Global Sensemaking

Tools for Dialogue and Deliberation on Wicked Problems

Hi folks,

I'm interested in collaborating with tool providers here on this list to see what we can do with these 1100 raw opinions about American health care and health care reform. The opinions are available under a Creative Commons Attribution, Share Alike license.

These opinions were collected offline using clipboards during the American Townhall on Health Care. So if we do this right, we're learning new ways to blend online and offline collaboration.

Here is one Google Maps mashup with the data, and we'd like to mash the data up with many other tools. This can be a test-run for bringing multiple tools to bear on other wicked problems in a more coordinated fashion.

Please go ahead and use the data for your own purposes and encourage your readers to do the same. If you inform me of your work (even if it's months/years after 2009), I'll include it when I mention this project in the future.

Lucas

Views: 12

Comment by Scott on October 2, 2009 at 16:39
Hi Lucas,

It is very generous to offer the health care debate opinion data up through the creative common license agreement. I'm sure individuals within this group will be able to creatively utilize it.

My subjective opinion is this type of data has no life. In a reasonable domain, opinions change as information is gathered. Without a process addressing the fact that opinions change, I worry that a snapshots of time would stimulates dysfunctional divergence of thought. A framework at the point of argument development is necessary to support a convergent media for collaboratively refining wicked problems.

Life is a learning experience. Rational tools need to respect the growth of thought.
Comment by Lucas Cioffi on October 13, 2009 at 4:47
Hi Scott,

I agree with your assessment. A few questions:
1. Yes, opinion surveys have a very short shelf-life. Do you think there is much value to asking the same question over time to assess trends?
2. Do you think that fill-in-the-blank surveys are more effective than multiple-choice surveys?
3. Could you elaborate briefly on "a framework at the point of argument development"?

Thanks!
Lucas
Comment by Scott on October 13, 2009 at 16:12
Great questions Lucas.

Let me start with answer (2) since a simple response can be provided. Multiple-choice surveys are better from the stand point of automating statistical analysis.

A new argument framework needs to address several dimensions.

The author dimension is about building a case based on research and feedback. Iteration is an important factor. Author developed surveys could be a great tool in building an author's case.

In the reader dimension various individual attributes can be requested such as demographics, social, political, religious, and income. This type of information can then be analyzed based on reading and voting trends on various arguments.

The argument framework dimension needs to address demographic visibility and connectivity to other arguments. This is a matter of computer automation based on human input. An author may have a specific demographic range to target. The following diagram provides some insight:

Argument Demographic Diagram

The argument framework dimension provides a view to measure how arguments relate: See the Argument Measurement Diagram.

This multi-dimensional approach to argumentation provides a new way of thinking which allows us to see the commonality in our approaches. Working on the commonalities provide a more efficient on cohesive path to problem solving

Commonality Diagram

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Global Sensemaking to add comments!

Join Global Sensemaking

Members

Groups

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by David Price.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service