "A Report on Responsible Research & Innovation". London: Matter Business Group.
European Commission (2013). "Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation
De Liddo, A. & Bachler, M. (2014) LiteMap: online communities mapping tool. http://litemap.net
Eight maps were created.
Evidence from notes, comments
and interviews indicated that
LiteMap helps the community
evaluate the debate, structure
reports and visualise key issues
for extending the discussion with
new maps. These interactive maps
can be used as OER in blogs,
courses and workshops.
Used to identify key components
in the debate
Initially, mappers found
synchronous mapping of live
However, after the event,
they used the analytics
visualisation to identify gaps
and notes from reporters to
update their maps.
Used to identify most
In each group:
• Facilitator focused on objectives
• Mapper created maps with LiteMap.
• Recorder transcribed the debate
• Reporter presented outcomes
• Curator captured interesting links
• Analyst elaborated the analysis
RRI Common language?
RRI informal learning?
Local action global thinking
Mapping debate with experts on Responsible Research & Innovation at
aims to equip 12.000
teachers and 300,000
students via OER &
MOOC on inquiries into
Three large groups with 50 European
projects coordinators and experts
Litemap was used to capture 25 European projects’ information, experts’ questions, the debate of three large groups and two plenary sessions