Abstract
This paper examines the collaborative use of visual argument maps in the context of argument production in organizations. Argument maps are highly multimodal, as their use involves the combination of diagrams, text elements, as well as spoken statements. In this theoretical piece, we apply a Collaborative Dimensions framework to argument maps that can be used to better design, understand, evaluate, and use argument maps in collaborative settings for decision making purposes. Specifically, our conceptual framework – derived from interdisciplinary perspectives – takes into consideration how the visual dimensions of argument maps have a bearing on the social interactions of people involved in a complex argumentation process. We posit that cognitive dimensions of argument maps need to be enriched with additional communicative and collaborative dimensions in order to foster a more widespread adoption of argument mapping in organizational decision making. In our socio-visual approach to argument mapping, we thus distinguish the following seven dimensions: Visual Insight, Outcome Clarity, Directed Focus, Perceived Finishedness, Visual Appeal, Content Modifiability, and Collaboration Support. We illustrate the use of the framework as an evaluation tool and analyze three different approaches to argument mapping with the help of the seven dimensions. In this way, the framework can be used to improve collaborative argument mapping. Our contribution thus lies in proposing an interdisciplinary and theoretically grounded set of factors to augment the quality of argument maps, both from a process and a results perspective. In this manner we hope to contribute to the theory of argumentation through the rich notion of “collaborative dimensions,” as well as further the practice of collaborative argument production through a more reflective and systematic use of interactive argument visualization.
References
Blackwell, A. F., C. Britton, A. Cox, T. R. G. Green, C. A. Gurr, G. F. Kadoda, M. Kutar, et al. 2001. Cognitive dimensions of notations: Design tools for cognitive technology. In M. Beynon, C. L. Nehaniv & K. Dautenhahn (eds.), Cognitive technology, 325–341. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/3-540-44617-6_31Search in Google Scholar
Bresciani, S. & M. Eppler. 2013. Understanding the visual in team communication: A collaborative dimensions approach. Paper presented at the International Communication Association (ICA) Conference 2013, London, 17–21 June.Search in Google Scholar
Buckingham-Shum, S. & A. Okada. 2008. Knowledge cartography for controversies: The Iraq debate. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham-Shum & T. Simon (eds.), Knowledge cartography, 249–265. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7_12Search in Google Scholar
Buzan, T. 2004. Mind maps at work: How to be the best at your job and still have time to play. London: Thorsons.Search in Google Scholar
Conole, G. 2008. Using Compendium as a tool to support the design of learning activities. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham-Shum & T. Simon (eds.), Knowledge cartography, 197–221. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7_10Search in Google Scholar
De Moor, A., J. Park & M. Croitoru. 2009. Argumentation map generation with conceptual graphs: The case for ESSENCE. In CS-TIW’2009: Fourth conceptual structures tool interoperability workshop@ ICCCS’09: 17th international conference on conceptual structures, 58–69.Search in Google Scholar
Green, T. R. G. & M. Petre. 1996. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A “cognitive dimensions” framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7. 131–174.10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. H. 2011. Cognitive conditions of diagrammatic reasoning. Semiotica 186(1/4). 189–212.10.1515/semi.2011.052Search in Google Scholar
Huff, A. S. 1990. Mapping strategic thought. Chichester, NY: John Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Hundhausen, C. 2005. Using end user visualization environments to mediate conversations: A “communicative dimensions” framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 16(3). 153–185.10.1016/j.jvlc.2004.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Kanselaar, G., G. Erkens, J. Andriessen, M. Prangsma, A. Veerman & J. Jaspers. 2003. Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham-Shum & C. S. Carr (eds.), Visualizing argumentation, 51–73. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_3Search in Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., S. J. Buckingham-Shum & C. S. Carr (eds.). 2003. Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9Search in Google Scholar
Kunz, W. & H. W. Rittel. 1970. Issues as elements of information systems (Working paper 131). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.Search in Google Scholar
Larkin, J. H. & H. Simon. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11. 65–99.10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.xSearch in Google Scholar
Massey, A. P. & W. A. Wallace. 1996. Understanding and facilitating group problem structuring and formulation: Mental representations, interaction, and representation aids. Decision Support Systems 17. 253–274.10.1016/0167-9236(96)00004-8Search in Google Scholar
Mengis, J. 2007. Integrating knowledge through communication: An analysis of expert-decision maker interactions. Lugano: University of Lugano dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Novak, J. D. 2010. Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203862001Search in Google Scholar
Okada, A., S. Buckingham-Shum & T. Sherborne (eds.). 2008. Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7Search in Google Scholar
Okhuysen, G. A. & K. M. Eisenhardt. 2002. Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science 13(4). 370–387.10.1287/orsc.13.4.370.2947Search in Google Scholar
Paivio, A. 1969. Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review 76(3). 241–263.10.1037/h0027272Search in Google Scholar
Reber, R., N. Schwarz & P. Winkielman. 2004. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4). 364–382.10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3Search in Google Scholar
Rowe, G., F. Macagno, C. Reed & D. Walton. 2006. Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy. Teaching Philosophy 29(2). 111–124.10.5840/teachphil200629217Search in Google Scholar
Rowe, G. & C. Reed. 2008. Argument diagramming: The araucaria project. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham-Shum & T. Simon (eds.), Knowledge cartography, 163–181. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7_8Search in Google Scholar
Sawyer, J. E. 2004. Decision making effectiveness in multifunctional groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Philadelphia.Search in Google Scholar
Sierhuis, M. & S. B. Shum. 2008. Human-agent knowledge cartography for e-science: NASA field trials at the Mars Desert Research Station. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham-Shum & T. Simon (eds.), Knowledge cartography, 287–305. London: Springer.10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7_14Search in Google Scholar
Tiropanis, T., H. Davis, D. Millard & M. Weal. 2009. Semantic technologies for learning and teaching in the Web 2.0 era. Intelligent Systems 24(6). 49–53.10.1109/MIS.2009.121Search in Google Scholar
Tversky, B. 2005. Visuospatial reasoning. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (eds.), Cambridge handbook of reasoning, 209–249. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tversky, B. & M. Suwa. 2009. Thinking with sketches. In A. Markman (ed.), Tools for innovation, 74–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381634.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
van den Braak, S. W., H. V. Oostendorp, H. Prakken & G. A. Vreeswijk. 2006. A critical review of argument visualization tools: Do users become better reasoners? In Workshop notes of the ECAI-06 workshop on computational models of natural argument, 67–75.Search in Google Scholar
Walton, D. & C. Reed. 2003. Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, 195–211. Dortrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_16Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
