Hypermedia Discourse: Contesting Networks of Ideas and Arguments

This invited contribution motivates the Hypermedia Discourseresearch programme, investigating the reading, writing and contesting of ideas as hypermedia networks grounded in discourse schemes. We are striving for cognitively and computationally tractable conceptual structures: fluid enough to serve as augmentations to group working memory, yet structured enough to support long term memory. I will describe how such networks can be (i) mapped by multiple analysts to visualize and interrogate the claims and arguments in a literature, and (ii) mapped in real time to manage a team's information sources, competing interpretations, arguments and decisions, particularly in time- pressured scenarios where harnessing collective intelligence is a priority. Given the current geo-political and environmental context, the growth in distributed teamwork, and the need for multidisciplinary approaches to wicked problems, there has never been a greater need for sensemaking tools to help diverse stakeholders build common ground.

[1]  Clara Mancini,et al.  Cinematic hypertext. Investigating a new paradigm , 2005 .

[2]  Victoria S. Uren,et al.  Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: Design, implementation and user evaluation , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Paul Kirchner,et al.  Arguing to learn , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[4]  Bart Verheij.  Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers , 2005 .

[5]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[6]  J. Bruner.  Acts of meaning , 1990 .

[7]  Deirdre Boden,et al.  The Business of Talk , 1994 .

[8]  Raymond McCall,et al.  Rationale Management in Software Engineering , 2006 .

[9]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Modelling discourse in contested domains: A semiotic and cognitive framework , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[11]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  The Roots of Computer Supported Argument Visualization , 2003, Visualizing Argumentation.

[12]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[13]  Albert M. Selvin,et al.  Aesthetic and Ethical Implications of Participatory Hypermedia Practice , 2005 .

[14]  H. W. Rittel,et al.  Second-generation design methods , 1984 .

[15]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  PARMENIDES: Facilitating Deliberation in Democracies , 2006, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[16]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  John D. Lowrance,et al.  Graphical Manipulation of Evidence in Structured Arguments , 2007 .

[18]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Knowledge Cartography for Controversies: The Iraq Debate , 2008 .

[19]  Austin Tate,et al.  Co-OPR: Design and Evaluation of Collaborative Sensemaking and Planning Tools for Personnel Recovery , 2006 .

[20]  The rationale for RationaleTM , 2007 .

[21]  Douglas C. Engelbart,et al.  A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man's intellect , 1988 .

[22]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Jesse James Garrett.  Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications , 2007 .

[24]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Rapid knowledge construction: a case study in corporate contingency planning using collaborative hypermedia , 2002 .

[25]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Formalization, User Strategy And Interaction Design: Users? Behaviour With Discourse Tagging Semantics , 2007, CKC.

[26]  Manolis Tzagarakis,et al.  Web-Based Collaboration and Decision Making Support: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach , 2007, Int. J. Web Based Learn. Teach. Technol..

[27]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems , 2006, J. Inf. Sci..

[28]  Maarten Sierhuis,et al.  Hypermedia Support for Argumentation-Based Rationale , 2006 .

[29]  Victoria S. Uren,et al.  Modeling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues , 2007, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[30]  Maarten Sierhuis,et al.  Automating CapCom Using Mobile Agents and Robotic Assistants , 2005 .

[31]  Claude Guittard,et al.  Cooperative Building of Multiple Points-of-View Topic Maps with Hypertopic , 2008, TMRA.

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

[33]  Rob Procter,et al.  Memetic: An Infrastructure for Meeting Memory , 2006, COOP.

[34]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence , 2007, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[35]  Albert M. Selvin,et al.  Fostering Collective Intelligence: Helping Groups Use Visualized Argumentation , 2003, Visualizing Argumentation.

[36]  Maarten Sierhuis,et al.  Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC , 2005 .

[37]  Albert M. Selvin.  Supporting Collaborative Analysis and Design with Hypertext Functionality , 1999, J. Digit. Inf..

[38]  Chris Reed,et al.  Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions , 2003 .

[39]  Jack Park.  Topic Mapping: A View of the Road Ahead , 2005, TMRA.

[40]  John Domingue,et al.  Ontological Foundations for Scholarly Debate Mapping Technology , 2008, COMMA.

[41]  K. Weick.  FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[42]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems , 2005 .

[43]  Reedchris,et al.  Towards an argument interchange format , 2006 .

[44]  Maarten Sierhuis,et al.  Human-Agent Knowledge Cartography for e-Science: NASA Field Trials at the Mars Desert Research Station , 2008 .

[45]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[46]  Gangmin Li,et al.  Modeling naturalistic argumentation in research literatures: Representation and interaction design issues: Research Articles , 2007 .

[47]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools , 1998 .

[48]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Dialog Mapping: Reflections on an Industrial Strength Case Study , 2003, Visualizing Argumentation.

[49]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[50]  Jack Park,et al.  Charting the Topic Maps Research and Applications Landscape , 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.