Providing Argument Support for E-Participation

This article was downloaded by: [University of Strathclyde]On: 31 October 2014, At: 02:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Information Technology & PoliticsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/witp20

Providing Argument Support for E-ParticipationAnn Macintosh a , Thomas F. Gordon b & Alastair Renton ca Centre for Digital Citizenship at the Institute of Communications Studies , University ofLeeds , UKb FOKUS , Berlin, Germanyc Teledemocracy Centre , Napier University , Edinburgh, UKPublished online: 04 Feb 2009.

To cite this article: Ann Macintosh , Thomas F. Gordon & Alastair Renton (2009) Providing Argument Support for E-Participation, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6:1, 43-59, DOI: 10.1080/19331680802662113

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680802662113

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/witp20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19331680802662113

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680802662113

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6:43–59, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1933-1681 print/1933-169X onlineDOI: 10.1080/19331680802662113

43

WITP

WORKBENCH NOTES

Providing Argument Support for E-ParticipationMacintosh, Gordon, and Renton Ann Macintosh

Thomas F. GordonAlastair Renton

ABSTRACT. As governments seek to consult their citizens over matters of policy, it becomesincreasingly important for citizens to receive relevant information in a medium that they can use, andwill want to use, in forming their opinion upon consultative issues. In e-participation, there is a clearrequirement to understand how technology can support informed debate on issues, but there are twomain obstacles in achieving this. The first is that the deliberation is often on complex issues, and there-fore typically there are many arguments and counter arguments to consider, which, when presented inlinear text, can be confusing for the public at large. Second, it is not obvious that many people actuallyhave the necessary critical thinking skills to deliberate on issues. Argumentation systems have beenused successfully in the domains of law and education, where they have been developed in response toa need for innovative and effective ways of teaching critical thinking, presenting and defending a pointof view, and providing complex information in an organized and easily accessible fashion. Theiruse in the political domain is only just emerging. The purpose of this article is to make clear howe-participation can gain from the use of argumentation systems.

KEYWORDS. Argumentation systems, digital democracy, e-participation, information andcommunication technology, online deliberation, public participation

Professor Ann Macintosh is Professor of Digital Governance and co-director of the Centre for Digital Citizen-ship at the Institute of Communications Studies, the University of Leeds in the UK. Her work in digital governancehas been both applied and conceptual; the aim has been not simply to develop applications using new media, but tounderstand their role in the complex infrastructures that support e-government. This has led to work on conceptu-alizing e-government that has influenced research and policy-making in the UK, Europe, and elsewhere.

Dr. Thomas F. Gordon is from Fraunhofer FOKUS in Berlin, Germany. He is a computer scientist andlawyer conducting applied computer science research on argumentation technology and related topics,including computational dialectics, mediation systems, artificial intelligence and law, and legal knowledgesystems, with the goal of providing support tools for argumentation, especially in the context of governance.

Dr. Alastair Renton is from the Teledemocracy Centre at Napier University in Edinburgh in the UK. He origi-nally studied philosophy and wrote a defense of materialism for a PhD at Edinburgh University. His softwareengineering MSc dissertation investigated the relevance of argument visualization techniques to political debates.

The collaboration and planning to write this article was undertaken within DEMO_net. DEMO_net is aNetwork of Excellence funded under the European Commission’s sixth framework program: InformationSociety Technologies IST (FP6-2004-27219).

Address correspondence to: Professor Ann Macintosh, Centre for Digital Citizenship, The Institute ofCommunications Studies, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK (E-mail: [email protected]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

44 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS

This article focuses specifically on the technol-ogy side of the interface between argumentationsystems and public deliberation or e-participation.However, in order to put the application of thetechnology into context, we first introduce theconcept of public deliberation on policy issuesand draw out the main characteristics of deliber-ative debate that the technology needs to support.

It has been argued forcibly by many politicalcommunication scientists and democratic theo-rists that public deliberation and discussion onpolitical issues are critical parts of our democ-racy, and that we have progressed from onlyvoting in elections to an era where reflectionand informed opinion by the public at large areessential components of political decision-making (e.g., Barber, 1984; Fishkin, 1991).They argue that deliberative engagement pro-cesses deliver positive effects on public opin-ion. The literature provides varied reports onthe conceptualization of deliberation; it canrefer both to individual and to collectiveactions, but underlying all descriptions is arequirement for rational thinking. As such,deliberation entails an individual or group ofindividuals to listen to, understand, and reflecton an issue and be prepared to change his or herown point of view based on the arguments ofothers. Barber (1984, p. 174), while presentingthe concept of strong democracy, argues thatdemocratic discussion “entails listening no lessthan speaking, it is affective as well as cogni-tive and its internationalism draws it out of purereflexion into the world of action.” Dryzek(2006, p. 27) expands this with “Deliberationonly becomes deliberative democracy to thedegree it provides opportunities for participa-tion by all those affected by a decision.”

Along with this substantial research base ofevidence on the need for a more deliberativestyle of democracy are numerous initiatives onoffline, public deliberative debate on problem-atic situations and complex issues. One mecha-nism well reported on is deliberative polls(Fishkin, 1991). The objective of deliberativepolling is to estimate what the public wouldthink about certain issues if it knew more, con-sidered more, and talked much more aboutthem and how that would differ from what theycurrently think about the same issues. A recent

project that asked Europeans to reflect on theissue of the enlargement of the European Unionillustrates the technique (Luskin, Fishkin,Boucher, & Monceau, 2008).

If we accept, as many authors have alreadyargued, that public deliberation and discussionon political issues are critical parts of ourdemocracy, then there is a need to investigatewhat role information and communication tech-nology can take to support such processes.Indeed the potential for technology to enhancedemocracy by increasing political participationhas been the subject of academic debate for anumber of years (e.g., Dutton, 1992).

Facilitation of online deliberation implies aneed for a technology-based environmentwhere there is support for the individual citizento access factual information, formulate opin-ions based on the views of others, contributehis or her own opinion, but also provide therationale behind his or her ideas with the neces-sary arguments, which in turn can be chal-lenged (Macintosh, 2007, p. 90). However, thecapacity of information and communicationtechnology to stimulate participation has notbeen as significant as was originally believed(Becker & Ohlin, 2006; Lusoli, Ward, &Gibson, 2006). Simply making a commentfacility or discussion forum available on theWeb does not necessarily make contributionsmore deliberative (Schlosberg, Zavestoski, &Shulman, 2007). Indeed, in their recent studyof the U.S. e-rulemaking project, these sameauthors argue that government agencies thatseek informed public comment using the Inter-net need to develop new ways to facilitatedeliberation (Schlosberg et al., 2007, p. 51).Elliman, Macintosh, and Irani (2007, p. 33)focus on the technological difficulties of thesituation when they say:

Democratic political participation mustinvolve both the means to be informedand deliberative mechanisms to take partin the decision-making. Deliberative ePar-ticipation is an information intensiveprocess, which needs to be interactive,incremental and dynamic. It requiresmeaningful messages to be extracted and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Macintosh, Gordon, and Renton 45

represented from large assemblages ofinformation produced by multiple stake-holders often with conflicting agendas.

Rather than accept defeat over the attempt touse technology to engage people in the policy-making process, the purpose of this article is topromote the case for exploiting the capacities ofa specific type of technology, namely argumen-tation systems, to facilitate online public delib-eration. Such systems exist outside the politicaldomain and have been used successfully in thedomains of law and education (Kirschner,Buckingham Shum, & Carr, 2003). They havebeen developed in response to a need for inno-vative and effective ways of teaching criticalthinking, presenting and defending a point ofview, and providing complex information in anorganized and easily accessible fashion. Theirfunction essentially is to enable people toappreciate practical problems in their entiretyand then articulate a reasoned solution, which isrequired for deliberation. This “deliberative”component is generally ill catered for in currentparticipation projects, which generally employgeneric groupware systems, such as discussionforums and online surveys, where specific tech-nical support for argumentation is not provided.

Argumentation systems are computer soft-ware applications for helping people to partici-pate in various kinds of goal-directed dialoguesin which arguments are exchanged. Bex,Prakken, Reed, and Walton (2003) divide argu-mentation support tools into two distinct types.The first type is those that contain knowledgeabout a problem domain and can performreasoning to suggest solutions to the problem.The second is those they term “sense-making”systems (Kirschner et al., 2003) that imposestructure on the problem, typically by usingvisualization techniques, as well as by support-ing communication/interaction between usersof the system. Since the goal of participation isto engage citizens in dialogues with govern-ment about such matters as public policy, plans,or legislation, where citizens are given anopportunity not only to offer suggestions, butalso to support these suggestions with argu-ments, the potential of argumentation systemsshould be readily apparent. Such systems sup-

port and facilitate the making of practical deci-sions, ensuring that the decision-makingprocess is efficient, transparent, open, fair, andrational. Not surprisingly, these issues havemuch in common with the goals of “good gov-ernance” and e-participation (Gordon, 2005;Malkia, Anttiroiko, & Savolainen, 2004). Thetheoretical subfield of computer science, whichstudies the foundations of argumentation sys-tems, is young and goes by many names, suchas computational models of (natural) argumen-tation or computational dialectics. Much workhas been conducted as part of artificial intelli-gence, especially in the interdisciplinary fieldof artificial intelligence and law.

To provide substance to the claim that argu-mentation systems can facilitate e-participation,this article is divided into four sections. Argu-mentation cannot be understood or evaluatedwithout some appreciation of the theory ofargumentation. Moreover, it is a requirement ofgood software engineering that tools should bebased on carefully considered computationalmodels of the application domain and its tasks.Accordingly, the first two parts are devoted tothe technological aspects of these systems. Thefirst section provides a brief introduction to thetheory of argumentation based on the work ofDouglas Walton (2006), while the followingsection introduces various efforts to developformal, computation models of argumentation.The third section aims to demonstrate howe-participation can benefit from argumentationsystems. This is done by describing a number ofargumentation support tools that have beenused to enhance an individual’s influence uponmatters of policy. The final section discussesthe situation to date and indicates some of theconstraints and limitations of argumentationsystems for e-participation.

ARGUMENTATION THEORY

An argument links a set of statements, thepremises, to another statement, the conclusion.The premises provide some kind of support forthe conclusion such that, if the premises areaccepted, then the argument, if it is a good one,lends some weight to the conclusion. The goal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


of argumentation is to determine the acceptabilityof claims, rather than their truth. Whereas logi-cal consequences are necessary by virtue oftheir form and irrespective of their content,arguments, in contrast, are substantive and“defeasible.” They are substantive because theydepend not only on the form of the premises,but also their content and acceptability. Theyare defeasible because their conclusions areonly plausible, not certain, and may be defeatedin various ways by, for example, providingsuperior counter-arguments, or by revealingimplicit premises that turn out to be untenable.

Considerable time has been spent in classifyingvarious patterns of argument, based on an anal-ysis of their structure and content as recon-structed from natural language texts. Thesepatterns of argument, historically rooted inAristotle’s Topics (Slomkowski, 1997), havecome to be called “argumentation schemes.”Although they are the result of empirical casestudies, they also have a normative side andhave been profitably applied in research (Reed& Walton, 2001). They are a useful tool in twoimportant respects: for guiding the reconstruc-tion of arguments put forward by other parties,so as to open them up to critical analysis andevaluation, and for constructing fresh argu-ments to put forward in support of one’s ownclaims, or to counter the arguments of others.These uses are clearly relevant to supportingdeliberative participation in judging betweencompeting policy options. Argument schemesmay be domain-dependent, and consequentlythere is an unlimited number of such schemes.Many schemes, however, are general purpose.Walton, Reed, and Macagno (2008) have takenon the task of collecting and classifying generalpurpose schemes. To date, their collection con-tains about 96 schemes, each scheme associatedwith a set of “critical questions” for evaluatingand challenging arguments used with thescheme. As many of these schemes are used inthe presentation of policy, this work is of poten-tial value to those involved in supporting citi-zen engagement. For example, one suchscheme is the “argument from expert opinion,”a type that is indispensable in providing aninformed view; however, it is also a type that isopen to abuse, such as when people pay

unquestioning regard for an opinion simplyby virtue of its source. Having the criticalquestions at hand, such as “is the expertbiased?,” helps segregate the valid advice fromthe prejudiced, and thereby supports the cre-ation of sound and impartial policies.

“Validity” is an important factor in theevaluation of arguments. An invalid argumentprovides no support for its conclusion, andthereby has no weight. Yet there is a problemwith defining validity. Walton’s theory of argu-mentation takes a contextual, procedural view ofargument validity: An argument is “valid” if andonly if it furthers the goals of the dialogue inwhich it is put forward. From this perspective,the validity of an argument can depend on thestate and history of the dialogue. To give a prac-tical example, an argument in favor of someproposal made during the brainstorming phaseof a deliberation might be valid during the pro-cess of selecting some of these brainstormingideas for a more in-depth evaluation in the nextphase of the deliberation, but not valid in thislater phase if this particular proposal had notbeen selected. Thus, the theory provides suffi-cient fluidity to capture the essentially complexnature of political discussion, which would bean impracticable task within a classical logicframework. Doing so provides a standard bywhich competing arguments can be assessedwhen attempting to find a secure footing uponthe shifting grounds of the political landscape.

Another feature of argumentation systems isdialogue types. Dialogue types in argumentationtheory are normative models of communication,defined across the following dimensions: thepurpose or goal of the dialogue, the roles of theparticipants, the speech acts available, thetermination criteria, a process model, and a “pro-tocol” for regulating this process. Whether or notan argument has been used properly depends onthe type of dialogue. Walton (2006, p. 183) hasdeveloped a taxonomy of six dialogue types, ofwhich two are of special interest to participation:

(a) Persuasion dialogues debate the truth ofsome statement. The proponent claimsthat some statement is true; this claim ischallenged by the respondent. There areseveral subtypes of this dialogue type: in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


a “dispute” dialogue, the respondent notonly challenges the proponent’s claim,but also claims some opposing, contra-dictory statement to be true. Both partieshave a burden of proof for their respec-tive claims; in a “dissent” dialogue, therespondent only doubts the proponent’sclaim and the proponent has the burdenof proof and must produce the strongerarguments, whereas the respondent needsonly to cast doubt on the proponent’s claim.

(b) Deliberation dialogues are about choos-ing some course of action that takes intoaccount the interests of multiple stake-holders. In a deliberation dialogue, oneof the first tasks is to identify the stake-holders and their interests. They may notall be participants in the dialogue, atleast not initially. As it may not be prac-tical for every stakeholder to take part inthe dialogue personally, some stakehold-ers may need to be represented by others.

For the sake of completeness, the other fourtypes are information seeking, negotiation,inquiry, and eristic. Actual dialogues may bemixtures of these various types and may shiftfrom one type to another. Thus it is important todissect an exchange between parties to deter-mine what types of dialogue are being used andthereby whether what is being attempted in thatdialogue is likely to succeed, or whether thedialogue type is being misused.

COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF ARGUMENTATION

The above overview of arguments and theirroles provides guidelines by which computa-tional models can be created, and thereby pro-vides systems to support users inaccomplishing tasks. Based on previous analy-ses of argumentation tasks (Bench-Capon,2003; Prakken, 1995), inspired by Aristotle andother ancient Greek philosophers, it is possibleto distinguish three distinct layers of tasks: thelogical, the dialectical, and the rhetorical (seeFigure 1).

Logical Layer

Broadly stated, the task performed in thelogical layer is the construction of argumentsby applying argumentation schemes to somerepresentation of evidence, facts, or knowl-edge of the domain (Gordon, 2008; Prakken,2005). The relevance to e-participation isthe potential of this technology to help citi-zens to make effective use of knowledgebases on the semantic Web to contributewell-informed and effective arguments indeliberative proceedings. This marks the ini-tial step along the path to providing a consid-ered contribution to policy debate, ratherthan dissipating an attack by using poorlyexpressed objections.

Dialectical Layer

This layer is responsible for structuring,evaluating, and comparing the argumentsadvanced in the dialogue. The idea of develop-ing a computer model for managing supportand justification relationships between propo-sitions goes back to research on truth andreason maintenance systems in artificial intel-ligence. Various researchers have built on thisto develop computational models of argument(Besnard & Hunter, 2008; Dung, 1995; Gordon,Prakken, & Walton, 2007; Prakken, 2001a;Prakken & Sartor, 2006). Here, the relevanceto e-participation lies in the comparison ofconflicting points of view; by evaluating thearguments advanced in favor of and against aposition, it will be possible to highlight wherethe weaknesses lie and where the responsibil-ity lies for providing further support for aparticular viewpoint. By making the relation-ships between arguments and claims explicit,transparent, and understandable, these toolsmake it easier for people to justify and explaintheir positions, as well as critically evaluatethem.

The dialectical layer is also responsiblefor supporting the process of argumentation,and facilitating and guiding the dialogue,including the facilitation tasks of moderatorsand mediators, to help ensure that it achievesits normative goals. This includes checking

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


that the participants observe the appropriateargumentation protocol, which in turn requireskeeping track of the “commitments” made,commitment being a fundamental concepthandled by a model of dialogue. One of thefirst computational models of argumentationdialogues was the Pleadings Game (Gordon,1995), an idealized model of the process ofpleading in civil law cases in common lawjurisdictions. Other computational models ofdialogue followed shortly thereafter (see forexample Bench-Capon, Leng, & Staniford,1998; Hage, Leenes, & Lodder, 1994; Lodder,2002; Prakken, 2001b; and Verheij, 1996).Since e-participation is a process, toolsdeveloped to support dialogues are clearlyrelevant in principle, but suitable protocols fore-participation are an open research question.Keeping track of commitments is also impor-tant for e-participation. It helps contributorsto express their views consistently and avoidattempts to change or inhibit the process bychanging their positions without sufficientjustification.

Rhetorical Layer

This layer assists participants to protectand further their own interests by selectingarguments to put forward, presenting themclearly and persuasively—such as through theuse of argument visualization techniques—andmaking sure their arguments take into consider-ation the standpoints, values, commitments, andbeliefs of the audience. Apart from the topic ofargument visualization, relatively little researchhas been done on computational models of thislayer. (For related work see for example Cross-white, Fox, Reed, Scaltsas, & Stumpf, 2003 andGilbert, Grasso, Groarke, Gurr, & Gerlofs,2003.) With regard to visualization, one of thefirst argument visualization methods was devel-oped by Wigmore, for visualizing evidence inlegal cases (Wigmore, 1940). The diagrammingmethod Toulmin used in his The Uses ofArgument (Toulmin, 1958) has been very influ-ential, but the method developed by Beardsley(1950) and refined by Freeman (1991) hasbecome the de facto standard in the humanities.

FIGURE 1. Argumentation use cases.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


Conklin’s gIBIS system (Conklin & Begeman,1988), based on Rittel and Webber’s ideaof an issue-based information system (IBIS)(Rittel & Webber, 1973), was perhaps the firstcomputational model designed for visualizingarguments. Gordon has recently developed anew method of diagramming arguments, in col-laboration with Walton, that builds upon andintegrates these prior methods (Gordon, 2007).The Carneades software tool, which uses arefined version of this method, is described inthe next section.

This section has outlined how argumentationtheory has informed the basis for constructingsupport systems for argumentation tasks andhas pointed to where this work has a positivebenefit in the process of citizen participation inpolicy creation, through the better appreciationand presentation of points of view. The impacton participation should be apparent: Usingvisualization to make clear the state of a dia-logue not only focuses participants’ attentionon the salient points of the debate, but alsoallows them to see where their points belong inthe overall structure of the discussion ratherthan being forced to work their way throughvolumes of text-based contributions.

AUGMENTATION TOOLS

Douglas Engelbart, inventor in the 1960s ofmuch of today’s interactive personal computingtools, draws attention to the need for tools totackle the “complex, urgent problems” facingsociety. Forty years on, he has concluded thatcentral to meeting this challenge are argumen-tation systems to help clarify the nature of theproblems and scaffold dialogical negotiation ofways forward (Engelbart, 2003). A number ofsuch argumentation tools have been developedas an educational resource, not only as a meansof delivering information, but also as a meansof teaching critical thinking skills. Since legalstudents are required to develop critical think-ing skills and make effective use of argument, alarge number of these tools have their roots inthis domain, being developed as “argumentationassistants” for the legal profession. Other toolshave grown within a commercial domain in

response to the demands of arriving at, andpresenting, strategic decisions within a large,dispersed business community.

In this section we present examples of argu-mentation tools that have been used in the con-text of policy debate, not only between citizenand government but also between institutions aswell as between youth groups. We provide a gen-eral description of the system and, if possible, theURL where either the tool can be downloadedor where further information is available. Wethen briefly describe each tool by consideringthe following: the underlying argumentation modelit uses, the argumentation tasks it supports, andan overview of an example e-participationscenario it has been used in. Where applicable,a short account is given of a live e-participationcontext in which the tool was used, alongwith an evaluation of its performance; some ofthe tools described here have yet to reach thepoint where extensive field-testing has beencompleted.

The tools are presented in chronologicalorder of development in the following sections.

QuestMap

QuestMap was based on the gIBIS system(Conklin & Begeman, 1988; Conklin Selvin,Buckingham Shum, and Sierhuis, 2003). Origi-nally QuestMap was developed as an organiza-tional memory and information managementtool for collaborative working within a largeutilities company in California. It was thecompany’s idea to use it to support group facili-tation/deliberation. Therefore, the system sup-ported two different types of applications—asynchronous collaborative information manage-ment and deliberation in face-to-face meetings.

It was based on the IBIS model and providedhypertext and groupware functionality, allow-ing the user to create argument maps and lists.QuestMap used icons, or “nodes,” to representthe IBIS elements of Issues, Positions, andArguments (supporting or contesting state-ments relative to a position). It was powered bya hypertext engine whose functions wereaccessed via an interface. The chief featureswere as follows: the creation of hyperlinksbetween maps through the copying of one node

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


into another map; a list display of all maps orlists in which a particular node features—clickingon a list element takes the user to the particularinstance of that node; “context windows” whereadditional information could be added to eachnode—including keyword search terms; and asearch engine that could produce lists of nodescontaining keywords, where those lists werethemselves sets of hyperlinks. A case study onits use is provided by Conklin (2003). This toolhas been superseded by Compendium, which isdescribed later in this section.

Zeno

Zeno1 provided a Web-based discussionforum extended to support the evaluation, visu-alization, and navigation of complex networksof arguments (Gordon, Voss, Richter, &Märker, 2001). It also provided extensive sup-port for moderators and mediators. A laterversion of Zeno was renamed Dito and includedan argument diagramming tool called Diaglo.Zeno’s computational model of argumentationwas initially based on IBIS, but later made con-figurable by moderators. Zeno extended theidea of threaded discussions, in which messagesare organized in an outline or tree, to the collab-orative construction of more general, semanti-cally labeled graphs. Both nodes and links canbe labeled, with labels configured by the mod-erator. Appropriate labels can help participantsto navigate through the network and to evaluatearguments. Other extensions enabled users todescribe nodes in the network with metadataand to upload file attachments. Gordon andRichter (2002) describe the latest researchversion of the system in more detail.

Zeno was developed and piloted in a seriesof research projects, beginning with GeoMed(Geographical Mediation System, IE2037),which started in 1996. The goal of GeoMed wasto develop and validate a Web-based group-ware system to engage citizens in regional andurban planning (Schmidt-Belz, Rinner, & Gordon,1998). In the GeoMed project, Zeno was inte-grated with a Web-based geographical informa-tion system (Gordon, Karacapilidis, & Voss, 1996;Gordon & Karacapilidis, 1997). The aim was tomake the planning process more transparent; to

encourage and monitor public participation; tohelp avoid or resolve conflict; and to supportcooperation between planners, experts, andcommunities. If successful, the system wouldimprove efficiency and economy and be lesstime-consuming.

The system was made available for a two-week period to members of the public as part ofthe proposal to create a residential area and“technology park” between the cities of Bonnand Sankt Augustin. It integrated support forsharing documents, discussing planning issues,and accessing geographical information. In itsfavor, the number of people using the work-space for information compared favorably withthe numbers attending public meetings. Unfor-tunately, no one contributed to the discussionforum or provided feedback on the system tothe project team. It is probable that this silencewas due to a combination of the novelty ofusing such technology in 1997 and some diffi-culties with the user interface.

However, the experience provided manypointers for future work in any systemdesigned to support group cooperation, Inter-net mapping, and public participation. Forinstance, introducing complex systems suchas GeoMed into organizations will be diffi-cult, since they will not only have to accom-modate novel processes, but must do so withinthe constraints imposed by the legal regula-tions to which regional and urban planningare subject; planning issues involve peopleperforming different roles with distinct inter-ests to promote, but if discussion is to be ofany value it has to be available to all, andcontributions have to be made from all partiesif the debate is to be balanced and informed;and running systems such as GeoMed in con-junction with traditional methods will lead tothe administrative problems associated withusing paper documents and electronic data.

A later version of Zeno served as the founda-tion, with a new graphical user interface, of thee-participation platform developed in anotherEuropean Commission–funded project calledDEMOS (Delphi Mediation Online System,IST-1999-20530), which ran from 2000–2004and was successfully piloted in the cities ofHamburg and Bologna.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


Zeno was used successfully as the e-participation platform in a number of otherprojects as well, mostly in Germany, includingprojects in the cities of Esslingen (Märker,Hagedorn, Trénel, & Gordon, 2002) and Berlin.From the Esslingen project, three areas wereidentified where the system provided an advan-tage over traditional means of conducting con-sultations. Information can be easily accessedby the public, thereby reducing imbalancesbetween citizens and the planning department,and enabling the public to participate compe-tently. Documentation of the process is greatlyfacilitated through the automatic archiving ofcomputer-mediated communication, not onlycontributing to the transparency of the processbut also assisting in the production of summa-ries. Communication of views via Internetdiscussion forums permits parallel discussionof multiple issues, thereby improving uponpostal communication where the correspondentis isolated from the views of other people anddetailed responses from the planners—and publichearings—where the numerous issues that arisecan often be lost through the enthusiasm ofindividuals blinding them to the formal nicetiesof structured debate.

However, there were drawbacks. Ideally, theonline discussions need to be moderated, andthis imposes a cost in terms of time andexpense. Similarly, effective consultation willrequire effort from the relevant governmentdepartments, and this is something they may beunable to afford. Thus, there is a sense in whichuse of the system should be reserved for espe-cially controversial projects. In addition, whilesome participants expressed an interest infuture consultations, it was felt that thereneeded to be some formal procedure drawn up,which would inspire confidence in the processand thereby make difficult decisions easierto accept. Without it, there was a sense thatcitizens’ distrust of politics and public adminis-tration would continue to hamper participation.

Compendium

Compendium2 is an argument-mapping toolthat is based on the IBIS computationalmodel (Selvin, Shum, & Sierhuis, 2001). It is

a collaborative argument-diagramming tool forindexing, structuring, and visualizing argumen-tation dialogues. It has been used for a numberof years for commercial real-time problem-solving, originally with applications that wereconcerned with business process redesign. TheCompendium tool was designed to overcomesome of the known limitations of QuestMap(described above), though it has now grownsubstantially in scope to include integrationwith other tools and open source development,and has generally become more focused towarduse in research.

The system allows for considerable customi-zation of the argument maps by the users andsupports outputs in multiple document formats.Elements of a discussion are represented as“queries” and “responses,” to which qualifyingremarks can be attached indicating “supportfor” or “criticism of” that contention. Usinghyperlinks, users can associate relevant docu-ments with particular nodes to back up any ref-erences. It is also possible to partition thediscussion into a series of linked maps, whichhas the advantage of breaking down largeamounts of data into manageable portions.

Renton and Macintosh (2005, 2007) havebeen using the Compendium tool, as an exam-ple of an argumentation sense-making tool, toinvestigate how argumentation systems canbe used within a political context to support e-participation. They have considered four pos-sible e-participation scenarios and constructedthe associated argument maps. These scenar-ios were for provision of information; supportfor consultation by considering an alternativeway of setting out the responses to an onlineconsultation on a published draft policy docu-ment; support for deliberation by setting outthe consultation responses in the form of aninverted tree designed to allow users to seehow their convictions on one issue may con-flict with other beliefs; and, finally, support-ing the analysis of a discussion forum wherethe argument map is designed to establishwhether or not individual contributors hadremained consistent throughout the debate,and therefore this could be used to support theanalysis and evaluation of the consultationprocess.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


Maps created using Compendium were fea-tured in a project that investigated the potentialof a range of tools and techniques for engagingyoung people in complex issues, in particular,radioactive waste management (Whyte, Smith,Alberts, & Macintosh, 2005). Three focusgroups were encouraged to assess the toolsaccording to ease of use, appeal, and suitabilityfor purpose. Results from the project showsupport for using maps within the context offacilitated groups, where the provision of infor-mation in conjunction with the arguments andevidence “for” and “against” decisions wasseen as engaging attention and supporting theactivities of learning and participation (seeFigure 2).

However, it was noted that the maps wereless successful when drawn online by individualsoutside a group setting, who would not have thebenefit of a facilitator to assist in using themaps. Further, maps were seen as being usefulin a face-to-face setting rather than as part of anonline dialogue, where maps fail to make

explicit who was responsible for any position.During the project, the mapping techniques didnot directly support the exchange of viewsonline; since the users felt that such a mappingwould prove advantageous, it was suggestedthat the tool could be enhanced through a facili-tator editing a map to reflect the progress of theonline debate.

Another example of the e-participation useof Compendium is a case study of how argu-ment mapping could support transparency andaccountability in the case of a consultation onregional planning in southeast Queensland(Ohl, 2008). The consultation responses weremodeled using the tool and then evaluatedthrough surveys and stakeholder interviews.3

Hermes

The Hermes argumentation tool4 was devel-oped under the European Commission ICTE-PANproject (Karacapilidis, Loukis, & Dimopoulos,2005) as a response to the increasingly complex

FIGURE 2. Compendium map of the radioactive waste project.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


nature of public policy and decision-making.This complexity arises through the need forpolicy issues to receive input from many publicorganizations representing various administra-tive layers, the views of citizens and privatebodies, not to mention the possibility of involv-ing the governments of other countries.Between them, this set of stakeholders maywell possess the necessary information, knowl-edge, and competence to manage problems, butsuch management requires these assets to besuitably organized; presently this organizationis absent. Accordingly, Hermes is aimed at sup-porting online group facilitation between gov-ernment agencies and is based on thetheoretical foundations of argumentationframeworks, which led to the development ofthe Zeno system (Gordon & Karacapilidis,1997).

The developers argue that the majority ofexisting collaborative argumentation support sys-tems have been designed to support face-to-facemeetings with a human facilitator, whereaswhat is needed for government-to-government

collaboration is virtual support. The tool has adiscussion forum with support for argumenta-tion. Hermes allows for the construction of adiagram of the discourse that is composed ofthe ideas so far expressed during the discussion.The basic elements are “issues,” which corre-spond to decisions to be made or targets to bemet; “alternatives,” which correspond to poten-tial choices; “positions,” which are assertionsassociated with an alternative that providegrounds for following or avoiding that choice;and “constraints,” which represent preferencerelations. Users can input their preferences tocourses of action through a “position, relation,position” tuple, where an example of a relationis “less important than” or “more importantthan.” Hermes records the users’ arguments,checks for inconsistencies among users’ prefer-ences, and automatically updates the discoursestatus according to all user input (see Figure 3).

Using Hermes, 14 participants representingfour groups took part in a synchronous debateabout the question of whether or not to allownon-state universities in Greece. Each participant

FIGURE 3. Hermes user interface showing the threaded debate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


received training and was a competent user ofelectronic forums. The evaluation resultsshowed that the users felt that the basic func-tions of Hermes were easy to master, that itproved beneficial, and that they would be pre-pared to use it again in similar contexts.Although some found the situation awkwarddue to the unfamiliarity of engaging in argu-ments over the Internet rather than face-to-face,it was accepted that this would lessen onceusers became familiar with the system. In addi-tion, longer training sessions and conductingthe debate asynchronously would improve theusers’ experience. Overall, the authors con-cluded that Hermes made information accessi-ble at a low cost, thereby providing a valuablecontribution to the transparency of public policymaking.

Parmenides

The Parmenides system (Atkinson, 2006;Atkinson, Bench-Capon, & McBurney, 2004) isan argumentation tool that uses a computationalmodel of an argumentation scheme for practicalreasoning to guide and help focus deliberationdialogues.5 While a number of technologyplatforms vastly increase the opportunities forcommunication, such an advantage is under-mined by the difficulties of utilizing the resultingquantity and diversity of contributions. Par-menides was created to facilitate engagementbetween government and citizens, and toaddress such difficulties by ensuring that com-munication between the parties remained clear,unambiguous, and structured in a manner tominimize misunderstandings.

Initially, a program was implemented thatmodeled a dialogue where an initial positioncould be presented with a number of counter-arguments. Evaluation of this approach high-lighted the problems of allowing users such abroad range of responses; choosing the mosteffective form of counter-argument becomes amajor task, resulting either in the user beinguncertain whether he or she has selected themost appropriate attack, or in he or she becomingfrustrated with the program. Accordingly, thedevelopers concluded that user interaction withthe program needed to be simplified. This is

achieved in Parmenides by leading the userthrough a set series of moves, and, whereverpossible, restricting their responses to indica-tions of approval or disapproval. Thus, the userdoes not need to comprehend the argumentationmodel being used, nor does he or she have tomake his or her position explicit during thedebate; however, on some pages of the systemthere are opportunities for entering free text.

The system helps users to systematicallyaddress appropriate critical questions. Criticalquestions supported by the system reflect issuessuch as these:

• The preconditions of actions• Whether these preconditions are met in the

current situation• The effects of actions• The social values promoted by these

effects• Alternative actions for achieving the same

effects

Parmenides was first piloted in an onlinedebate about the invasion of Iraq. Users werepresented with a justification of the invasion inthe form of a structured argument. They thenhad the opportunity either to accept the argu-ment or to take part in a structured survey, inwhich they were given an opportunity toexpress their agreement or disagreement withcritical questions of the kind illustrated above.The results of this survey were stored in a data-base and analyzed to help reveal the strengthsand weaknesses of the government’s rationalefor invading Iraq. Such a system can providepolicy-makers with insight into where theirviews need bolstering, as well as where theycan rely upon public support.

The system has since been extended andenhanced to support further public dialogues,including debates in the UK on the banning offox hunting (Cartwright & Atkinson, 2008).Figure 4 provides a screenshot of the user inter-face for this debate.

Briefly, the enhancements include the follow-ing: The system now enables debates on a varietyof topics to be presented in a common format;there is a facility for administrators to createdebates and add them to the system; arguments

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


submitted to the system can be analyzed togauge the level of support for positions, as wellas identify which values are implicit in argu-ments; the system has a facility for producinguser profiles derived from demographic infor-mation entered. Future developments includethe improved handling of free-text input andextending the range of argument and reasoningtypes. Validation of the system through exten-sive field-testing is currently in process.

Parmenides demonstrates how computationalmodels of argument can be used in a way that isnot inhibiting to the layman because it operatesbehind a succession of screens that display themodels in a friendly and familiar questionnaireformat. Coherent and useful information isgained by the consultation without forcing theuser (the general public) to become familiar withthe rigorous reasoning standards underlying thecomputational model of argument—therebyaiming to ensure that no one is left stranded onthe wrong side of the digital divide.

Carneades

Carneades6 is an open source argumentationsystem under development in the European

Estrella project (IST-2004-027655), whichaims to help both citizens and governmentofficials take part more effectively in dialoguesfor assessing claims such as those for socialservices such as housing or unemploymentbenefits. Carneades provides software compo-nents for constructing arguments from formalmodels of legal concepts, rules, and cases(Gordon, 2008) for evaluating and comparingarguments, for applying proof standards, andfor respecting the allocation of the burden ofproof (Gordon & Walton, 2006) and argumentvisualization (Gordon, 2007). To our knowl-edge, Carneades is the only system to date tosupport argumentation tasks at all three layers(logic, dialectic, and rhetoric) of the argumenta-tion use-case diagram.

As with Parmenides, one of the strengths ofCarneades lies in its ability to inform users aboutthe acceptability of statements without requiringthe user to have an expertise in argumentationtheory, mathematics, or computer science.

Summary

To conclude, in this section we have pre-sented a number of argumentation support

FIGURE 4. User interface for fox hunting debate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


tools. Some of these focus on the visualizationof arguments, and here the graphical notationand user interface are important features. Othersfocus on providing analysis of the situation, buttypically with a more limited graphical userinterface. A number of underlying argumenta-tion models are used. In considering their rele-vance to e-participation, we need to considerthe features needed to support informed debateto support evidence-based policy-making. Thesystems we have presented here allow the usersto have access to various levels of information,to be able to focus on specific information, and tohave the ability to organize the gathered data toconstruct an effective argument—all of whichare required for e-participation.

CONCLUSION

In e-participation, there is a clear require-ment to understand better how technology cansupport informed deliberation on issues(Schlosberg et al., 2007). Yet, there are twosignificant obstacles facing a potential partici-pant in such a process. First, political issues aretypically complex, presenting a large number ofarguments and counter-arguments for consider-ation. These, when presented in linear text, canbe confusing to the public at large. Secondly,it is not obvious that all people equally possessthe necessary critical thinking skills for effec-tively deliberating upon such issues. Accord-ingly, in this article we have explored how theapplication of argumentation systems is addingvalue to e-participation methods by tacklingthese barriers.

Argumentation systems are computer soft-ware applications for helping people to partici-pate in various kinds of goal-directed dialoguesin which arguments are exchanged. The authorsare aware that many of the systems outlinedabove were developed in response to issues inlegal, education, and commercial domains, thussignificantly distinct from the concerns ofe-participation; they acknowledge that the tran-sition to e-participation cannot be entirely seam-less. In a research workshop on the applicationof argumentation systems to e-participation(Gordon, Macintosh, & Renton, 2006), four

areas were identified where improvementsshould be made in order to exploit fully thebenefits of argumentation systems. Verybriefly, these are as follows:

(a) Developers need to strike a balancebetween imposing a formal structure uponcontributions from the public, whichsome may find inhibiting, and providing afree text field, which imposes a consider-able cost on consultation organizers in thetask of extracting useful information.

(b) Research into getting argumentation sys-tems to function efficiently has oftenbeen at the expense of refining the userinterface; there is now an urgent need toaddress this imbalance by investigatingwhat features are necessary for an inter-face if the system is to attract partici-pants and encourage them to providedeliberated input.

(c) Associated with the previous point is theneed to classify the various user groupsand identify their unique requirements inorder for the views of specific groups tobe targeted more effectively.

(d) There is, as yet, very little work onestablishing a suitable protocol for dia-logue within online consultation practiceby which the interaction of the systemwith the user can be guided.

However, the potential relevance of argu-mentation systems to e-participation should bereadily apparent since the goal of e-participationis to engage citizens in dialogues with govern-ment about such matters as public policy, plans,or legislation. Argumentation plays a centralrole in this process, as in any public consulta-tion where citizens are given an opportunity,not only to make suggestions, but also tosupport these suggestions with arguments. Wehave shown that argumentation systems areuseful both for guiding the reconstruction ofarguments put forward by other parties, so as toopen them up to critical analysis and evalua-tion, as well as for supporting the construction(“invention”) of new arguments to put forwardin support of one’s claims or to counter thearguments of others. Given that argument maps

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


use icons and arrows to represent the structureof a series of related viewpoints, thereby clari-fying the issue under consideration, they havethe potential to provide a readily accessiblemedium in which citizens can follow, and con-tribute to, public debates on policy issues.

As governments seek to consult their citizensover matters of policy, it becomes increasinglyimportant for citizens to receive the relevantinformation in a medium that they can use, andwill want to use, in forming their opinion onconsultative issues. This article presented sam-ple uses of argumentation systems to supporte-participation in order to assess their potentialcontribution to the consultation process. Argu-mentation systems cover techniques for thepresentation of complex information in a the-matically arranged format for identifying thoseissues that generate a significant response, forcollating consultation responses and represent-ing them within an argument structure, and forchecking on the consistency of contributions toa debate. As such, argumentation systems havea valuable contribution to make to both govern-ment and civil society.

NOTES

1. See http://zeno.berlios.de2. See http://www.compendiuminstitute.org3. A series of screen shots for this case study may be

found on the following Web pages: http://rickonneblue.atspace.com/SEQ%20e-Consultation%20Maps.html andhttp://rickonneblue.atspace.com/NewSEQ%20e-Consultation%20Maps.html

4. See http://www.mech.upatras.gr/∼nikos/index.html5. See http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/∼katie/Parmenides1.html6. See http://carneades.berlios.de

REFERENCES

Atkinson, K. (2006). Value-based argumentation for demo-cratic decision support. In P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational models of natural argu-ment, Proceedings of the First International Conferenceon Computation Models of Natural Argument (COMMA2006), (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applica-tions, 144, pp. 47–58). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2004).PARMENIDES: Facilitating democratic debate. In

R. Traunmüller (Ed.), Lecture Notes in ComputerScience: Electronic Government: Third InternationalConference, EGOV 2004 (pp. 313–316). Amsterdam:Springer-Verlag.

Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory poli-tics for a new age. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic. New York:Prentice Hall.

Becker, T., & Ohlin, T. (2006). The improbable dream:Measuring the power of Internet deliberations insetting public agendas and influencing public plan-ning policies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2(1),article 2. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://ser-vices.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art2

Bench-Capon, T. (2003). Persuasion in practical argumentusing value-based argumentation frameworks. Journalof Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429–448.

Bench-Capon, T., Leng, P. H., & Staniford, G. (1998).A computer-supported environment for the teaching oflegal argument. The Journal of Information, Law andTechnology (JLIT), 1998(3). Retrieved January 5,2009, from http://ww2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_3/bench

Besnard, P., and Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumen-tation. MIT Press.

Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003).Towards a formal account of reasoning with evidence:Argumentation schemes and generalizations. ArtificialIntelligence and Law, 11(2–3), 125–165.

Cartwright, D., & Atkinson, K. (2008). Political engage-ment through tools for argumentation. In Proceedingsof the International Conference on ComputationalModels of Argument (COMMA) (pp. 116–127).Toulouse, France.

Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog mapping: Reflections onan industrial strength case study. In P. A. Kirshchner,S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), VisualizingArgumentation (pp. 117–136). London: Springer-Verlag.

Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: a hypertexttool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transac-tions on Office Information Systems, 6(4), 303–331.

Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S. & Sierhuis,M. (2003). Facilitated hypertext for collective sense-making: 15 years on from gIBIS. In H. Weigand,G. Goldkuhl, & A. de Moor (Eds.), ProceedingsLAP’03: 8th International Working Conference on theLanguage-Action Perspective on CommunicationModelling. New York: ACM Press. Retrieved July 25,2008, from http://eprints.aktors.org/262.

Crosswhite, J., Fox, J., Reed, C., Scaltsas, T., & Stumpf, S.(2003). Computational models of rhetorical argument.In C. Reed & T. J. Norman (Eds.), ArgumentationMachines—New Frontiers in Argument and Computa-tion (pp. 175–209). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative global politics.Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments andits fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logicprogramming and n-person games. Artificial Intelli-gence, 77(2), 321–357.

Dutton, W. H. (1992). Political science research on telede-mocracy. Social Science Computer Review, 10(4),505–522.

Elliman, T., Macintosh, A. & Irani, Z. (2007). A modelbuilding tool to support group deliberation (eDelib).International Journal of Cases on Electronic Com-merce, 3(3), 33–44.

Engelbart, D. C. (2003). Afterword. In P. A. Kirshchner,S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualiz-ing argumentation (pp. 205–208). London: Springer-Verlag.

Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructureof arguments: A theory of argument structure. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

Gilbert, M. A., Grasso, F., Groarke, L., Gurr, C., &Gerlofs, J. M. (2003). The persuasion machine—argumentation and computational linguistics. InC. Reed & T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentationmachines—new frontiers in argument and computation(pp. 121–174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Gordon, T., Macintosh, A., & Renton, A. (2006). Demo-Net deliverable D5.2.2: Argumentation support sys-tems for eParticipation. Retrieved July 25, 2008, fromhttp://www.demo-net.org/demo/dissemination/reports/argumentation/.

Gordon, T. F. (1995). The pleadings game: An artificialintelligence model of procedural justice. NewYork:Springer.

Gordon, T. F. (2005). Information technology for goodgovernance. In D. Bourcier (Ed.), French-Germansymposium on governance, law and technology(pp. 87–95). Paris: University of Paris.

Gordon, T. F. (2007). Visualizing Carneades argumentgraphs. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4), 109–117.

Gordon, T. F. (2008). Hybrid reasoning with argumentationschemes. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Compu-tational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 08).Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.cmna.info/CMNA8/programme/CMNA8-Gordon.pdf.

Gordon, T. F., & Karacapilidis, N. (1997). The Zeno argu-mentation framework. In Proceedings of the SixthInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence andLaw (pp. 10–18). New York: ACM

Gordon, T. F., Karacapilidis, N., & Voss, H. (1996).Zeno—a mediation system for spatial planning. InU. Busbach, D. Kerr, & K. Sikkel (Eds.), CSCW andthe Web—Proceedings of the 5th ERCIM/W4G Workshop

(pp. 55–61). Sankt Augustin, Germany: GMD TechnicalReports.

Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. N. (2007). TheCarneades model of argument and burden of proof.Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–896.

Gordon, T. F., & Richter, G. (2002). Discourse supportsystems for deliberative democracy. In R. Traunmüller &K. Lenk (Eds.), eGovernment: State of the Art andPerspectives (EGOV02) (pp. 248–255). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

Gordon, T. F., Voss, A., Richter, G., & Märker, O. (2001).Zeno: Groupware for discourses on the Internet.Künstliche Intelligenz, 2(1), 43–45.

Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2006). The Carneadesargumentation framework—using presumptions andexceptions to model critical questions. In P. E. Dunne(Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Confer-ence on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA06) (pp. 195–207). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Hage, J., Leenes, R., & Lodder, A. (1994). Hard cases:A procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence andLaw, 2(2), 113–167.

Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E., & Dimopoulos, S. (2005).Computer-supported G2G collaboration for publicpolicy and decision making. Journal of EnterpriseInformation Management, 18(5), 602–624.

Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S.(2003). Visualizing argumentation. Software tools forcollaborative and educational sense-making. Com-puter supported cooperative work. London: Springer.

Lodder, A. R. (2002). DiaLaw—On legal justification anddialogical model of argumentation. Law and Philoso-phy Library. Berlin: Springer.

Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., Boucher, S., & Monceau, H.(2008). Considered opinions of further EU enlarge-ment. Unpublished paper. Retrieved October 22, 2008,from http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2008/EU-enlargement.pdf.

Lusoli, W., Ward, S., & Gibson, R. (2006). (Re)connect-ing politics? Parliament, the public and the Internet.Parliamentary Affairs, 59(1), 24–42.

Macintosh, A. (2007). eParticipation and eDemocracyresearch in Europe. In H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg,R. Traünmuller, S. Dawes, E. Hovy, A. Macintosh, &C. A. Larson (Eds.), Digital government: eGovernmentresearch, case studies, and implementation (pp. 85–102).New York: Springer.

Malkia, M., Anttiroiko, A.-V., & Savolainen, R., Eds.(2004). eTransformation in governance—new direc-tions in government and politics. London: Idea Group.

Märker, O., Hagedorn, H., Trénel, M., & Gordon, T. F.(2002). Internet-based citizen participation in the Cityof Esslingen. Relevance—moderation—software. InM. Schrenk (Ed.), CORP 2002—Who plans Europe’sfuture? (pp. 39–45). Vienna: Technical University ofVienna.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014


Ohl, R. (2008). Computer supported argument visualiza-tion: Modelling in consultative democracy aroundwicked problems. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum,& T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Soft-ware tools and mapping techniques. (pp. 267–286).Advanced Information and Knowledge ProcessingSeries. London: Springer.

Prakken, H. (1995). From logic to dialectic in legal argu-ment. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Confer-ence on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 165–174).New York: ACM Press.

Prakken, H. (2001a). Modelling defeasibility in law:Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48,253–271.

Prakken, H. (2001b). Modelling reasoning about evidencein legal procedure. In R. P. Loui (Ed.), Proceedings ofthe Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intel-ligence and Law (pp. 119–128). New York: ACMPress.

Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and flexibility in dialoguegames for argumentation. Journal of Logic andComputation, 15, 1009–1040.

Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (2006). Presumptions andburden of proof. In T. M. van Engers (Ed.), LegalKnowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006:The Nineteenth Annual Conference (Frontiers in Artifi-cial Intelligence and Applications 154, pp. 21–30).Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Reed, C. A., & Walton, D. N. (2001). Applications ofargumentation schemes. In H. V. Hansen, C. W.Tindale, J. A. Blair, & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Proceed-ings of the 4th conference of the Ontario Society for theStudy of Argument (OSSA2001), Windsor, Canada.Retrieved, November 27, 2008 from http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/ossa2001.pdf.

Renton, A., & Macintosh, A. (2005). Exploiting argumentmapping techniques to support policy-making. InK. V. Andersen, A. Gronlund, R. Traunmüller, &M. Wimmer (Eds.), Electronic government: workshopand poster proceedings of the Fourth International

Conference, EGOV. (pp. 219–224). Linz, Germany:Trauner Verlag.

Renton, A., & Macintosh, A. (2007). Computer supportedargument maps as a policy memory. The InformationSociety Journal, 23(2), 125–133.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a gen-eral theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S. & Shulman S. W.(2007). Democracy and e-rulemaking: Web-basedtechnologies, participation, and the potential fordeliberation. Journal of Information Technology &Politics, 4(1), 37–55.

Schmidt-Belz, B., Rinner, C., & Gordon, T. F. (1998).GeoMed for urban planning—first user experiences.In R. Laurini, K. Makki, & N. Pissinou (Eds.), ACM-GIS’98, Proceedings of 6th International Symposiumon Advances in Geographic Information Systems(pp. 82–87). New York: ACM Press.

Selvin, A., Shum, S. B., & Sierhuis, M. (2001). Compen-dium: Making meetings into knowledge events. Paperpresented at Knowledge Technologies, Austin, Texas.

Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s topics. Leiden, TheNetherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, reasons, arguments: Formalstudies of argumentation and defeat. Ph.D dissertation,Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumenta-tion. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumenta-tion schemes. Cambridge University Press.

Whyte, A., Smith, E., Alberts, I., & Macintosh, A. (2005).Continuing the dialogue on radioactive waste manage-ment: Engaging young Scotland innovatively.Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive CentralResearch Unit.

Wigmore, J. H. (1940). A treatise on the Anglo-Americansystem of evidence, vol. 1. Boston, MA: Little, Brownand Company.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 02:

53 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Providing Argument Support for E-Participation