Folding Arguments: A Method for Representing Conflicting Views of a Conflict

This article presents a method for representing social conflict under disagreements over its representation, with the view that the resolution of such disagreements often affects the resolution of the conflict itself. The Argumentative Analysis of Options (AAO) method proposed here extends Howard's Analysis of Options method for conflict analysis. The AAO method highlights the role of policy discourse in resolving the disagreed representation, and models arguments made in these social processes. In this method, people's arguments are folded into a "strategic map" of a conflict, using a new coding system based on modal logic. The method is designed to be incorporated into group support systems (GSS) as a non-exclusive, non-specialist communication medium for both principal players and grassroots people. An experimental study is reported in which use of a prototype of GSS with the AAO method resulted in an assembly of rational and structured arguments in an attempt to resolve a hypothetical conflict. An evaluation by users of the prototype GSS suggested that it was less simple and more difficult to use, but richer than a more traditional electronic mail system. Design implications and potential pitfalls of this approach to GSS are discussed based on the results of the experimental study.

[1]  John A. A. Sillince,et al.  Multi-agent conflict resolution: a computational framework for an intelligent argumentation program , 1994, Knowl. Based Syst..

[2]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[3]  Christian Schmidt,et al.  Game theory and international relations : preferences, information and empirical evidence , 1994 .

[4]  Ahti Salo,et al.  Interactive decision aiding for group decision support , 1995 .

[5]  Christopher Fry,et al.  Experiments with Oval: a radically tailorable tool for cooperative work , 1992, CSCW '92.

[6]  Nigel Howard,et al.  Manifesto for a Theory of Drama and Irrational Choice , 1993 .

[7]  David Kowalewski,et al.  Dynamic Models of Dissent and Repression , 1992 .

[8]  Colin Eden,et al.  The Stakeholder/Collaborator Strategy Workshop , 1996 .

[9]  Michael G. Dyer,et al.  Argument representation for editorial text , 1990, Knowl. Based Syst..

[10]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Michael A. Gilbert.  Multi-Modal Argumentation , 1994 .

[12]  Christian Schmidt,et al.  Game Theory and International Relations , 1994 .

[13]  Des Gasper,et al.  Analyzing Argumentation in Planning and Public Policy: Assessing, Improving, and Transcending the Toulmin Model , 1998 .

[14]  D. Kolb,et al.  Planning in the Face of Power. , 1988 .

[15]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[16]  David G. Lowe.  Co-Operative Structuring of Information: The Representation of Reasoning and Debate , 1985, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[17]  N. Howard.  Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Part 2: Formal model of the resolution process , 1994 .

[18]  Leopold A. Ziegler,et al.  Evolutionary Systems Design: Policy Making Under Complexity and Group Decision Support Systems , 1989 .

[19]  H. Craig Howard,et al.  Improving design and documentation by using partially automated synthesis , 1994, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[20]  Tom Richards,et al.  Knowledge representation for grounded theory construction in qualitative data analysis , 1994 .

[21]  George Norman,et al.  The New Industrial Economics: Recent Developments in Industrial Organization, Oligopoly and Game Theory , 1992 .

[22]  Michael L. Begeman,et al.  gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion , 1988, CSCW '88.

[23]  Antonios Michailidis,et al.  Computer-Supported Discussion and Annotation , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[24]  Diane Elizabeth Johnson,et al.  Transactions in Symbolic Resources: A Resource Dependence Model of Congressional Deliberation , 1995 .

[25]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[26]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[27]  Robert J. Beck,et al.  The Dialogic Socialization of Aggression in a Family's Court of Reason and Inquiry. , 1993 .

[28]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation , 1989 .

[29]  H. Craig Howard,et al.  Acquiring design knowledge through design decision justification , 1992, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[30]  Peter Bennett,et al.  Experimental dramas: Prototyping a multiuser negotiation simulation , 1996 .

[31]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  Spatial Group Choice: A SDSS Tool for Collaborative Spatial Decision-Making , 1997, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[32]  William J. Ball,et al.  Using Virgil to Analyze Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal Logic , 1994 .

[33]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[34]  Donald A. Sylvan,et al.  Ontologies, Problem Representation, and the Cuban Missile Crisis , 1992 .

[35]  R. Bradley,et al.  Possible worlds: An introduction to logic and its philosophy , 1979 .

[36]  Peter M. Bennett,et al.  Floating ideas—An experiment in enhancing hypergames with maps , 1985 .

[37]  D. Lutz,et al.  Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior , 1973 .

[38]  N. Howard.  Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Part 1: Dramatic resolution vs. Rational solution , 1994 .