The talk is documented in detail at the Science – Media – Communicaton blog, where you also find my slides:

http://wmk-blog.de/2015/02/03/wmklauscht-gregor-betz-argumentrekonstruktion-als-diskursanalyse-ein-werkstattbericht/

Thanks to WMK for inviting me and setting up the fine documentation!

The post Argument Mapping and Discourse Analysis appeared first on Argunet.

A live reconstruction at the future conference of the German green party.

How can argument maps be used for debate moderation? In this post three short “live reconstruction” case studies from 2007, 2011 and 2014 are presented.

In a “live reconstruction” the arguments of the statements made during a live discussion are reconstructed and visualised in real-time during the event. The most impressive “live reconstruction” technology so far comes from ARG-tech at the University of Dundee. ARG-tech used a huge touchscreen, the “AnalysisWall”, and a large team of analysts to transcribe, segment and analyse an episode of the BBC radio show “The Moral Maze” in 2012.

The technology we have used so far has been much simpler. But the following use cases show that the problems are not so much of technical but of a methodological nature. Even if working perfectly, it is an open question whether the technology is just a nice gimmick or if it produces real benefits for the participants of live discussions. The following cases show that such benefits are difficult to achieve if analysts, moderators, clients and participants have conflicting aims and expectations.

What is a “live reconstruction”?

Our original concept of “live reconstruction” can be characterized in the following way:

• participants argue about a concrete controversial thesis or question.
• three to four analysts work on the reconstruction of the debate with Argunet. Because Argunet is a client-server software they can work on the same map from different computers,
  • inserting important theses,
  • summarizing the arguments in short descriptions and giving them telling titles (there is not enough time for detailed logical reconstruction),
  • sketching the relations between arguments and theses,
  • layouting the argument graph.
• the emerging argument map is projected live on a big screen. Arguments ‘magically’ pop up one by one.
• the moderator uses the resulting map to structure the ongoing debate and to summarize results, e.g. she
  • asks participants whether the reconstruction is adequate,
  • directs attention to arguments that were neglected or to implicit assumptions that were revealed,
  • shows what the central claims are and what dialectical role they play in different arguments,
• participants can refer to specific arguments in the debate in order to
  • express their agreement or disagreement,
  • add new rebuttals or support, or
  • clarify their previously made statements.
• the argument map can be used to document the discussion results.

First case study: Long night of the sciences 2007

2007 was the first time we gave the “live reconstruction” a try at the “Lange Nacht der Wissenschaft” (long night of the sciences) a popular event in Berlin, where universities and other science institutions open up for the general public.

Overall this has been a very positive experience:

• the argument map was a useful moderation tool that made it easier for the moderator to keep an overview,
• participants used the map in their statements to refer to arguments,
• participants collaborated on making the map better and more representative instead of pushing and clinging to their points of view,
• this led to structured, fair and non-confrontative discussion.

At the time we were quite enthusiastic about the prospects of the method. Time has shown that this success depended crucially on the non-typical “ideal” conditions of this use case:

• it was a pro bono experiment, there were no costs to consider,
• the moderator was part of our team and an expert in argumentation theory,
• guests were expecting an experiment and came to learn about the method of argument analysis and reconstruction,
• the topic of the debate was secondary and was decided upon by the audience at the beginning of the experiment.

Second case study: Future Congress of the German Green Party 2011 (Zukunftskongress der Grünen)

Our team at work at the future conference.

In 2011 the German Green Party organized a “Future Congress” as an open and innovative forum for discussions about their party platform. The congress was organized in 14 workshops, some of which were moderated by the party leaders Claudia Roth and Cem Özdemir. We were hired to conduct live reconstructions of two workshops, one on “social justice” and one on a “common European defence policy”. Both workshops were moderated by Cem Özdemir. Our team consisted of one coordinator, two “reconstruction analysts” and one co-moderator. The boundary conditions were challenging, to say the least:

• a huge audience and speakers list,
• limited time,
• the first topic was very broad and there was no clear focus of the discussion,
• many statements from the audience were very emotional and vague,
• the moderator was not an expert in argumentation theory, though we had the opportunity to introduce him to our method beforehand,
• the moderator was a party leader, and had to meet many expectations that were not easily reconcilable with using argument maps to structure the debate and keep the participants focused on specific points,
• because of this and the time restrictions our co-moderator could only play a small and very limited role.

Not all conditions were unfavorable. The Green Party agreed to pay for a team of four experts which is quite extraordinary, considering these were moderation expenses alone. Even with such a large team the reconstruction was very exhausting, stressful and difficult for the team; and it was hard to assess whether the live projection brought any benefits for the discussion, because of the lack of interaction. Though the feedback we got was very positive, we were somewhat disillusioned.

Third case study: Annual convention of the German ethics council 2014

In 2014 we were hired by the German Ethics Council for its annual convention and gave the concept another chance: In a collaboration with Ralph Groetker from explorat we tried to develop ideas to overcome the weaknesses of our concept. We changed the process to make it financially more feasible, decrease the workload for the analysts and increase the benefits of the resulting maps. This process was tested in three parallel workshops on “reproductive ethics”. The changes were the following:

• Due to financial limitations we could only use one analyst per workshop.
• This made it impossible to create a new reconstruction from scratch live; instead we prepared maps beforehand that were based on an online survey of the invited guests and additional research.
• These maps were given to the members of the Ethics Council and their staff beforehand. In several rounds they were revised and enhanced.
• Every guest got a conference binder that included these argument maps; additionally the maps were presented on big posters at the conference.
• These maps were than augmented live with simple comments that described important claims and additional arguments of the participants, without reconstructing the precise relations of these arguments.
• Directly after the workshops the new arguments were added with post-its to the posters.
• Additionally the maps were used to document the results.
• To simplify the process even more we agreed to use the mindmapping software XMind instead of Argunet. Though this made it possible to use icons as mnemonic devices there were some limitations we think speak against using such generic software in the future (for example, the graph has to be hierarchic and argument groups have to be sub-trees).

We think that these changes proved largely sucessful. It made a huge difference for the reconstruction process that the analysts could build on already existing maps. Even though we reduced the team from three analysts to one single analyst, the reconstruction of the new arguments was feasible. The feedback was once again very positive.

Even so, this was a mixed experience, because in two of three workshops the moderators didn’t want to get distracted or restricted by the maps and refused to use live projections. In these workshops the live reconstruction had no influence on the discussion (though it was used for documentation purposes). But maybe this didn’t make such a huge difference, because in all workshops the participants had read our arguments beforehand and we got the impression that some of them used the maps to formulate their statements.

Argument map of the session on “mitochondrial transfer” at the annual convention of the German ethics council. Circular boxes were added live during the event. Rectangular boxes were reconstructed beforehand.

Conclusion:

Live reconstructions can have real benefits if the boundary conditions are just right. But in real-world deployment it is difficult to find and establish these conditions. The most important ones are:

• Preparation: The live reconstruction can only augment an already existing map, so it has to be possible to prepare such a map beforehand.
• Preparation: Clients and moderators have to be included in the reconstruction process as early as possible.
• Moderation: The moderator has to be willing and able to use the map; realistically, this will only be the case if the moderator has been trained in argument reconstruction and analysis.
• Topic: The questions to-be-discussed must be concrete and controversial.

In many cases moderators, clients and participants have conflicting expectations and aims that make it impossible to create these conditions. Under such circumstances further revisions to the process are needed to make argument maps useful for debate moderation.

The post Going live: Using argument maps for debate moderation appeared first on Argunet.

The Argunet Editor is certainly not the ideal tool for giving a presentation. Traditional slides (created with PP, Keynote or Latex), too, are unsuitable for presenting huge argument maps.

In a talk I gave in Bremen in 2011, I simply used Mac OS’s Preview program to display the Climate Engineering Argument Map: I started by showing the entire map in fullscreen mode, and then zoomed in, moved the map, zoomed out, etc. as I commented on various subdebates and arguments. Shortly after the talk I learned about Prezi …

With zooming presentation software (such as Prezi or impress.js) things have become much easier. To me, these are ideal tools for giving a scientific talk or a popular presentation based on one of our argument maps.

In the EuTRACE project, I went a step further. Using my presentations as a starting point, I created a series of screencasts, available at youtube, that introduce the climate engineering controversy.

This is an attempt to disseminate argument maps by other means than mere texts or graphics. However, it’s not clear to me whether argument map videos really work. The EuTRACE project is still ongoing and the positive feedback so far is probably not representative.

So any comments or suggestions on presenting argument maps with Prezi/impress.js and in screencasts are more than welcome.

The post Engaging the Audience: Climate Engineering Talks and Videos appeared first on Argunet.

Climate engineering (CE) refers to large-scale technical interventions into the earth system that seek to offset the effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions. CE includes methods which shield the earth from incoming solar radiation (solar radiation management) and methods which take carbon out of the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal).

In 2010, the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) commissioned six individual scoping studies on different aspects of CE. Eventually, these individual studies were to be integrated into a single, interdisciplinary assessment. Sebastian Cacean and myself have been charged with compiling a report on ethical aspects.

Our overall aim in writing the study was to provide value-free, neutral policy advice on ethical issues of CE. To achieve this goal, we’ve decided to carry out an analysis of the various (moral) arguments pro and con climate engineering methods. More specifically, we

• compiled a comprehensive commented bibliography of the CE discourse with a focus on ethical arguments (including scientific articles, policy statements, media reports, popular science books, etc.);
• we sketched the overall dialectical structure and the individual arguments with Argunet, which gave us a first argument map;
• we presented the preliminary argument map at project workshops to get feedback;
• and, finally, we revised our interpretation and reconstructed the arguments in detail (with Argunet).

An immediate result of this procedure was a comprehensive argument map, visualized in the following poster high-resolution poster. (Technically, we’ve exported the Argunet map as a graphml file, post-edited the map with yEd, and exported it as a PDF, which was finally included in a Powerpoint poster.)

We’ve then used the CE argument map in the BMBF project

1. to compile the report “Ethical Aspects” (download);
2. to assist policy makers in acquiring a coherent position (by evaluating alternative core positions proponents and policy makers may adopt);
3. to merge the various disciplinary studies in a final assessment report (download).

Ad 1.): The scoping study on ethical aspects of climate engineering contains a macro map of the debate that structures the entire report. Each chapter is devoted to a sub-debate of the controversy. The chapters in turn feature micro maps that display the internal structure of the sub-debates and visualize the individual arguments plus their dialectic relations. The arguments are then discussed in detail in the chapter texts. Central arguments are reconstructed as premiss-conclusion structures.

Ad 2.) We’ve also used the argument map to assist stakeholders in acquiring a coherent position.

Thus, we’ve identified alternative core positions the ministry, or another stakeholder, may adopt. Such a core position might, e.g., consist in saying that CE should be researched into so as to have these methods ready for deployment in time. We’ve than visualized the core position in the argument map and calculated the logico-argumentative implications of the corresponding stance. The map shows, accordingly, which arguments one is required to refute and which theses one is compelled to accept if one adopts the corresponding core position. By spelling out such implications we tried to enable stakeholders to take all arguments into account and to develop a well-considered position.

Ad 3.) The argument map proved also helpful in integrating the various discipline-specific studies into a single, interdisciplinary assessment report. So, the assessment report, too, starts with a macro map, which depicts the overall structure of the discourse, and lists the pivotal arguments. Most interestingly, though, all the empirical chapters of the assessment report (on physical and technical aspects, on sociological aspects, on governance aspects, etc.) consistently refer to the argument map and make explicit to which arguments the empirical discussion unfolded in the chapter is related. This allows one to trace back sophisticated empirical considerations to the general debate and hence to the key questions of the controversy.

In sum, we found that argument mapping techniques are very helpful in compiling assessment reports. Accordingly employed, the impact of argument mapping on societal discourse and policy deliberation clearly depends on whether the reports are actually read. So, one requirement that has been highlighted by this project is to develop ways for engaging recipients more actively with an argument analysis, e.g. through talks, videos or an interactive website. Other posts summarize our experience with such active involvement.

The post Mapping the Climate Engineering Controversy: A Case of Argument-Analysis Driven Policy Advice appeared first on Argunet.