Fostering Transparency in Policy Development Processes - A Development Transparency Framework

Transparency is a well-articulated requirement in policy and project development processes. To the present time, we mostly see approaches documenting the workflow or the results of these processes, but lack a representation of the discourse which produced the results. However, the arguments which have been put forward in the development of a policy document the reasoning for the details of the policy and therefore, a representation of the discourse is an important step to increase the transparency. In the present paper, we introduce an iterative development transparency framework (DTF) integrating the transparency at the workflow and result level with approaches from argumentation visualization to provide discourse information in the form of alternatives and arguments. The framework is instantiated in a prototype to empirically evaluate the ability to improve transparency among participating and external stakeholders on the use case of the “Research Core Dataset” a nation-wide policy development project initiated by the German Council of Science and Humanities in 2013 integrating over 50 stakeholders from the German science system. The first qualitative evaluation results imply that providing the discourse information is mostly appreciated as helpful for transparency if the additional complexity can be addressed by information reduction functionality.

[1]  Mathias Riechert,et al.  Research Information Standardization as a Wicked Problem: Possible Consequences for the Standardization Process , 2014 .

[2]  Jenny de Fine Licht,et al.  When Does Transparency Generate Legitimacy? Experimenting on a Context‐Bound Relationship , 2014 .

[3]  Werner Dees,et al.  Research Information Standardization as a Wicked Problem: Possible Consequences for the Standardization Process. Case Study of the Specification Project of the German Research Core Dataset , 2014, CRIS.

[4]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  POSITIONING AND PRESENTING DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT 1 , 2013 .

[5]  Tudor Groza,et al.  A review of argumentation for the Social Semantic Web , 2013, Semantic Web.

[6]  J. Herzberg „Open Government“ – Versuch einer Begriffsbestimmung , 2013 .

[7]  Gary M. Olson,et al.  Solving Wicked Social Problems with Socio-computational Systems , 2013, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.

[8]  Euripidis Loukis,et al.  A Multi-Method Evaluation of Different Models of Structured Electronic Consultation on Government Policies , 2012, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[9]  Camilla Forsell,et al.  An heuristic set for evaluation in information visualization , 2010, AVI.

[10]  Niels Pinkwart,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning DOI 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art , 2009 .

[11]  Riccardo Mazza,et al.  Introduction to Information Visualization , 2009 .

[12]  Lora Aroyo,et al.  The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender , 2008, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[13]  Samir Chatterjee,et al.  A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research , 2008 .

[14]  Janni Nielsen,et al.  European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) , 2008 .

[15]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  Empirical Studies of the Value of Conceptually Explicit Notations in Collaborative Learning , 2008 .

[16]  Alastair Renton,et al.  Seeing the point of politics: exploring the use of CSAV techniques as aids to understanding the content of political debates in the Scottish Parliament , 2006, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  ARGUMENTATION SYSTEMS AND ONTOLOGIES FOR ENHANCING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE LEGISLATION PROCESS , 2007 .

[18]  Hongan Wang,et al.  Visualization of large hierarchical data by circle packing , 2006, CHI.

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

[20]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Ten Usability Heuristics , 2006 .

[21]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The Craft of Information Visualization: Readings and Reflections , 2003 .

[22]  Philipp Mayring Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse : Grundlagen und Techniken , 2003 .

[23]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Compendium: Making Meetings into Knowledge Events , 2001 .

[24]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Readings in information visualization - using vision to think , 1999 .

[25]  Ken Schwaber,et al.  SCRUM Development Process , 1997 .

[26]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[27]  J. Friedrichs Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung , 1990 .

[28]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[29]  Kuntz Werner,et al.  Issues as Elements of Information Systems , 1970 .