Providing argument support for E-participation

Journal of Information Technology and Politics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 43-59

  Macintosh, Ann ^a   Gordon, Thomas F ^b   Renton, Alastair ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b FRAUNHOFER FOKUS   (Germany)

^c EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation systems; Digital democracy; E participation; Information and communication technology; Online deliberation; Public participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950773938     PISSN: 19331681     EISSN: 1933169X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19331680802662113     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Atkinson, K. (2006). Value-based argumentation for democratic decision support. In P. E. Dunne & T. J. M. Bench-Capon (Eds.), Computational models of natural argument, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computation Models of Natural Argument (COMMA 2006), (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 144, pp. 47-58). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
2. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2004). PARMENIDES: Facilitating democratic debate. In R. Traunmüller (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Electronic Government: Third International Conference, EGOV 2004 (pp. 313-316). Amsterdam: Springer-Verlag.
3. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Beardsley, M. C. (1950). Practical logic. New York: Prentice Hall.
5. Becker, T., & Ohlin, T. (2006). The improbable dream: Measuring the power of Internet deliberations in setting public agendas and influencing public planning policies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2(1), article 2. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art2
6. Bench-Capon, T. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429-448.
7. Bench-Capon, T., Leng, P. H., & Staniford, G. (1998). A computer-supported environment for the teaching of legal argument. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JLIT), 1998(3). Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://ww2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_3/bench
8. Besnard, P., and Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. MIT Press.
9. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning with evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2-3), 125-165.
10. Cartwright, D., & Atkinson, K. (2008). Political engagement through tools for argumentation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA) (pp. 116-127). Toulouse, France.
11. Conklin, J. (2003). Dialog mapping: Reflections on an industrial strength case study. In P. A. Kirshchner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing Argumentation (pp. 117-136). London: Springer-Verlag.
12. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(4), 303-331.
13. Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S. & Sierhuis, M. (2003). Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS. In H. Weigand, G. Goldkuhl, & A. de Moor (Eds.), Proceedings LAP'03: 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling. New York: ACM Press. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://eprints.aktors.org/262.
14. Crosswhite, J., Fox, J., Reed, C., Scaltsas, T., & Stumpf, S. (2003). Computational models of rhetorical argument. In C. Reed & T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation Machines-New Frontiers in Argument and Computation (pp. 175-209). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative global politics. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
16. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321-357.
17. Dutton, W. H. (1992). Political science research on teledemocracy. Social Science Computer Review, 10(4), 505-522.
18. Elliman, T., Macintosh, A. & Irani, Z. (2007). A model building tool to support group deliberation (eDelib). International Journal of Cases on Electronic Commerce, 3(3), 33-44.
19. Engelbart, D. C. (2003). Afterword. In P. A. Kirshchner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation (pp. 205-208). London: Springer- Verlag.
20. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21. Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
22. Gilbert, M. A., Grasso, F., Groarke, L., Gurr, C., & Gerlofs, J. M. (2003). The persuasion machine- argumentation and computational linguistics. In C. Reed & T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation machines-new frontiers in argument and computation (pp. 121-174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
23. Gordon, T., Macintosh, A., & Renton, A. (2006). Demo- Net deliverable D5.2.2: Argumentation support systems for eParticipation. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.demo-net.org/demo/dissemination/reports/argumentation/.
24. Gordon, T. F. (1995). The pleadings game: An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. New York: Springer.
25. Gordon, T. F. (2005). Information technology for good governance. In D. Bourcier (Ed.), French-German symposium on governance, law and technology (pp. 87-95). Paris: University of Paris.
26. Gordon, T. F. (2007). Visualizing Carneades argument graphs. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1-4), 109-117.
27. Gordon, T. F. (2008). Hybrid reasoning with argumentation schemes. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 08). Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.cmna.info/CMNA8/programme/CMNA8-Gordon.pdf.
28. Gordon, T. F., & Karacapilidis, N. (1997). The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 10-18). New York: ACM
29. Gordon, T. F., Karacapilidis, N., & Voss, H. (1996). Zeno-a mediation system for spatial planning. In U. Busbach, D. Kerr, & K. Sikkel (Eds.), CSCW and the Web-Proceedings of the 5th ERCIM/W4G Workshop (pp. 55-61). Sankt Augustin, Germany: GMD Technical Reports.
30. Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. N. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875-896.
31. Gordon, T. F., & Richter, G. (2002). Discourse support systems for deliberative democracy. In R. Traunmüller & K. Lenk (Eds.), eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV02) (pp. 248-255). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
32. Gordon, T. F., Voss, A., Richter, G., & Märker, O. (2001). Zeno: Groupware for discourses on the Internet. Künstliche Intelligenz, 2(1), 43-45.
33. Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2006). The Carneades argumentation framework-using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. E. Dunne (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 06) (pp. 195-207). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
34. Hage, J., Leenes, R., & Lodder, A. (1994). Hard cases: A procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(2), 113-167.
35. Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E., & Dimopoulos, S. (2005). Computer-supported G2G collaboration for public policy and decision making. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 602-624.
36. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation. Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Computer supported cooperative work. London: Springer.
37. Lodder, A. R. (2002). DiaLaw-On legal justification and dialogical model of argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Berlin: Springer.
38. Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., Boucher, S., & Monceau, H. (2008). Considered opinions of further EU enlargement. Unpublished paper. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2008/EU-enlargement.pdf.
39. Lusoli, W., Ward, S., & Gibson, R. (2006). (Re)connecting politics? Parliament, the public and the Internet. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(1), 24-42.
40. Macintosh, A. (2007). eParticipation and eDemocracy research in Europe. In H. Chen, L. Brandt, V. Gregg, R. Traünmuller, S. Dawes, E. Hovy, A. Macintosh, & C. A. Larson (Eds.), Digital government: eGovernment research, case studies, and implementation (pp. 85-102). New York: Springer.
41. Malkia, M., Anttiroiko, A.-V., & Savolainen, R., Eds. (2004). eTransformation in governance-new directions in government and politics. London: Idea Group.
42. Märker, O., Hagedorn, H., Trénel, M., & Gordon, T. F. (2002). Internet-based citizen participation in the City of Esslingen. Relevance-moderation-software. In M. Schrenk (Ed.), CORP 2002-Who plans Europe's future? (pp. 39-45). Vienna: Technical University of Vienna.
43. Ohl, R. (2008). Computer supported argument visualization: Modelling in consultative democracy around wicked problems. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques. (pp. 267-286). Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing Series. London: Springer.
44. Prakken, H. (1995). From logic to dialectic in legal argument. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 165-174). New York: ACM Press.
45. Prakken, H. (2001a). Modelling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48, 253-271.
46. Prakken, H. (2001b). Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In R. P. Loui (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 119-128). New York: ACM Press.
47. Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009-1040.
48. Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (2006). Presumptions and burden of proof. In T. M. van Engers (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 154, pp. 21-30). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
49. Reed, C. A., & Walton, D. N. (2001). Applications of argumentation schemes. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument (OSSA2001), Windsor, Canada. Retrieved, November 27, 2008 from http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/ossa2001.pdf.
50. Renton, A., & Macintosh, A. (2005). Exploiting argument mapping techniques to support policy-making. In K. V. Andersen, A. Gronlund, R. Traunmüller, & M. Wimmer (Eds.), Electronic government: workshop and poster proceedings of the Fourth International Conference, EGOV. (pp. 219-224). Linz, Germany: Trauner Verlag.
51. Renton, A., & Macintosh, A. (2007). Computer supported argument maps as a policy memory. The Information Society Journal, 23(2), 125-133.
52. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
53. Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S. & Shulman S. W. (2007). Democracy and e-rulemaking: Web-based technologies, participation, and the potential for deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(1), 37-55.
54. Schmidt-Belz, B., Rinner, C., & Gordon, T. F. (1998). GeoMed for urban planning-first user experiences. In R. Laurini, K. Makki, & N. Pissinou (Eds.), ACMGIS' 98, Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (pp. 82-87). New York: ACM Press.
55. Selvin, A., Shum, S. B., & Sierhuis, M. (2001). Compendium: Making meetings into knowledge events. Paper presented at Knowledge Technologies, Austin, Texas.
56. Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle's topics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.
57. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
58. Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, reasons, arguments: Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Ph.D dissertation, Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands.
59. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
60. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.
61. Whyte, A., Smith, E., Alberts, I., & Macintosh, A. (2005). Continuing the dialogue on radioactive waste management: Engaging young Scotland innovatively. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.
62. Wigmore, J. H. (1940). A treatise on the Anglo-American system of evidence, vol. 1. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.