From shouting matches to argument maps
From shouting matches to argument maps
This case study examines an online deliberation experiment in which a group of supporters of a large political party were invited to propose ways to reform a national electoral law. Researchers compared a traditional comment forum with the Deliberatorium, an online collaborative platform where users build “argument maps” to capture the various proposals and their associated arguments for and against. The aim of the study was to assess the capability of this tool to support large-scale deliberation in a real-world case, comparing the argument-map approach to a traditional discussion forum. By comparing users’ experience across several metrics related to usability, activity levels, and quality of collaboration, we found that while the argument-map platform was perceived as less intuitive and fluid, users nevertheless maintained their engagement at a similar rate to the forum condition and ended up producing more interactions, fewer self-referential arguments, and a more respectful tone.
192-201
Klein, Mark
52efffec-1425-49e2-b23b-ab0e9bd6b1ac
Spada, Paolo
aa830424-63f7-4baa-aecc-0bba595b8221
Paulson, Lex
67efed49-50b8-4151-9e7b-7c4383f4ea30
19 June 2023
Klein, Mark
52efffec-1425-49e2-b23b-ab0e9bd6b1ac
Spada, Paolo
aa830424-63f7-4baa-aecc-0bba595b8221
Paulson, Lex
67efed49-50b8-4151-9e7b-7c4383f4ea30
Klein, Mark, Spada, Paolo and Paulson, Lex
(2023)
From shouting matches to argument maps.
In,
Boucher, Stephen, Hallin, Carina Antonia and Paulson, Lex
(eds.)
The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intelligence for Democracy and Governance.
1 ed.
Routledge, .
(doi:10.4324/9781003215929).
Record type:
Book Section
Abstract
This case study examines an online deliberation experiment in which a group of supporters of a large political party were invited to propose ways to reform a national electoral law. Researchers compared a traditional comment forum with the Deliberatorium, an online collaborative platform where users build “argument maps” to capture the various proposals and their associated arguments for and against. The aim of the study was to assess the capability of this tool to support large-scale deliberation in a real-world case, comparing the argument-map approach to a traditional discussion forum. By comparing users’ experience across several metrics related to usability, activity levels, and quality of collaboration, we found that while the argument-map platform was perceived as less intuitive and fluid, users nevertheless maintained their engagement at a similar rate to the forum condition and ended up producing more interactions, fewer self-referential arguments, and a more respectful tone.
Text
From shouting matches to argument maps_25_07_11_14_42_01
- Version of Record
More information
Published date: 19 June 2023
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 502909
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/502909
PURE UUID: 5da99f69-2a28-4fde-b9c7-b9ccb72e80d6
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 11 Jul 2025 17:05
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 02:13
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Mark Klein
Author:
Lex Paulson
Editor:
Stephen Boucher
Editor:
Carina Antonia Hallin
Editor:
Lex Paulson
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
