Online group deliberation for the elicitation of shared values to underpin decision making
- Authors: Feldman, Yishai , Kraft, Donald , Kuflik, Tsvi , Afshar, Faezeh , Stranieri, Andrew , Yearwood, John
- Date: 2009
- Type: Text , Conference paper
- Relation: Paper presented at 7th International Conference, NGITS 2009, Next generation information technologies and systems, Haifa, Israel : 16th-18th June 2009 Vol. 5831, p. 158-168
- Full Text: false
- Description: Values have been shown to underpin our attitudes, behaviour and motivate our decisions. Values do not exist in isolation but have meaning in relation to other values. However, values are not solely the purview of individuals as communities and organisations have core values implicit in their culture, policies and practices. Values for a group can be determined by a minority in power, derived by algorithmically merging values each group member holds, or set by deliberative consensus. The elicitation of values for the group by deliberation is likely to lead to widespread acceptance of values arrived at, however enticing individuals to engage in face to face discussion about values has been found to be very difficult. We present an online deliberative communication approach for the anonymous deliberation of values and claim that the framework has the elements required for the elicitation of shared values.
- Description: 2003007509
Explicit representations of reasoning to support deliberation within groups
- Authors: Stranieri, Andrew , Yearwood, John , Mays, Heather
- Date: 2008
- Type: Text , Conference proceedings
- Full Text: false
- Description: In practice, the reasoning that underpins problem solving and decision making is rarely performed by an individual in isolation from others but involves a communicative exchanges between participants in a community that can range in size from two to many thousands. Dialogue theories describe patterns in dialogues comprising many dialectical exchanges and often advance deliberation, the kind of dialogue that ensues when participants actively seek to understand all views and collectively arrive at the rationally optimal solution. This study reports on the use of argument maps for structuring reasoning by groups of secondary students. The study aimed to discover whether different maps facilitate deliberation and enhance understanding of the issues by providing an explicit representation of reasoning. An explicit representation of reasoning is a model that encapsulates all relevant claims, evidence, statutes and principles pertinent to an issue. Schemes that have been used to provide explicit representations of reasoning include the Issue Based Information System (IBIS) map, variants of the Toulmin argument structure (TAS) and other knowledge representation schemes used for intelligent computational systems. Results indicate that an explicit representation of reasoning facilitates a depth of understanding of complex issues and there is some indication that the deliberative quality of discussions is enhanced depending on the level of abstraction of the map. Copyright © 2008 COSI.
- Description: 2003006482