7/31/2019 p77-aakhus

1/5

Argument Reconstruction and Socio-Technical Facilitationof Large Scale Argumentation

Mark AakhusDepartment of Communication

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey01.732.932.7500 ext. 8110

aakhus@rutgers.edu

Miriam Greenfeld BenovitzDepartment of Communication

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

miriam.benovitz@gmail.com

ABSTRACTThis paper introduces argument reconstruction as an important

aspect of the socio-technical support for large-scale argumentationin goal oriented discourse communities. Drawing from priorresearch on the pragmatics of argumentation, we distinguishordinary, normative, and design as three forms of argumentreconstruction to be investigated in discourse communities. Wesuggest understanding how argument reconstruction is embedded

in both social and technical aspects of discourse communities willimprove capacity to support large-scale argumentation for

discourse communities.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

H.4.1 [Office Automation] groupware; H.4.2 [Types ofSystems] decision support; H.4.3 [CommunicationApplications] computer conferencing; H.5.3 [Group and

Organization Interfaces] collaborative computing, theory andmodels, web-based interaction

General TermsDesign, Management, Design, Human Factors

KeywordsFacilitation, Argument Reconstruction, Mediation, Large-ScaleArgumentation, Discourse Communities, Sense-Making

1. INTRODUCTIONThe practices of facilitation and mediation continue to evolve andgrow in importance in the global, networked world, especially in

the context of using the web to support goal oriented discoursecommunities [1]. These communities become organized for

purposes that go beyond information retrieval and provision to"meaning engagement practice" [2] where expressing, pursuing,and resolving differences are central to the aims of the community[3]. Goal oriented discourse communities seek support thatenables argumentation among hundreds, thousands, or even more

participants that potentially far exceeds the known ways tosupport dyadic and group argumentation [4,5].

A variety of web-based technologies have emerged specifically tosupport forms of large-scale argumentation and thus facilitatesense-making, conflict-management, problem-solving, anddecision-making for communities. Emerging attention to the

prospects for large-scale argumentation support is not only atechnical question but, as the developers of these applicationsrecognize, a question about how to practice facilitation andmediation under the conditions of large scale argumentation [see

3, 4, 5].The issues of scale are very important issues and may present

problems extant argumentation theories cannot handle. However,since many of these theories are not about people and groups butabout the discourse and communication processes in which people

engage, it is quite possible that theories of argumentation providereasonable starting points for understanding large scaleargumentation and reinventing facilitation practice for goaloriented discourse communities. Indeed, the basic insights of thediscourse process of argumentation might scale from dyadic tovery large groups but the solutions for dealing with these

processes may require new thinking.

We suggest that a central problem for supporting large-scale

argumentation is also a fundamental issue in understanding the

pragmatic web -- that is, the problem of context and relevancewhen working on the Web over space and time [1]. Facilitatingargumentation for discourse communities involves at its most

basic level the practical problem of reconstructing from anongoing discourse and social context the argumentation that will

become the basis for further interaction. This is a fundamentalissue for conceptualizing and developing the practice offacilitation of large-scale argumentation for goal oriented

discourse communities. We exemplify the problem, some ways tounderstand it, and some implications for developing facilitation

practice for large-scale argumentation.

2. ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTIONTo illustrate the animating issue, consider the following situation

faced by a dispute mediator during child-custody mediationbetween divorced parents (taken from [6]; W = Wife and H =Husband, the brackets indicate overlapping talk):

(1)

131 W: Yeah I mean you bought Lisa a dress, and youdeducted it from the child support thats asinine

132 H: No it isnt

133 W: And you know one little tiny loophole in the law

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for

personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and thatcopies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy

otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.3rd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, Sept 2830, 2008,

Uppsala, Sweden.Copyright 2008 ACM 978-1-60558-354-9 $5.00.

77

7/31/2019 p77-aakhus

2/5

134 H: [I bought [I bought

135 W: Says that they will force him to do that

136 H:[Veronica, I

bought over uh 500 bucks worth of clothes for the kids overChristmas

137 W:[No way, there is no way that is a blatant lie

138 H: [((Husband says something indecipherable))

139 W:[Total

asshole

140 H: This is This is

141 W:[There is no communication because

[I cannot

communicate there has never been any communication

142 H: [This is [this is

typical of her dialogue, apparently ( ) she doesnt try

The next contribution (turn 143) in the mediation session is onemade by the mediator. Rather than looking at what the mediatorsaid in that next contribution, it is worth considering just what

could the mediator say at that point? Maybe the mediator shouldask a question or somehow summarize what has been said or leftunsaid. The mediator could provide a kind of information servicethat aims to clarify, summarize, and provide some minimal

procedural guidance. But mediator moves are much more thaninformational acts as the mediators move will draw attention to(or away from) any number of aspects of the ongoing discourse orthe social context. The way the mediators next contribution isformulated will be a bid for how the parties should proceedthrough the differences of opinion and the broader conflict amongthe parties (see [7] for discussion of these different models ofrationality in intervention).

The contributions by the participants ground the discussion asthey negotiate both the content and process of their interaction

with each other [8]. The mediators contributions are of particularinterest as the mediator is in the official role of supporting thesense-making, problem-solving, decision-making, and conflict-resolution of the disputing parties. Herein lies the puzzle ofreconstruction: just what aspect of the ongoing discourse or socialcontext should be brought into the discussion, how should this bedone, and on what basis is the intervention justified in doing so?

Reconstructing argumentative discourse is a ubiquitousphenomenon of communication. Reconstruction is not restrictedto formal settings, to the actions of one official third-party, nor toface-to-face settings. It is evident across institutional settings asreconstruction practices are embedded in procedures andtechnologies and routinized in social practices. It happens when atleast one party holds another party accountable for having said,

meant, or implied something which then draws out from theongoing discourse and social context matters from among all

possible matters what will be arguable [9]. The act of makingsomething accountable does not mean the act of calling out iscorrect or justifiable; it simply means the actor draws attention toan action of another and calls it into question. Such an act drawsupon practices for raising doubt and opposition and upon

presuppositions and assumptions about what is a good argumentin that setting [10].

Reconstruction practice raises many issues that are indeedroutinely solved everyday but often unreflectively and at timeswithout much creativity. It is important to note, however, thatinterventions, such as those by mediators, presuppose many thingsabout the nature of conflict and the role of argumentation in

managing conflict. Is it enough for parties to have an argument, inthe colloquial sense being disagreeable, or should parties be

expected to make arguments? Should arguments be understood aslogical products of individual minds, rhetorical practices used topersuade others, or conflict solving methods?1 Reconstructionbecomes an issue when groups, organizations, communities, andpublics come together to pursue some purpose and work outstandards, routines, and practices for managing differences. This

is where norms and values for argumentation are imported anddeveloped for various walks of life.

Much argumentation theory over the millennia, for example, hasfocused on developing a meta-discourse about good argumentcodified in the well known lists of fallacies in informal logic. Thelist provides a way to recognize and call out bad argumentative

behavior. In less formal ways, though, all social groupingsdevelop assumptions about preferred forms of interaction and

reasoning that play a role in making choices about what aspects ofongoing discourse or social context should be made accountable.

We can see, for instance, how reconstruction plausibly happens ininformal online communities. For example, Figure 1 is a Bingocard that appeared in a discussion of an online community about

1 The difference between making arguments and havingarguments is discussed by [11]. The differences amongargument as logic, rhetoric, and dialectic are discussed by [12].The concept ofargument as methodwas introduced by [13].

78

7/31/2019 p77-aakhus

3/5

fpb, a person who has been involved in a number of fandom-related incidents classified as wank. It takes place in theJournalfen community Fandom Wank.Figure 1: Informal Code forInteracting and Reasoning in an online Fandom Community

The community mocks wank, which is defined as self-

aggrandizing posturing, fannish absurdities, circular ego-stroking,endless flamewars, and pseudointellectual definitions. fpb has

done so much and repeated several actions that a bingo card(Figure 1) was created to use in wanks where he appears. Bydisplaying improper moves, the bingo card is a kind of meta-discourse for regulating interaction and reasoning among at leastsome members of the community.

Reconstruction also happens when people use technologies

designed to support the mapping or articulation of argumentativediscourse for purposes of sense-making, conflict-resolution,decision-making, and problem-solving. Consider any kind ofargument mapping tool (e.g., Compendium, Collaboratorium,DebateGraph) no matter its methodology (e.g., IBIS, Debate). Thetool, whether used by an analyst, an ordinary user, or by a groupcollectively engaging about some matter, formalizes some ways todraw out or highlight aspects of the ongoing discourse and the

social context and make it the grounds for further interaction. Theontologies for interaction promoted by each tool is a practicaltheory about representing discourse and context but also, and thiswill become even more important to the point here, tools for

building the grounds for furthering interaction and shapingactivity (see [6] for a discussion of models of reconstruction ingroupware technology).

Clearly, the examples from dispute mediation, fandom, andargument mapping make an odd lot of examples. However, each

points in its own way to the problem of how social contexts andongoing discourse are transformed into argumentation thatunderlies the pragmatic web and its applications. How can wemake sense of this? What are some ways that we can understandargument reconstruction to improve the facilitation of goal

oriented discourse communities and large-scale argumentation?Here we turn to an aspect of argumentation theory focused onexplaining and developing the "reconstruction of argumentativediscourse."

3. RECONSTRUCTINGARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSEThere are three broad classes of argument reconstruction. Thesecan be used to inform the facilitation of goal oriented discoursecommunities and large-scale argumentation. Each will be defined,described and discussed in terms of its relation to facilitation.

3.1 Nave or Ordinary ArgumentReconstruction

Nave reconstruction is accomplished through interpretiveprocedures used by ordinary language users to accomplish anongoing reading of the situation [9, p. 50]. It happens when someactor is held accountable for saying, intending, or meaning suchand such and then treating what was said as having argumentativecontent, such as in example 2 (taken from [9, p. 103]:

(2)

01 A: Im getting fat again

02 B: You are not.

03 A: Yes I am.

04 B: Youve got no buns.

05 A: Ive got the puffy stomach though.

06 B: Dont worry about it. No one but you can even noticeit.

Note how Bs contributions call out aspects of what is said and thecontext in a way that gives rise to a disagreement space that is,the structured set of opportunities for argument available fromthe indefinitely large and complex set of beliefs, wants, andintentions that jointly compose the perspective of Bsconversational partner [9, p. 95]. Contribution 01 is reconstructed

by B as a disagreeable contribution that is countered with analternative assertion in turn 04.

Ordinary argument, according to [9], has a pragmatic organizationas participants attend to the actions performed in an ongoingactivity, the commitments potentially attributable to those actions,and ways of articulating what is arguable. Nave or ordinaryreconstruction plays a role not only in drawing out substantivematters but in shaping the direction of the interaction itself.

Moreover, the pragmatic organization of the interaction plays animportant role in what is substantive.

Understanding ordinary reconstruction could contribute tounderstanding facilitation practice that is emergent and informal,like that illustrated in the example 2 and Figure 1. Thereconstruction will reflect the everyday sense of propriety for theactivity at hand as well as the implicit, common-sense constructsabout pursuing disagreement.

3.2 Normative ReconstructionNormative reconstruction is a specialized practice involved inargument analysis. Since everyday argumentation does nottypically meet the standards of normatively good argument, ananalysis must first determine the argumentative potential of some

naturally occuring texts. It is an intermediate analytic step toaccount for the assertions that can be reconstructed from thespeech acts performed in discussion. The aim of normativereconstruction is to recover from a sequence of practicallyorganized speech acts a set of argumentatively relevant moves[9, p. 92]. Unlike nave reconstruction, normative reconstructionis constrained to finding the assertives in what is said with

propositional content relevant to the ongoing dialogue. Onceaccomplished, the critical argument analyst can then proceed withan evaluation of the argumentative quality of the dialogue.

Normative reconstruction aims to identify (1) the points at issue,

(2) the different positions that the parties concerned adopt withrespect to these points, (3) the explicit and implicit arguments thatthe parties adduce for their standpoints, and (4) the structure of the

argumentation of each of the parties [9, p. 60]. In doing this, thecritical analyst must transform the observed, naturally occurringdiscourse into an analytic overview that articulates the assertionsand propositions while resonating with both the pragmaticorganization of the actual interaction and plausible nave

reconstructions. These transformation are guided by a theory andmodel of ideal argumentation that can be summarized as argumentthat aims to resolve differences of opinion on their merits [9]. Theargumentatively ideal dialogue is one of critical discussion whereno doubt or disagreement is abandoned until resolved on themerits.

79

7/31/2019 p77-aakhus

4/5

Strictly speaking critical discussion is a counter-factual ideal thatcannot be realized but only approximated in the real conditions ofdisagreement and conflict. Current applications for supportinglarge-scale argumentation seem to aspire to a version of normativereconstruction as the approach to facilitating discourse.

3.3 Reconstruction as Communication DesignReconstruction as design is neither naive nor normativereconstruction but has elements of both. Reconstruction as designinvolves creating kinds of dialogue suited to the circumstances athand and the preferred forms of dialogue are extensions of the

professional expertise or accumulated knowledge of anorganization.

Reconstruction as design is not limited to articulating the assertive

and propositional in ongoing discourse but seeks to create formsof interactivity that solve the exigencies for interacting andreasoning through the problems at hand in the current socialcontext. It involves practical knowledge of the type ofdisagreement space to enable effective sense-making, problem-solving, decision-making, or conflict-resolution. The practices and

procedures aim to invoke particular patterns of interaction and

standards and forms of accountability among the participants.Unlike normative reconstruction which hinges on the validity ofone abstract set of discussion norms, reconstruction as designdraws upon or promotes a variety of discussion norms suited to

the practical interactional problems addressed by a particulararena of expert practice or service cultivated within a professionor organization. Waltons [14] dialogue theory of argument

provides some insight as the theory claims that argument servesdifferent purposes in different types of dialogue. He outlinesseveral kinds of argumentative dialogues, such as negotiation,inquiry, planning, and information seeking, that vary in terms ofthe acts, sequences of acts, manner of retracting commitments,

and dialogue goals. These different dialogues reveal differentidealized forms of interactive reasoning with varying roles forargument.

Unlike ordinary reconstruction, reconstruction as design operatesfrom a specialized sense of how argumentation should proceed.Reconstruction is an intermediate analytic step taken to determineand make explicit the argumentative potential of an action relativeto the norms and standards of the dialogue invoked. By helping todiscipline interaction in a particular way, the intervention shapesthe form of interactivity and the quality of the joint reasoning ofthe parties.

4. DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONSThe three classes of reconstruction described here provide astarting point for investigating, understanding, and developingfacilitation of goal oriented discourse communities and the large-scale argumentation that animates sense-making, conflict-management, problem-solving, and decision-making.

First, how can we understand argument quality under conditionsof goal oriented discourse communities engaged in large scaleargumentation? Exploring the development of argumentativenorms in online communities is one direction. There are numerous

practices emerging in communities to shape and disciplineinteraction and reasoning. The Bingo card in Figure 1 is just oneexample of an emergent ordinary reconstruction practice. The aimhere is to find the substantive and procedural standards tounderstand how problematic reasoning is detected and corrected

by communities. Exploring how argument ecologies are organizedin conditions of large scale is another direction. Communities

pursue multiple dialogues and address issues from multiple sides.How then are dialogues related to each other in purposeful anduseful ways?

Second, how can we re-conceptualize facilitative interventions oncommunity discourse? There is a long-standing debate about

whether facilitation is primarily a human activity or somethingthat can be fully embedded in technology [15]. Facilitation should

be seen as a function that can be carried out in several ways andvia a variety of modes that aim to make it easier for collectives toachieve their goals. It is best understood as a social practice,dimensions of which can be embedded in procedures andtechnologies and thus thought of as socio-technical facilitation.Moreover, socio-facilitation aims to deliver collaboration, whichis a normative goal about what communication must be like in

order to achieve states of knowledge, understanding, consensus,and such. Collaboration must be understood as not only involvingcooperation but also conflict. Thus, an important aim of socio-technical facilitation ought to be articulating forms of conflict thatare productive in achieving some state or outcome for a collective.

Third, how can we re-imagine socio-technical facilitationcompetence and education? By exploring how competence lies inthe crafting of activity and dialogue suited to exigencies of thesituation. For instance, it does not make much sense to pushcritical discussion if the participants have not established somestarting points and the issues to be discussed. It does not make

much sense to push critical discussion of when issues ofunderstanding and face-work are at stake. Since differentapplications provide different ontologies for interaction there is aneed to understand what dialogues are best supported by thatapplication and what type of dialogue is most desirable for thesituation at hand. The applications and their use by a communityis a kind of transcription practice, and the transcript produced is asocio-cultural object embedded with rich cultural knowledge.

Researching reconstruction practices in socio-technical facilitation

provides an opportunity to understand more of the design issuesinherent in the creation of the pragmatic web.

5. REFERENCES[1] Schoop, M., de Moor, A., & Dietz, J. 2006 The pragmatic

web: A manifesto. Comm ACM 49(5), 75-76.

[2] Mokros, H. and Aakhus, M. 2002 From information seekingbehavior to meaning engagement practice: Implications forcommunication theory and research.Human CommunicationResearch, 28(2), 298312.

[3] Buckingham-Shum, S. 2006 Sensemaking and the web: Ahypermedia discourse perspective. 1

stInternational

Conference on the Pragmatic Web.

[4]

Malone, T. & Klein, M. 2007 Harnessing collectiveintelligence to address global climate change, 2(3), 15-26.

[5] Klein, M. 2007 Achieving collective intelligence via large-scale argumentation. 2cd International Conference onInternet and Web Applications and Services

[6] Aakhus, M. 2003 Neither nave nor normativereconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design ofargumentation.Argumentation: An International Journal onReasoning, 17(3), 265290.

80

7/31/2019 p77-aakhus

5/5

[7] Jacobs, S. & Aakhus, M. 2003 What mediators do withwords: Implementing three models of rational discussion indispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(4),177204.

[8] Clark, H. 1992 Arenas of language use. University ofChicago Press.

[9] van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S.1993 Reconstructing argumentative discourse. University ofAlabama Press.

[10]Hutchby, I. 1996 Confrontation talk. Lawrence Erlbaum.

81