Many public issues, such as environmental actions, involve a large number of diverse stakeholders such as governments, corporations, organizations (e.g. NGOs), and concerned citizens. Discussions frequently become contentious as the stakeholders defend their potentially conflicting goals with various assumptions, views, and expert testimony. These issues also tend to involve a range of fields. For example, the disposition of nuclear waste includes issues of economics, science, engineering, politics, and intergenerational justice, each with large uncertainties due to dependences on indirect estimations and the long time periods involved. At the same time that these complex issues might increase in number, due to applications of new technologies, tools are being developed on the Internet to enable flexible learning, visualization, collaborative conferencing, distributed computing, and meaning‐based (semantic) context. These tools might enable improved techniques for debating and discussing these complex issues. A technique that might facilitate orderly discussion of various arguments would include explicit recording and visualization of the evidence, its assumptions and uncertainties, their relationships in constructing the overall argument, and the ways the evidence needs to be generalized to support the argument. A simple argument visualization approach is explored based on a combination of an argument logic framework and techniques for fusing generalized data that are similar to kriging in spatial analysis. This approach is then applied to a recently contested risk analysis of nuclear waste disposition that was debated in a peer‐reviewed journal, involving concerns about uses of data, complex computational models, uncertainty analysis, and expert judgment. The need for wider understanding of such complex issues might be addressed by a convergence of techniques to facilitate greater understanding and the advanced Internet technologies to lower barriers to their adoption.
Article navigation
1 February 2006
Technical Paper|
February 01 2006
An approach to facilitating communication of expert arguments through visualisation
David J LePoire
David J LePoire
Environmental Sciences Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Publisher: Emerald Publishing
Online ISSN: 1758-8871
Print ISSN: 1477-996X
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2006
Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society (2006) 4 (1): 27–36.
Citation
LePoire DJ (2006), "An approach to facilitating communication of expert arguments through visualisation". Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 4 No. 1 pp. 27–36, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/14779960680000279
Download citation file:
153
Views
New and popular articles
Suggested Reading
High-performance computing for computational modelling in built environment-related studies – a scientometric review
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology (November,2020)
Multi-modal haptic image recognition based on deep learning
Sensor Review (February,2018)
An anti-interference detection algorithm for parking monitoring systems
International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics (September,2019)
Benchmarking New CEASIOM with CPACS adoption for aerodynamic analysis and flight simulation
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal (May,2018)
Jeans knowledge base development based on sensory evaluation technology for customers’ personalized recommendation
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology (March,2018)
Related Chapters
Designing a Culture of Collaboration: When Changing Beliefs Is (Not) Enough
Organization Design
Assessment in Next Generation Learning Spaces
The Future of Learning and Teaching in Next Generation Learning Spaces
Unlocking Potential: An Analysis of Blockchain's Performance Impact on Business Transformation
Web 3.0 Unleashed: Transforming Industries and Building Ethical Frameworks
Recommended for you
These recommendations are informed by your reading behaviors and indicated interests.
