An online-plattform for facilitated argument visualization


Published on

Presentation for ODET 2010, Leeds

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

An online-plattform for facilitated argument visualization

  1. 1. A moderated online-plattform for visualized argumentation ODET 2010, Leeds Ralf Groetker
  2. 2. The recipe Argument visualization + Moderation / Embedding + Community Organizing =
  3. 3. Moderation / Embedding ● Developping a story-line for a debate ● Embedding debate-maps within a blog-like website. Participation via comments. ● Contrasting visualizations and narrative text ● Recruiting stakeholders and leading experts ● Commenting on the evolution of a debate ● Enhancing the debate with polls and other actions
  4. 4. Example: „Information failure“
  5. 5. Example: Volcano Ashes (1) Argument maps are embedded into blogposts
  6. 6. Example: Volcano Ashes (2) ● A debate is transformed in an argument starting with a contention ● Contributions to the debate appear as supporting (or attacking) statements for a claim
  7. 7. Use of maps ● The map is constructed in an adversarial style ● We make use of „show more“ (details function) ● Within the argument map, there are links to topic and dialog maps on sub-topics ● There are also maps with – protagonists of the debate – a timeline of events
  8. 8. The website ● Several blogposts lead through the topic and the main map. ● Latest comments are displayed ● Reference material on the topic of the debate is available via delicious
  9. 9. Assumptions (1) Business modell: ● Starting point: Many people might like to use a public debate-website. But only some are willing to contribute. ● We assume that motivating people to contribute will pose greater problems than dealing with spam ● The role of the moderator is very important. But moderation must be paid. ● We are sellling public debates, e.g. to science organizations
  10. 10. Assumptions (2) „Wickedness is not enough“: Some topics will be more apt for collective deliberation than others. Some important factors: ● The outcome of a debate must have some practical relevance ● Means/end-discussion will be easier than fundamtal dispute ● Local knowledge or special expertise is necessary ● Conflicts must seem resolvable
  11. 11. Assumptions (3) Argumentation- and dialogue tools are rather complex. How can overcome the limits resulting from this fact? ● It‘s never going to be as easy to use as Google. ● Embedding will help to lead readers through a map. ● We make commenting and contributing easier by adding a traditional comments-section
  12. 12. Software-requirements ● Online-display ● „Details“ function ● Easy navigation and orientation ● Allowing dialogue- as well als argument mapping ● Linkage options ● Possibility to render co-premisses ● Individual icons and images
  13. 13. What‘s in it...for readers? (1) Ever wanted to know how to prepare sepia in a pressure cooker? Or to find out why your newly- installed printer delivers pages full of lines like “?¤ €8?÷¿”? Google, of course, will lead you to some online community where exactly this is being discussed.
  14. 14. What‘s in it … for readers? (2) However, what if you want to get an impression about the arguments, the pros and cons, used in a contemporary debate, say, on the issue of prolonged military engagement in Iraq or a ban on speculation? A simple web search won’t help you much. There are, however, sites with discussions. But who wants to read twenty or more pages with comments, much of them addressing the same points over and over again?
  15. 15. Whats in it … for readers? (3) Instruments for the visualization of debates like the ones we use on this site have the potential to solve this problem. Debate-maps that reconstruct the logical structure of a discussion tell you at a glance which topics have been brought up in a discussion and how they relate to each other.
  16. 16. What‘s in it...for contributors? Stakeholders will be able to collect evidence and arguments supporting their position – and answering objections and questions brought up by opponents. The growing map itself is published under a creative common licence. Participants (and others) can re-publish the map on their own website.
  17. 17. What‘s in it...for sponsors? The greater part of the debates will be sponsored by scientific organisations and publishing companies. As a sponsor, you can propose a topic for discussion and establish yourself as a source of expertise in the field. The controversial and open style of the site will be a much more trustworthy way of communicating ‚risky‘ topics to the public than established formats of seeking public understanding of science.
  18. 18. What‘s in it... for sponsors? (2) Sponsored debates can either be part of a site with several ongoing discussions or be accessible through a separate website devoted to a single topic. Contact us for more details.
  19. 19. End Thanks four your attention! Ralf Groetker