Aakhus, M.

Moor, A. de

English

Research Papers in Economics

Argumentation Support:  
From Technologies to Tools 
 
Aldo de Moor
1, Mark Aakhus
2 
Tilburg University, the Netherlands
1 
Rutgers University, USA
2 
ademoor@uvt.nl, aakhus@scils.rutgers.edu 
Abstract 
Electronic  argumentation  support  is  increasingly  important  in  today’s 
networked  society.  Virtual  research  collaboration,  e-business,  and  many 
other domains of professional life critically depend on adequate support of 
tools  for  productive  argumentative  interactions.  However,  a  plethora  of 
technologies exist that are not necessarily tools. A technology only is a tool 
if it serves the purposes of the community in which it is used.  In this paper, 
we  outline  an  approach    to  diagnose  to  what  extent  a  particular 
argumentation  technology  is  a  tool.  We  do  this  by  combining  a  socio-
technical  view  on  technologies  with  a  pragma-dialectical  approach  to 
argumentation analysis. We argue that for technologies to become a tool, 
argumentation  routines  and  design  need  to  co-evolve.  We  illustrate  our 
approach by applying it to a case on group report authoring. 
 
1.  Introduction 
 
Argumentation is a crucial communicative activity in society. Many argumentation 
technologies  exist,  such  as  mailing  lists,  group  decision  support  systems,  co-
authoring, and negotiation support systems. However, many of these technologies 
do not work very well in practice: they often support discussions that do not  
 
 
The copyright of this paper belongs to the paper’s authors. Permission to copy without fee 
all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed 
for direct commercial advantage. 
 
Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action 
Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2003) 
 
Tilburg, The Netherlands, July 1-2, 2003 
(H.Weigand, G. Goldkuhl, A. de Moor, eds.) 
 
http://www.uvt.nl/lap2003 A. de Moor, M. Aakhus 
136              The Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling 2003 
sufficiently  contribute  to  the  purposes  of  their  users.  An  important  question 
therefore is: how to select or design information technologies that better support 
the argumentative practices of their community of use? In other words, how do 
technologies become real tools? 
 Argumentation can be understood in two basic ways. There is having-arguments, 
which  is  the  interactive  pursuit  of  disagreement  and  controversy,  and  there  is 
making-arguments,  which  is  the  interactive  process  of  forming  reasons  and 
drawing  conclusions  to  resolve  some  matter  [O’Keefe,  1977].  Argumentation 
support is typically concerned with the latter but should not ignore the former. 
Support for argumentation should include the specific conversational moves, such 
as making a claim or responding to it. However, it should also enable the design of 
these  interactions,  in  terms  of  augmenting,  shaping,  guiding,  and  facilitating 
argumentative  interaction.  Two  research  areas  that  have  an  interest  in 
argumentation support are CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) and 
argumentation  theory.  CSCW  has  mainly  focused  on  designing,  building,  and 
experimenting with ICT systems, such as group decision support systems or issue-
based  information  systems  (IBIS).  Often,  the  underlying  communicative 
interaction models are rather simple, however. Argumentation theory, on the other 
hand,  has  mostly  concentrated  on  designing  human  procedures  and  methods. 
Although this field has developed subtle models for the design of argumentative 
interactions,  the  rigorous  implementation  and  testing  of  these  models  in  real 
systems is often lacking.   
In  this  paper,  we  will  not  provide  an  extensive  literature  review  on 
argumentation support theory, of which many volumes have been produced in the 
specialized domains of group decision and negotiation theory support, for instance. 
Instead,  we  aim  to  bridge  the  fields  of  CSCW  and  argumentation  theory  by 
outlining an  approach for diagnosing the pragmatic role that  an argumentation 
technology  plays  in  a  community  of  use  as  providing  support  for  both 
argumentation moves and design. To this purpose, we combine a socio-technical 
view on argumentation support with a pragma-dialectical argumentation analysis 
approach.  
2.  Argumentation Technology in the Community: a Socio-
Technical System 
 
Each community has customary – often unarticulated – argumentation routines: 
the customary or expected argumentative practices that define who is allowed to 
speak, who may listen in, what types of arguments are admissible, how to resolve 
conflicts, and so on. On the other hand, a technology has a set of well-defined 
functionalities  that  enable  its  users  to  conduct  some  interactions,  while 
constraining or preventing other behavior. A town hall meeting is a very good way                                            Argumentation Support: From Technologies to Tools 
The Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling 2003              137 
of assessing the emotions and sincerity of various stakeholders, but provides a 
poorly  structured  record  of  the  precise  arguments  made.  Decision  exploration 
software is highly capable of recording, organizing, and providing access to the 
arguments advocating or refuting a particular issue, but makes it very hard for 
participants to evaluate the personal motivations of participants. So, selecting the 
right  argumentation  technology  that  through  its  functionalities  maximizes  its 
contributions  to  the  argumentation  goals,  while  minimizing  the  undesired 
limitations it puts on the argumentation process, is essential, but not trivial.   
Each  technology  has  a  technical  functionality  design,  which  consists  of  all 
functions that operate on the information objects that the technology can process. 
The technical functionality design is made explicit in the manuals and tutorials 
associated with the technology. For instance, an IBIS allows its users to create 
issues, take positions on these issues, and make arguments pro and contra these. 
The QuestMap tool, grounded in this paradigm, translates these concepts (which it 
calls questions, ideas, and arguments, respectively) into such technical functions as 
‘creating root question’, ‘responding with idea to question’, ‘specializing idea’, 
and ‘add argument pro/con idea’ [Conklin, 2003]. Such a  functionality design 
theoretically  supports  a  wide  range  of  argumentation  behaviors.  However,  the 
actual quality of the support a technology provides is determined by more than just 
the individual technical options of selecting a file, adding a comment, and asking 
or replying to a question. In argumentation terms, it is not sufficient to look at the 
technical functions that enable particular low-level argumentation moves. Implicit 
in the technology is also an argumentation design, which comprises the – often 
subtly  -  interrelated  functionalities,  procedures,  checks  and  balances,  and 
connotations  that  shape  the  practical  range  of  argumentation  behavior.  The 
argumentation design often remains implicit. This can lead to breakdowns when 
the  technology  is  applied  in  a  real  world  situation,  as  unexpected  behaviours 
emerge during use. For example, in the BCFOR case described in the next section, 
HyperNews, a web-based argumentation tool, was used instead of a mailing list to 
provide  better  access  to  the  moves  made  in  discussion  arguments.  In  that  it 
succeeded, but it unexpectedly failed, as the new functionality did not enable ad 
hoc discussion on the context of the discussion process. With the mailing list, ad 
hoc  discussion  support  had  been  no  problem.  One  solution  to  deal  with  the 
difference between the explicit functionality and implicit argumentation design of 
a technology is to stress the role of the human facilitator in designing the argument 
[Conklin et al., 2003]. Our approach, however, is to clearly diagnose the socio-
technical gap between the argumentation routines prevailing in the community, 
and the argumentation design emerging from the functionality design of a specific 
argumentation technology. Examining and reducing this gap between what needs 
to be supported socially and what can be supported technically has become the 
central challenge in the field of CSCW [Ackerman, 2000]. This is not to say that 
human  facilitation  is  not  necessary.  We  do  believe,  however,  that  in  better A. de Moor, M. Aakhus 
138              The Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling 2003 
matching preferred argumentation patterns with available technological designs, 
the need for human facilitation may be reduced and its effectiveness increased.  
3.  Technology Becoming a Tool: Co-Evolution of 
Argumentation Routines and Design 
 
We have defined what it means that a technology is a tool for argumentation. 
Analyzing a case, we now shift our attention to the process in which a technology 
becomes such a tool. Understanding this process is important if proper support is 
to  be  provided  for    the  continuous  sensemaking  process  of  both  communal 
argumentation  requirements  and  specifications  of  the  supporting  technological 
functionality. 
3.1  The BCFOR Case 
At the height of a conflict on a government decision to allow for clearcut logging 
in  the  Clayoquot  Sound  watershed,  the  British  Columbia  Forests  and  Forestry 
Group (BCFOR) was formed to discuss issues related to forests and forestry in the 
Canadian province of British Columbia. To dissolve the conflict, the government 
had appointed a Scientific Panel to write a series of reports defining new land-use 
policies. The group, however, was dissatisfied with the reports published, as they 
covered  up  important  differences  of  opinion  that  might  usefully  contribute  to 
further policy deliberation and decision-making about land-use policy. The group 
therefore decided to write its own group reports that would accurately identify the 
points where consensus existed and the points where differences prevailed. Their 
choice to create a different kind of policy report entailed foreseen and unforeseen 
choices about transforming their interaction with each other into an argumentation 
process that produced the desired report. There were many conflicting interests 
and points of view among the members of BFCOR. The group therefore required 
that the argumentation central to their collaborative report authoring be neutral and 
transparent [De Moor and Weigand, 1996].  Entailed  in matters  of developing 
effective  and  appropriate  argumentation  were  issues  about  the  technological 
support  required  to  enable  such  argumentation  among  the  participants.  After 
experiments with the mailing list and HyperNews, the customized GRASS (Group 
Report Authoring Support System) tool was developed.  
4.  An Analysis of the Evolving Socio-Technical System 
 
The challenge faced by both the Scientific Panel and the BCFOR group, like many 
groups, organizations, and communities, lies in creating an argumentation process                                            Argumentation Support: From Technologies to Tools 
The Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling 2003              139 
that produces a desired outcome.  Increasingly, information and communication 
technologies  are  used  to  support  these  interactions.  The  mere  presence  of 
technology,  however,  does  not  mean  that  it  will  prove  to  be a  viable tool  for 
designing an argumentation process that produces desired outcomes. In BCFOR, 
the argumentation requirements of the group emerged as they made choices about 
how to interact and what technology to use in support of their argumentation. The 
incorporation  and  rejection  of  these  technologies  involved  the  group  in 
recognizing aspects of argumentation they valued, such as maximum opportunities 
for  the  expression  of  disagreement,  and  incorporating  means  to  articulate  that 
aspect over other possible aspects of interaction among the participants.  
 
 
  Intervention  Argumentation 
Routines 
Argumentation 
Design 
Socio-Technical 
Gap 
Stage 1  Mailing List set 
up by  group 
members 
Free discussion; 
informal sharing of 
opinions and 
information 
Mailing List provides 
minimal structure and 
allows for ad hoc 
procedures   
Small gap, 
mailing list 
works well for 
intended purpose 
Stage 2  Members change 
purpose of 
interaction to 
authoring 
Authoring: stating 
issues, taking positions, 
arguing claims, 
producing results 
Mailing List same as 
in Stage 1 
Large gap, no 
functions to 
coordinate 
authoring 
argumentation 
Stage 3  HyperNews 
implemented by 
group 
coordinators 
Authoring: same as in 
Stage 2 
HyperNews gives 
better access to 
discussion threads 
Reduces access 
gap; however, 
now lack of ad 
hoc functionality  
Stage 4  Development of 
new routines, 
GRASS 
prototype 
Authoring: synthesis 
and resolution, 
specialized editing 
roles, publication 
GRASS gives full 
IBIS support,  
consensus assesment, 
resolution 
formulation  
Gap narrows  
 
Table 1: Co-Evolution of Argumentation Routines and Designs in the BCFOR 
case 
In making these choices, the group was not merely adopting or appropriating 
technology into preconceived ideas about argumentation but was also recreating 
and  refining  its  capacity  for  argumentative  communication  and  collaborative 
interaction. In other words, a clear  co-evolution of argumentation  routines  and 
argumentation design took place. This evolutionary struggle is summarized in the 
4 stages outlined in Table 1. Each stage was initiated by a particular intervention, 
such as a change in routine or design. It can be seen that, as a consequence, the 
socio-technical gap fluctuated considerably, but ultimately became smaller. A. de Moor, M. Aakhus 
140              The Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling 2003 
5.  Towards a Diagnostic Method 
 
In  the  previous  sections,  we  showed  that  argumentation  technologies  have  an 
explicit functional design, which results in an implicit argumentation design, in 
terms of support for both argumentation moves and the crafting of the process in 
which these moves are embedded. We also showed that there usually is a socio-
technical gap between this argumentation design and the routines adopted by the 
community of use. The analysis of the co-evolution of argumentation routines and 
design in the BCFOR case was informal. We are working on a diagnostic method 
in order to more systematically perform such analyses in the future. Space does not 
permit us to outline this method in detail, we therefore only briefly sketch its main 
components here. 
The  diagnostic  method  consists  of  four  main  steps:  (1)  the  implicit 
argumentation model (=argumentation routines) of the community of use is made 
explicit,  (2)  the  implicit  argumentation  model  (=argumentation  design)  of  the 
technologies available to the community is made explicit, (3) both now explicit 
models are matched to identify the socio-technical gap, (4) recommendations are 
made to reduce the socio-technical gap, if necessary. Such recommendations may 
include changing the argumentation routines, the technologies used, or the roles 
these  technologies  play  in  the  community.  Pragma-dialectics  provides  the 
advanced theoretical models required to reconstruct the discourse by capturing the 
subtleties of the pragmatics of argumentative interaction. The basic elements of 
these  models consist  of  the  purpose,  means  of  orchestration,  and  the  systemic 
rationality designed into the technology [Aakhus, 2002]. The purpose refers to the 
aim  of  reconstructing  an  argument,  the  orchestration  to  how  the  relevant 
argumentative  activity  is  structured,  and  the  systemic  rationality  to  how 
argumentative  activity  warrants  the  outcome  of  the  argumentation.  Many 
normative insights on successful argumentation models framed in these terms have 
been made in this field, which can therefore serve as an important theoretical input 
in our diagnostic method.  
6.  Conclusion 
 
This  diagnostic  approach,  once  fully  developed,  may  contribute  to  more 
successful collaboration by better tailoring technological argumentation designs to 
communal argumentation routines. The proposed approach gives a fuller account 
of argumentation support than provided by standard CSCW perspectives that only 
look  at  the  direct  support  of  conversational  moves.  By  including  a  pragma-
dialectical  lens  on  argumentation  routines,  also  the  subtle  crafting  of 
argumentation is given proper attention. On the other hand, the potential gap with                                            Argumentation Support: From Technologies to Tools 
The Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling 2003              141 
available technology is clarified by making explicit the implicit  argumentation 
design  embedded  in  the  technology.  This  may  contribute  to  the  evolution  of 
argumentation theory, as it allows for sophisticated argumentation models to be 
better tested in actual technologies, thus closing the theoretical-empirical cycle.  
 
References 
 
[O’Keefe,  1977]    D.  O' Keefe,  Two  Concepts  of  Argument,  Journal  of  the 
American Forensic Association, Vol. 13, pp. 121-128, 1977. 
 
[Conklin,  2003]    J.  Conklin,  The  IBIS  Manual:  A  Short  Course  in  IBIS 
Methodology, Touchstone, 2003. 
 
[Conklin  et  al.,  2003]    J.  Conklin,  A.  Selvin,  S.  Buckingham  Shum,  and  M. 
Sierhuis, Facilitated Hypertext for Collective Sensemaking: 15 Years on from 
gIBIS,  in  Proc.  of  the  8th  International  Working  Conference  on  the 
Language/Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2003), July 
1-2, Tilburg The Netherlands, 2003. 
 
[Ackerman, 2000]  M. S. Ackerman, The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: the 
Gap  Between  Social  Requirements  and  Technical  Feasibility,  Human-
Computer Interaction, Vol. 15, Nr. 2,  pp. 179-203, 2000. 
 
[De Moor and Weigand, 1996]  A. de Moor and H. Weigand, The Role of Social 
Constraints  in  the  Design  of  Research  Network  Information  Systems, 
Proceedings  of  Eco-Informa  ’96,  Global  Networks  for  Environmental 
Information, Orlando, November 4-7, pp.672-677, 1996. 
 
[Aakhus, 2002]  M. Aakhus, Modeling Reconstruction in Groupware Technology, 
in Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, F. H. van Eemeren, Ed. Amsterdam: Sic 
Sat, pp.121-136, 2002. 
 

Facilitated Hypertext for Collective Sensemaking: 15 Years on from gIBIS,

Modeling Reconstruction in Groupware Technology,

The IBIS Manual: A Short Course in IBIS Methodology,

The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: the Gap Between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility,

The Role of Social Constraints in the Design of Research Network Information Systems,

Two Concepts of Argument,

Argumentation support: From technology to tools.

Argumentation support: From technology to tools.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics