Difference between revisions of "Argument mapping tools"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(Created page with "Inthispaperwefocusonaparticularkindofweb-basedcollaborativemappingplatformknownasArgumentMappingTools(henceforthAMTs).AMTsprovideaweb-baseduserinterfacethatallowsuserstoco-cre...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Argument Mapping Tools (henceforth AMTs). AMTs provide a web-based user interface that allows users to co-create, navigate and edit argument maps. An argument map is a representation of reasoning in which the evidential relationships among claims are made wholly explicit using graphical or other non-verbal techniques (van Gelder, 2003). They are supposed to be particularly suited to represent controversial debates because they allow users to represent controversial point of view in a coherent structures made up of alternative positions on an issue at stake with their associated chains of pros and cons arguments. | |
| + | |||
| + | While different studies have proved that AMTs may provide organizations with several advantages (Skyrme, 1998; Novak, 1998; Conklin, 2003), they have not received widespread diffusion. Possible explanations of the limited success of online argumentation as a collaborative technology involve factors such as the steep learning that average users are required to climb to be proficient with knowledge. | ||
[[category: deliberation]] | [[category: deliberation]] | ||
[[category: online]] | [[category: online]] | ||
Revision as of 23:31, 27 July 2014
Argument Mapping Tools (henceforth AMTs). AMTs provide a web-based user interface that allows users to co-create, navigate and edit argument maps. An argument map is a representation of reasoning in which the evidential relationships among claims are made wholly explicit using graphical or other non-verbal techniques (van Gelder, 2003). They are supposed to be particularly suited to represent controversial debates because they allow users to represent controversial point of view in a coherent structures made up of alternative positions on an issue at stake with their associated chains of pros and cons arguments.
While different studies have proved that AMTs may provide organizations with several advantages (Skyrme, 1998; Novak, 1998; Conklin, 2003), they have not received widespread diffusion. Possible explanations of the limited success of online argumentation as a collaborative technology involve factors such as the steep learning that average users are required to climb to be proficient with knowledge.