Advertisement

PolicyCommons — Visualizing Arguments in Policy Consultation

  • Neil Benn
  • Ann Macintosh
Conference paper
  • 922 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7444)

Abstract

PolicyCommons is a computer supported argument visualization tool to facilitate online deliberation on public policy. As such it supports the work of stakeholders by enabling them to navigate through arguments contained in relevant consultation and policy documents. These stakeholders include policy analysts, interest groups and the public. Specifically, PolicyCommons displays arguments about policies as browsable debate maps. Users can browse these debate maps and follow links from the visual summaries of the arguments back to the original policy documents. Thus, PolicyCommons is designed to help users make sense of the range of publicly expressed opinions about public policies. The major challenges we face in using argument visualization tools for online consultations can be clustered around the four main concepts of transparency, sense-making, readability and scalability, in this paper we show how we are addressing these challenges.

Keywords

e-participation online policy-deliberation argument visualization argument mapping 

References

  1. 1.
    Macintosh, A., Gordon, T.F., Renton, A.: Providing Argument Support for E-Participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6, 43–59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman, S., Blumler, J.G.: The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benn, N., Macintosh, A.: Argument Visualization for eParticipation: Towards a Research Agenda and Prototype Tool. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 60–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argument Schemes and Generalisations. Artificial Intelligence & Law 11, 125–165 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolb, D.: The Revenge of the Page (presented at the June 2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buckingham Shum, S.: Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation. In: 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pp. 97–108. IOS Press, Toulouse (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Liddo, A., Buckingham Shum, S.: Capturing and Representing Deliberation in Participatory Planning Practices. In: De Cindio, F., Macintosh, A., Peraboni, C. (eds.) From e-Participation to Online Deliberation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Online Deliberation (OD 2010), Leeds, UK, pp. 27–40 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J.: Issues as Elements of Information Systems (1970)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155–169 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bostock, M., Ogievetsky, V., Heer, J.: D3: Data-Driven Documents. In: IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics, Proc. InfoVis (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., Cartwright, D., Wyner, A.: Semantic models for policy deliberation. In: Ashley, K.D., van Engers, T.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 81–90 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wyner, A., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Towards a Structured Online Consultation Tool. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 286–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cartwright, D., Atkinson, K.: Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24, 42–52 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shneiderman, B.: Tree visualization with tree-maps: 2-d space-filling approach. ACM Trans. Graph. 11, 92–99 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Benn
    • 1
  • Ann Macintosh
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Communications StudiesUniversity of LeedsUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations