Seeing the point of politics: Exploring the use of CSAV techniques as aids to understanding the content of political debates in the Scottish Parliament

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 277-304

  Renton, Alastair ^a  

^a EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conflict resolution; CSAV; IBIS; Participation; Political debate; Scottish Parliament

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PUBLIC POLICY; SCOTLAND; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

COMPLEX POLITICAL ISSUES; CONFLICT RESOLUTION; POLITICAL DEBATE; SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT;

SOCIAL ASPECTS;

EID: 34047247547     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: 15728382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-007-9040-6     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Araucaria (2004). URL: http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/ araucaria/ [8.11.04].
2. ArguMed (2004). URL: http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/aaa/index.htm [8.11.04].
3. Athena (2004). URL: http://www.athenasoft.org/index.htm [8.11.04].
4. Atkinson, K. M., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney, P. (2004). PARMENIDES: Facilitating Democratic Debate. In Traunmuller, R. (ed.), Electronic Government (EGOV 2004). Springer: Berlin, 313-316.
5. Belvedere (2004). URL: http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/software/ belvedere/index.html [8.11.04].
6. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Lowes, D., and McEnery, A. M. (1991). Argument-based Explanation of Logic Programs. Knowledge Based Systems 4(3): 177-183.
7. Buzan, T. (1996). The Mind Map Book. B.B.C.: London.
8. ClaiMaker (2004). URL: http://claimaker.open.ac.uk/ [8.11.04].
9. Coleman, S. (2005). Direct Representation: Towards a Conversational Democracy. IPPR: London.
10. Compendium (2004). URL: http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/tools/ compendiumvsquest-map.htm [8.11.2004].
11. Concept map. (2006). URL: http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home. htm [24.5.06].
12. Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog Mapping: Reflections on an Industrial Strength Case Study. In Kirshchner, P. A., Buckingham Shum., S. J. and Carr, C. S. (eds.), Visualizing Argumentation. Springer: London.
13. DebateMapper URL: http://debatemapper.net/dml/Default.aspx [8.11.04].
14. Donath, J. (2002). A Semantic Approach to Visualizing Online Conversations, Communications of the ACM45/4, 45-49.
15. Electoral Commission (2002). Scotland Votes'? Public Attitudes towards Scottish Parliament Elections. The Electoral Commission: London.
16. Horn, R. E. (2003). Infrastructure for Navigating Interdisciplinary Debates: Critical Decisions for Representing Argumentation. In Kirshchner, P. A., Buckingham Shum., S. J. and Carr, C. S. (eds.), Visualizing Argumentation. Springer: London.
17. Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E. and Dimopoulos, S. (2004). A Web-based System for Supporting Structured Collaboration in the Public Sector. In Traunmuller, R. (eds.), Electronic Government (EGOV 2004). Springer: Berlin, 218-225.
18. Kunz, W. and Rittel, H. (1979). Issues as Elements of Information Systems, Working Paper No. 131, California: Berkley. URL: http://www-iurd.ced. berkeley.edu/pub/WP-131.pdf [8.11.04].
19. Phillis, B. (2003). Government Communications Review Group Interim Report 27th August 2003. Cabinet office. URL: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/ reports/commrev/pdf/pmguidance.pdf [4.11.03].
20. Reasonable (2004). URL: http://www.goreason.com/ [8.11.04].
21. Renton, A. and Macintosh, A. (2005). Exploiting Argument Mapping Techniques to Support Policy-Making. In Andersen, K. V., Gronlund, A., Traunmuller, R., and Wimmer, M. (eds.), Electronic Government: Workshop and Paper Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, EGOV 2005. Springer: Berlin.
22. Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.
23. Scottish Civic Forum (2004). URL: http://www.civicforum.org.uk/ introductions/intro_whatisscf.html [8.11.2004].
24. Selvin, A. M. (2003). Fostering Collective Intelligence: Helping Groups Use Visualized Argumentation. In Kirshchner, P. A., Buckingham Shum., S. J. and Carr, C. S. (eds.), Visualizing Argumentation. Springer: London.
25. Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D. G., Kahn, K., Lanning, S. and Suchman, L. (1987). Beyond the Chalkboard: Computer Support for Collaboration and Problem Solving in Meetings, Communications of the ACM 30(1): 32-47.
26. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of Argument. CUP: Cambridge: England.
27. van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Mapping. In Kirshchner, P. A., Buckingham Shum., S. J. and Carr, C. S. (eds.), Visualizing Argumentation. Springer: London.
28. Verheij, B. (1998). Argu-Med - A Template-based Argument Mediation System for Lawyers. In Hage, J. C., Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Koers, A. W., de Vey Mestdagh, C. N. J. and Grutters, C. A. F. M. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, JURIX: Proceedings of The Eleventh Conference. Gerard Noodt Instituut: Nijmegan.
29. Vivato (2003). URL: http://www.vivarto.com/tiki-index.php [8.11.04].
30. Whyte, A., Smith, E., Alberts, I. and Macintosh, A. (2005). Continuing the Dialogue on Radioactive Waste Management: Engaging Young Scots Innovatively. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit: Edinburgh.
31. Wigmore, H. J. A. (1913). The Principles of Judicial Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials. Little Brown: Boston.