Argumentation support

Moor, A. de; Aakhus, Mark

doi:10.1145/1118178.1118182

Cited by 66 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Engagement Features architecture facilitates engagement once users have agreed on the rules for interaction. The features stem from the engagement literature (Johnston & Taylor, 2018) and work by Aakhus (Aakhus, 2011;de Moor & Aakhus, 2006) on ways to construct deliberation through structured interaction. Aakhus (2011) has suggested that there are ways to structure argumentation through technologies.…”

Section: Reimagining Dialogic Social Media As Spaces For Social Discumentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering Dialogic Engagement: Toward an Architecture of Social Media for Social Change

Kent

Taylor

2021

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dialogic theory and engagement hold great potential as frameworks for thinking about how social media can facilitate public discussions about social issues. Of course, having the potential for dialogue is very different than finding actual instances of dialogic engagement. This article explores the philosophical and technical features of dialogue that need to be present for social media to be used dialogically. Through the metaphor of “architecture,” this article reimagines dialogic communication through social media. We introduce four design frameworks including user expectations, engagement, content curation, and sustainment that may facilitate dialogic engagement for fostering social change.

show abstract

Section: Reimagining Dialogic Social Media As Spaces For Social Discumentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering Dialogic Engagement: Toward an Architecture of Social Media for Social Change

Kent

Taylor

2021

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In system side, secondly, Ramesh and Whinston (1994) argued that group argumentation process in decision support system (DSS) consists of three formalisms as representation, gaming, and coordination, meanwhile proposed a framework of argumentative reasoning facilitation systems (ARFS). De Moor and Aakhus (2006) extended traditional IS modeling approaches for a Language-action Perspective (LAP), and developed a LAP-based diagnostic method to support argumentation. Vetschera (2007) examined the preferences embedded in electronic negotiation support systems for exactly reflecting the behavior of negotiators and negotiation outcomes, with an empirical manner.…”

Section: Group Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision model for complex group argumentation

Chai

Ngai

2016

Expert Systems with Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It has been also admitted that these solutions often require that users carry out activities that do not naturally belong to their work, or they support activities which are infrequent in normal work; thus, such activities are often considered artificial or insignificant by users. As a result, traditional argumentation software approaches are no longer sufficient to support contemporary communication and collaboration needs (de Moor & Aakhus, 2006). There is a need to provide alternative representational features to demonstrate a significant effect on the users' collaborative knowledge building process.…”

Section: Existing Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling Cognitively-Complex Collaboration with CoPe_it!

Karacapilidis

Tzagarakis

Καρούσος

et al. 2009

International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CoPe_it! is an innovative Web-based tool that complies with collaborative practices to provide members of communities with the appropriate means to manage individual and collective knowledge during a sense-making and/or decision-making session. In this article, we demonstrate its applicability in tackling cognitively-complex collaboration settings, which are characterized by big volumes of interrelated data obtained from diverse sources and knowledge expressed by diverse participants. We focus on issues related to the representation of such settings and propose an approach to make it easier for participants to follow the evolution of collaboration, comprehend it in its entirety, and meaningfully aggregate data to resolve the issue under consideration.

show abstract

Argumentation support

Abstract: A plethora of technologies exist that are not necessarily tools. For technologies to become a tool, we contend, argumentation routines and design must coevolve.

Cited by 66 publications

References 8 publications

Fostering Dialogic Engagement: Toward an Architecture of Social Media for Social Change

Fostering Dialogic Engagement: Toward an Architecture of Social Media for Social Change

Decision model for complex group argumentation

Tackling Cognitively-Complex Collaboration with CoPe_it!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About