Advertisement

Extracting Conflict Models from Interaction Traces in Virtual Collaborative Work

  • Guangxuan Zhang
  • Yilu Zhou
  • Sandeep Purao
  • Heng Xu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11158)

Abstract

This paper develops a model of conflicts that relies on extracting text and argument features from traces of interactions in collaborative work. Much prior research about collaborative work is aimed at improving the support for virtual work. In contrast, we are interested in detecting conflicts in collaborative work because conflict undetected can escalate and cause disruptions to productive work. It is a difficult problem because it requires untangling conflict-related interactions from normal interactions. Few models or methods are available for this purpose. The extracted features, interpreted with the help of foundational theories, suggests a conceptual model of conflicts that include categories of argumentation such as reasoning and modality; and informative language features. We illustrate the extraction approach and the model with a dataset from Bugzilla. The paper concludes with a discussion of evaluation possibilities and potential implications of the approach for detecting and managing conflicts in collaborative work.

Keywords

Conflict Conflict detection Argumentation Online collaboration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work reported has been funded by the National Science Foundation under award number CNS 1551004. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF). We also acknowledge the commentary from the review team that has helped us refine the paper.

References

  1. Abbasi, A., et al.: Metafraud: a meta-learning framework for detecting financial fraud. Mis Q. 36(4), 1293–1327 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. Barcellini, F., et al.: A study of online discussions in an open-source software community. In: Van Den Besselaar, P., et al. (eds.) Communities and Technologies 2005, pp. 301–320. Springer, Netherlands (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3591-8_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bex, F., et al.: Implementing the argument web. Commun. ACM 56(10), 66–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brabham, D.C.: Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving an introduction and cases. Convergence 14(1), 75–90 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bricker, L.A., Bell, P.: Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Sci. Educ. 92(3), 473–498 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, Y., et al.: Detecting offensive language in social media to protect adolescent online safety. In: International Conference Social Computing (SocialCom), pp. 71–80 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. Clark, D.B., Sampson, V.: Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45(3), 293–321 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conrad, A., et al.: Recognizing arguing subjectivity and argument tags. In: Proceedings of ExProM 2012, Stroudsburg, pp. 80–88 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. Eemeren, F.H., et al.: Argumentation : Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Routledge, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  10. Hinds, P.J., Mortensen, M.: Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams. Organ. Sci. 16(3), 290–307 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu, M., Liu, B.: Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2004, vol. 04, p. 168 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, N.A., Cooper, R.B.: Power and concession in computer-mediated negot: an examination of first offers. Mis Q. 33(1), 147–170 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knott, A., Dale, R.: Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Rhetorical Relations Human Communication Research Centre. University of Edinburgh, Scotland (1993)Google Scholar
  14. Levy, R. et al.: Context Dependent Claim Detection. In: Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Dublin, pp. 1489–1500 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. Lippi, M., Torroni, P.: Argument Mining: A Machine Learning Perspective. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9524, pp. 163–176. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malone, T.W., Crowston, K.: The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput. Surv. 26(1), 87–119 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manning, C.D., et al.: The stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In: ACL (System Demonstrations), pp. 55–60 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. Mochales, R., Moens, M.F.: Argumentation mining. Artif. Intell. Law 19(1), 1–22 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moens, M.-F., et al.: Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In: Proceedings of ICAIL 2007, New York, pp. 225–230 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. Ozyurt, I.B.: Automatic identification and classification of noun argument structures in biomedical literature. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 9(6), 1639–1648 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palau, R.M., Moens, M.-F.: Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In: Proceedings of ICAIL 2009, pp. 98–107. New York (2009)Google Scholar
  22. Purao, S., Woo, C.: Conceptual modeling: going beyond the stigma of YAMA. SIGSAND Workshop, May 2014, St. Louis, MI (2014)Google Scholar
  23. Purao, S., et al.: A modeling language for conceptual design of systems integration solutions. ACM Trans. Mis. Forthcoming (2018, Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  24. Schneider, J.: Automated argumentation mining to the rescue? Envisioning argumentation and decision-making support for debates in open online collaboration communities. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 59–63 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. Somasundaran, S., Wiebe, J.: Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, pp. 116–124, June 2010Google Scholar
  26. Stab, C., Gurevych, I.: Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 46–56 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. Thomas, K.: Conflict and negotiation process in organizations. In: Dunnette, M.D., Hough, L.M. (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 651–717. Consulting Psychologists Press (1992)Google Scholar
  28. Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang, J., Shih, P.C., Carroll, J.M.: Revisiting Linus’s law: benefits and challenges of open source software peer review. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 77, 52–65 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yates, S.J.: Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In: Herring, S.C. (ed.) Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-cultural Perspectives, pp. 29–46. John Benjamins Publishing Co. (1996)Google Scholar
  32. Zhang, G., Purao, S.: CM2: a case-based conflict management system. In: Tremblay, M.C., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Gupta, A., Yoon, V. (eds.) DESRIST 2014. LNCS, vol. 8463, pp. 257–272. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06701-8_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guangxuan Zhang
    • 1
  • Yilu Zhou
    • 2
  • Sandeep Purao
    • 3
  • Heng Xu
    • 4
  1. 1.MicrosoftRedmondUSA
  2. 2.Fordham UniversityNew York CityUSA
  3. 3.Bentley UniversityWalthamUSA
  4. 4.American UniversityWashington, D.C.USA

Personalised recommendations