Abstract
Governments now recognise the potential for ICTs to improve the way in which they can engage with the population, whether conducting online consultations to elicit the people’s views on proposed policy, or disseminating information via websites. However, much of the information remains in text format, leaving the task of extracting data the viewer’s responsibility. This can be a daunting prospect, especially in the case of reports of parliamentary proceedings. In the past, Argument Visualisation techniques were used in training law students to render legal cases easier to comprehend; now, enhanced by all the advantages ICT has to offer, these techniques are employed to help make sense of thorny problems in academia and business. The possibility exists that such methods might also serve to clarify complex political issues of interest to the public. This paper describes an investigation into such a possibility. Two debates taken from the Scottish Parliament 2003 Autumn session were converted into argument visualisations and presented for comparison with the ‘Official Report’ to assess whether the visualisations offered any advantages over the textual alternative.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Araucaria (2004). URL: http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/ [8.11.04]
ArguMed (2004). URL: http://www.ai.rug.nl/∼verheij/aaa/index.htm [8.11.04]
Athena (2004). URL: http://www.athenasoft.org/index.htm [8.11.04]
Atkinson K. M., Bench-Capon T., McBurney P., (2004), PARMENIDES: Facilitating Democratic Debate. In R. Traunmuller (Ed), Electronic Government (EGOV 2004), Springer: Berlin. pp 313–316
Belvedere (2004). URL: http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/software/belvedere/index.html [8.11.04]
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
Buzan T. (1996), The Mind Map Book. B.B.C.: London
ClaiMaker (2004). URL: http://claimaker.open.ac.uk/ [8.11.04]
Coleman S., (2005), Direct Representation: Towards a Conversational Democracy. IPPR: London
Compendium (2004). URL: http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/tools/compendiumvsquestmap.htm [8.11.2004]
Concept map. (2006). URL: http://users.edte.utwente.nl/lanzing/cm_home.htm [24.5.06]
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. Springer: London
DebateMapper URL: http://debatemapper.net/dm1/Default.aspx [8.11.04]
Donath J., (2002), A Semantic Approach to Visualizing Online Conversations. Communications of the ACM, 45/4: 45–49
Electoral Commission (2002), Scotland Votes? Public Attitudes towards Scottish Parliament Elections. The Electoral Commission: London
Horn R. E. (2003), Infrastructure for Navigating Interdisciplinary Debates: Critical Decisions for Representing Argumentation. In P. A. Kirshchner, S. J. Buckingham Shum., C. S. Carr (Ed.), Visualizing Argumentation. Springer: London
Karacapilidis N., Loukis E., Dimopoulos S., (2004), A Web-based System for Supporting Structured Collaboration in the Public Sector. In R. Traunmuller (Eds), Electronic Government (EGOV 2004). Springer: Berlin. pp 218– 225
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]
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]
Reason!Able (2004). URL: http://www.goreason.com/ [8.11.04]
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
Rittel H., Webber M., (1973), Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences, 4: 155–169
Scottish Civic Forum (2004). URL: http://www.civicforum.org.uk/introductions/intro_whatisscf.html [8.11.2004]
Selvin A. M. (2003), Fostering Collective Intelligence: Helping Groups Use Visualized Argumentation. In P. A. Kirshchner, S. J. Buckingham Shum., C. S. Carr (Eds), Visualizing Argumentation Springer: London
Stefik M., Foster G., Bobrow D. G., Kahn K., Lanning S., Suchman L. (1987), Beyond the Chalkboard: Computer Support for Collaboration and Problem Solving in Meetings, Communications of the ACM, 30(1): 32–47
Toulmin S., (1958), The uses of Argument. CUP: Cambridge, England
van Gelder T., (2003), Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Mapping. In P. A. Kirshchner, S. J. Buckingham Shum., C. S. Carr (Eds), Visualizing Argumentation. Springer: London
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
Vivato (2003). URL: http://www.vivarto.com/tiki-index.php [8.11.04]
Whyte A., Smith E., Alberts I., Macintosh A. (2005), Continuing the Dialogue on Radioactive Waste Management: Engaging Young Scots Innovatively. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit: Edinburgh
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Renton, A. Seeing the point of politics: exploring the use of CSAV techniques as aids to understanding the content of political debates in the Scottish Parliament. Artif Intell Law 14, 277–304 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9040-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9040-6