3,078
edits
Changes
no edit summary
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.
The main reason for a poor performance of AMTs in terms of grounding costs is that they are object-oriented technologies: the primary objective of an argument mapping tool is to generate a knowledge object in the form of map able to capture and organize knowledge provided by many contributors during the debate. Unlike other collaboration technologies, AMTs do not focus on the communication process itself; as a result all the information generated from communicative acts developing during the process and mostly aimed at making sense of the debate, e.g. about the participants or
the generation of the content, are missing or hidden.<ref>Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Shum, S. B. (2012). A debate dashboard to enhance online knowledge sharing. VINE, 42(1), 67–93.</ref>
==Refernces==
<references/>
[[category: deliberation]]
[[category: online]]