Specifically, we will consider individuals who invented paper-based precursors of argument maps, and/or who envisioned the possibilities that computers opened up. p. 1

CSAV is located at the intersection of an eclectic mix of disciplines. We must minimally include philosophy and rhetoric as background disciplines to argumentation p. 1

in general, with traditions going back to the dialogues of the Greek philosophers. It is beyond the scope of this book to review this huge literature in any more detail than to provide a few key pointers to Speech Act theory (Searle, 1969), and argumentation theory (e.g. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; van Eemeren et al., 1983; Walton, 1996). Law is, arguably, the most argument-intensive profession of all, with greater resources than other professions to devote to analysing the structure of arguments, and extensive research into computer-support for teaching argumentation skills (e.g. Aleven and Ashley, 1994; Marshall, 1989; Bench -Capon, et al., 1998). p. 2

The human-centred technology research fields such as computer-supported co- operative work (CSCW), computer-mediated communication (CMC), and computer- supported collaborative learning (CSCL) have developed their own flavours of CSAV, in order to support the coordination of distributed organisational activity (Malone et al., 1987), the structuring of contributions to group support systems (Turoff et al., 1999), and the creation of conversations in which learning takes place (Andriessen et al., in press). The chapters in this book demonstrate how widely CSAV is attracting interest and finding applications. p. 2

In 1913, John Henry Wigmore proposed a Chart Method for analysing the mass of evidence presented in a legal case, in order to help the analyst reach a conclusion: p. 2

Our object then, specifically, is in essence: To perform the logical (or psychological) process of a conscious juxtaposition of detailed ideas for the purpose of producing rationally a single final idea. Hence, to the extent that the mind is unable to juxtapose consciously a larger number of ideas, each coherent group of detailed constituent ideas must be reduced in consciousness to a single idea; until the mind can consciously juxtapose them with due attention to each, so as to produce its single final idea. (Wigmore, 1913, 2nd Edition 1931, p.109) p. 2

He sets out the “necessary conditions” for such an “apparatus”, following what we would now recognise as requirements analysis and schema modelling for a visualization tool. For a given case, one must be able to express different types of evidence, relations between facts, represent and on demand see all the data, subsume subtrees, and distinguish between facts as alleg ed and facts as believed or disbelieved. p. 2

As a tool to comprehend a potentially large dataset: It must, finally, be compendious in bulk, but not too complicated in the variety of symbols. These limitations are set by the practical facts of legal work. Nevertheless, men’s aptitudes for the use of such schemes vary greatly. Experience alone can tell us whether a particular scheme is usable by the generality of able students and practitioners who need or care to attack the problem. (p.110) p. 3

Wigmore was also clear that: …the scheme need not show us what our belief ought to be. It can hope to show only what our belief actually is, and how we have actually reached it. (p.110) p. 3

This echoes the difference of most CSAV tools from other classes of computer- supported argumentation that seek to evaluate argument or recommend conclusions based on a formal model of decision processes, or the meaning or relative weight of argument elements. Wigmore’s scheme is a cognitive tool for reflection: p. 3

Hence, though we may not be able to demonstrate that we ought to reach that belief or disbelief, we have at least the satisfaction of having taken every precaution to reach it rationally. Our moral duty was to approximate, so far as capable, our belief to the fact. We have performed that duty, to the limits of our present rational capacity. And the scheme or method, if it has enlarged that capacity, will have achieved something worthwhile. (p.111) p. 3

The final line encapsulates the motivation behind much CSAV work: to augment our intellectual ability in argument analysis and construction. The theme of “intellectual augmentation” resonates, of course, with the work of Engelbart, introduced shortly. Wigmore’s Evidence Charts (Figure 1.1), showing how connections between Testamonial Assertions and Circumstances may lead to credible Propositions, continue to be used today in some law schools (see also Carr’s work on legal argumentation mapping with hypertext technology: Chapter 4). p. 3

The contribution of Vannevar Bush to the invention of hypertext as a way to easily connect fragments of information has been documented exhaustively (for a retrospective from within the hypertext community, see Brown/MIT, 1995). In his 1945 article As We May Think, Bush (1945) envisioned a near future system based on microfilm records that could support the construction of trails of ideas for personal information management, and for sharing with others. p. 3

Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and, to coin one at random, “memex” will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, p. 3

records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory. (Section 6) p. 4

In describing the “trail blazing” user interface, Bush envisages a rudimentary spatial display for connecting the two ‘nodes’: When the user is building a trail, he names it, inserts the name in his code book, and taps it out on his keyboard. Before him are the two items to be p. 4

joined, projected onto adjacent viewing positions. At the bottom of each there are a number of blank code spaces, and a pointer is set to indicate one of these on each item. The user taps a single key, and the items are permanently joined. In each code space appears the code word. Out of view, but also in the code space, is inserted a set of dots for photocell viewing; and on each item these dots by their positions designate the index number of the other item. Thereafter, at any time, when one of these items is in view, the other can be instantly recalled merely by tapping a button below the corresponding co de space. Moreover, when numerous items have been thus joined together to form a trail, they can be reviewed in turn, rapidly or slowly, by deflecting a lever like that used for turning the pages of a book. It is exactly as though the physical items had been gathered together from widely separated sources and bound together to form a new book. It is more than this, for any item can be joined into numerous trails. (Section 7) p. 5

Alert to the risks of reading too deeply into a work to bolster one’s prejudice, it is interesting, nonetheless, to find that in discussing the application of machine logic to supporting intellectual work, Bush states: A new symbolism, probably positional, must apparently precede the reduction of mathematical transformations to machine processes. Then, on beyond the strict logic of the mathematician, lies the application of logic in everyday affairs. We may some day click off arguments on a machine with the same assurance that we now enter sales on a cash register. But the machine of logic will not look like a cash register, even of the streamlined model. (Section 5, emphasis added) p. 5

The owner of the memex, let us say, is interested in the origin and properties of the bow and arrow. Specifically he is studying why the short Turkish bow was apparently superior to the English long bow in the skirmishes of the Crusades. He has dozens of possibly pertinent books and articles in his memex. First he runs through an encyclopedia, finds an interesting but sketchy article, leaves it projected. Next, in a history, he finds another pertinent item, and ties the two together. Thus he goes, building a trail of many items. Occasionally he inserts a comment of his own, either linking it p. 5

Buckingham Shum into the main trail or joining it by a side trail to a particular item. When it becomes evident that the elastic properties of available materials had a great deal to do with the bow, he branches off on a side trail which takes him through textbooks on elasticity and tables of physical constants. He inserts a page of longhand analysis of his own. Thus he builds a trail of his interest through the maze of materials available to him. (Section 7) p. 6

And his trails do not fade. Several years later, his talk with a friend turns to the queer ways in which a people resist innovations, even of vital interest. He has an example, in the fact that the outraged Europeans still failed to adopt the Turkish bow. In fact he has a trail on it. A touch brings up the code book. Tapping a few keys projects the head of the trail. A lever runs through it at will, stopping at interesting items, going off on side excursions. It is an interesting trail, pertinent to the discussion. So he sets a reproducer in action, photographs the whole trail out, and passes it to his friend for insertion in his own memex, there to be linked into the more general trail. (Section 7) p. 6

With respect to visualization, given the inherently spatial metaphor underpinning the Memex, it is perhaps surprising that Bush does not discuss diagrammatic overviews of trails; trails are constructed, viewed and navigated serially, albeit very rapidly if desired. His contribution to CSAV is nonetheless enormous, having envisaged the hypertextual linking that underpins navigation in many CSAV tools, all in the context of a specifically scholarly application to the organisation of information into coherent trails. It was left to some of his readers to take the project the next step, in particular, Doug Engelbart, reviewed shortly. p. 6

The second AV root we review is The Uses of Argument by Stephen Toulmin (1958) p. 6

Toulmin’s scheme, through its use of a semiformal graphical representation, is perhaps the most often cited source (and a common demonstration example) in CSAV, and has found wide application in many other argument-based computer systems (Toulmin: ICAIL; Toulmin: Research Index, 2002). p. 7

In his seminal 1962 project report from the Stanford Research Institute, Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework, Douglas Engelbart (1962) laid out a framework for enabling people to augment their intellectual faculties by manipulating externalised “concept structures”. In a subsequent article (Engelbart, 1963), he stated as follows: p. 7

A concept structure (…) is something that can be designed or modified, and a basic hypothesis of our study is that better concept structures can be developed—structures that when mapped into a human’s mental structure will significantly improve his capability to comprehend and to find solutions within his complex-problem solving situations. (Engelbart (1963), reprinted in Greif (1988, p. 54)) p. 7

In his 1962 report, Engelbart presents extended scenarios of how a near-future tool could work. In the following extracts, we see probably the first articulation of what we would recognise as CSAV, detailing how a tool would support argument construction and analysis. The scenarios place the reader in the imaginary position of receiving a demonstration of the system from “Joe”, who is speaking: p. 8

“Most of the structuring forms I’ll show you stem from the simple capability of being able to establish arbitrary linkages between different substructures, and of directing the computer subsequently to display a set of linked substructures with any relative positioning we might designate among the different substructures. You can designate as many different kinds of links as you wish, so that you can specify different display or manipulative treatment for the different types.” (Engelbart, 1962, p. 85) p. 8

“[…] let me label the nodes so that you can develop more association between the nodes and the statements in the argument. I can do this several ways. For one thing, I can tell the computer to number the statements in the order in which you originally had them listed, and have the labelling done automatically.” This took him a total of five strokes on the keyset, and suddenly each node was made into a circle with a number in it. The statements that were on the second screen now each had its respective serial number sitting next to it in the left margin. “This helps you remember what the different nodes on the network display contain. We have also evolved some handy techniques for constructing abbreviation labels that help your memory quite a bit.” (p. 88) p. 8

“Also, we can display extra fine-structure and labelling detail within the network in the specific local area we happen to be concentrating upon. This finer detail is washed out as we move to another spot with our close attention, and the coarser remaining structure is compressed, so that there is room for our new spot to be blown up. It is a lot like using zones of variable magnification as you scan the structure—higher magnification where you are inspecting detail, lower magnification in the surrounding field so that your feel for the whole structure and where you are in it can stay with you.” (p. 89) p. 8

A parallel stream of work developing in the worlds of education and critical thinking, goes under names such as Concept Mapping and MindMappingTM. The earliest work on these is represented by individuals such as Joseph Novak and Tony Buzan. From the first studies in 1972, Novak has pursued a programme of work on concept mapping as a tool for high school and university students to construct, reflect on and discuss their conceptions of a domain with peers and tutors (Novak, 1976; 1998; Novak and Gowin, 1984). His work, grounded in a constructivist epistemology, has sparked significant research into the pedagogical properties of concept maps, student’s ability (or lack thereof) to construct such diagrams, and their utility (e.g. in contrast to traditional essays) as a means of communicating, and assessing, learning. On a related theme, but to a different audience, Buzan has written extensively as a popular writer on improving thinking skills, from his 1974 BBC series and book Use Your Head (Buzan, 1974) to educational and organisational consultancy on the use of MindMappingTM (MindMap.com) for analysis and decision making. p. 9

Interesting to see Tony Buzan mentioned here p. 9

Both of these strands emphasise the “visual” as a fundamental, but untapped, dimension for refining and communicating one’s thoughts (cf. Horn, 1998, for a detailed analysis of visual communication). From an historical perspective, it is unclear how early on these two roots fused. (This author has not yet tracked down examples from before the 1990s of concept mapping researchers overlaying argumentation schemas to classify nodes and links.) Certainly, relatively recent work on concept mapping in educational technology has introduced the vocabulary of argumentation (e.g. as an aid to teaching scientific reasoning). Together with other educational technology research (Andriessen et al., in press; Baker, 1999; Veerman et al., 1999), diagrammatic reasoning (Diagrammatic Reasoning, 2002; Glasgow et al., 1995) and psychology of programming (PPIG, 2002), theoretical and methodological foundations for the rigorous analysis of diagrammatic representations are being laid, on which the CSAV research community should build. This brings to earth vaguer writings on ‘tapping the hidden potential of the visual dimension’, which is (not surprisingly) often short on detail when it comes to explaining exactly how visual representations support (or obstruct) individual (or collective) cognition in different contexts. p. 9

Double-click to edit. p. 9

In the early 1970s, design theorist Horst Rittel characterised a class of problem that he termed “wicked”, in contrast to “tame” problems. Tame problems are not necessarily trivial problems, but by virtue of the maturity of certain fields, can be tackled with more confidence. Tame problems are understood sufficiently that they can be analysed using established methods, and it is clear when a solution has been reached. Tame problems may even be amenable to automated analysis, such as computer configuration design or medical diagnosis by expert system. In contrast, wicked problems display a number of distinctive properties that violate the assumptions that must be made to use tame problem solving methods. p. 9

Buckingham Shum Wicked problems: - cannot be easily defined so that all stakeholders agree on the problem to solve; - require complex judgements about the level of abstraction at which to define the problem; - have no clear stopping rules; - have better or worse solutions, not right and wrong ones; - have no objective measure of success; - require iteration – every attempt to build a solution changes the problem; - often have strong moral, political or professional dimensions, particularly for failure. Rittel and Webber, made two testable claims of direct relevance to this review: first, that many design problems are “wicked,” in contrast to “tame” or “benign” problems which can be modelled computationally, and secondly, that an “argumentative process” was the most effective way to tackle such problems. p. 10

“Wicked and incorrigible [problems]…defy efforts to delineate their boundaries and to identify their causes, and thus to expose their problematic nature.” (Rittel and Webber, 1973). p. 10

Such problems lack a single, agreed-upon formulation or well-developed plans of action, are unique, and have no well-defined stopping rule, because there are only “better” or “worse” (rather than right or wrong) solutions. Closure is often forced by pragmatic constraints (e.g. managerial or political) rather than “rational scientific” principles. Such problems could not be solved by formal models or methodologies, classed by Rittel as the “first-generation” design methodologies. Instead, an argumentative approach to such problems was proposed (a second-generation design method). The essence of this perspective is that an open-ended, dialectic process of collaboratively defining and debating issues is a powerful way of discovering the structure of wicked problems: p. 10

First generation methods seem to start once all the truly difficult questions have been dealt with already (…) The second generation deals with difficulties underlying what was taken as input for the methods of the first generation. [Second generation] methods are characterised by a number of traits, one of them being that the design process is not considered to be a sequence of activities that are pretty well defined and that are carried through one after the other, like “understand the problem, collect information, analyse information, synthesise, decide,” and so on… My recommendation [for the future of design methodologies] would be to emphasise investigations into the understanding of designing as an argumentative process … how to understand designing as a counterplay of raising issues and dealing with them, which in turn raises new issues, and so on… [Argumentative design] means that the statements are systematically challenged in order to expose them to the viewpoints of the different sides, p. 10

and the structure of the process becomes one of alternating steps on the micro-level; that means the generation of solution specifications towards end statements, and subjecting them to discussion of their pros and cons. (Rittel, 1972) p. 11

This perspective motivated the development of Issue Based Information Systems (IBIS) as a medium to encourage the open deliberation of issues. The three key IBIS entities were Issues, Positions and Arguments, which could be linked by relationships such as supports, objects-to, replaces, temporal-successor-of, more-general-than, and their converses. Visualised as a graph, an IBIS grows into a network as more Issues are posted and debated (Figure 1.3). p. 11

Engelbart’s work set in process research efforts in numerous locations. One of the most influential of these was based at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), where the interest in the early 1980s in human-computer interaction (which led to the modern graphical user interface) made the important move from word processing, to “idea processing”. The availability (at least in computing research labs) of graphical user p. 11

interfaces and large screens led to a very active decade in the building of prototype hypertext systems (summarised and reviewed in detail by Conklin, 1987), and the formation of what is now the hypertext research community (e.g. ACM SIGWEB). One of the most influential systems of this era was NoteCards (Halasz et al., 1987), a tool for idea processing that drew on the 3×5 inch filing card as its metaphor, each hypertext node being a “card”. p. 12

“Idea processing” in general then took a specific direction towards argument mapping. In The Next Knowledge Medium, Stefik (1986, also at PARC) proposed collaborative argumentation tools as one example of “knowledge media.” Such tools, “for arguing the merits, assumptions, and evaluation criteria for competing proposals” could provide “an essential medium in the process of meetings.” “The languages provided by the tools encourage an important degree of precision and explicitness for manipulating and experimenting with knowledge”, coupled with “augment[ing] human social processes.” Van Lehn (1985) published a technical report documenting his experiences with NoteCards, concluding that using the system to map the argumentation in his thesis had exposed hidden flaws. p. 12

Brown (1986) further developed the theme: Current communications tools and methods force the crafting of complex arguments into linear form for presentation, so that the web-like connections among ideas is hidden from view, making it difficult to see alternate interpretations and points of view. (…) As a result many of the underlying ideas, arguments and assumptions either remain implicit or are lost altogether. But consider the possibility of crafting new information tools to capture not just conclusions and the view of matters that supports them, but to allow the explicit representation of underlying assumptions and argument structures. (p. 484) p. 12

It was noted in particular that work was needed on developing notations with an appropriate vocabulary for the task domain: To accomplish these goals, we need a taxonomy of epistemological links for relating ideas, as well as link-related filters. That is, we must now think about giving users access to and utilisation of not just undifferentiated links, but links with appropriate kinds of labels. (p. 485) p. 12

In a subsequent project on computational support for meetings, Stefik et al., (1987) envisioned a tool called Argnoter: [Design] is essentially a dialectic between goals and possibilities… in collaborative design tasks, this interaction and tension between goals and alternatives must play itself out in the communications among collaborators. […] A major theme of Argnoter’s design is that alternatives be made explicit: Proposals themselves are explicit, as are assumptions and evaluation criteria. (p. 38) p. 12

A major working hypothesis behind the design of Argnoter is that making the structure of arguments explicit facilitates consensus by reducing uncommunicated differences. (p. 40) p. 13

The motivation behind Argnoter was clearly that of a “group CSAV” tool – a way to represent design arguments explicitly, but with the group process adding another dimension. It was hypothesised that the process of striving to agree on rankings and assumptions in Argnoter would help designers recognise where their differences lay. However, the actual system was not implemented. p. 13

Conklin’s gIBIS system (Conklin and Begeman, 1988) pioneered the application of graphical hypertext views for the reification of IBIS structures. Issues, Positions and Arguments became system- recognised node types in a hypertext, and Rittel’s rhetorical moves (responds to, expands on, challenges, etc.) defined the typology of link types, with direct manipulation, aerial views, and graph layout algorithms assisting in the management of the large network structures (see Figure 1.4 for an example). p. 13

Also during the late1980s, Robert Horn was working at the intersection of hypertext and an approach to visual information design called Information Mapping. Horn (1989) published a book which included discussion of the application of hypertext to mapping argumentation, using Toulmin’s sch eme (see above) as an example. p. 13

A final strand of work to emerge in recent years is interest in hypertextual argumentation, that is, ways in which the non-linear aspects of argumentation may be better expressed as hypertext than prose. David Kolb (1994) used the Storyspace p. 13

(Eastgate Systems) hypertext writing tool to experiment with such forms, and envisioned how hypertext and visualization could develop in the future to support scholarly argumentation (Kolb, 1997). This thread has continued, with Carter (2000) considering other aspects of hypertextual argument, while Mancini and Buckingham Shum (2002) applied ideas from cognitive coherence relations research to propose how hypertext’s disorienting impact can be controlled to support the construction and navigation of scholarly argument structures. p. 14

Mancini and Buckingham Shum (2002) applied ideas from cognitive coherence relations research to propose how hypertext’s disorienting impact can be controlled to support the construction and navigation of scholarly argument structures p. 14

It is not clear that CMC can be thought of as a root in terms of strongly influencing the emergence of CSAV in its current state. Rather, it is a parallel branch that has grown from a different research community, focused on asynchronous textual interactions (rather than visualizations). p. 14

One cluster of research is that of Dialogue Games, in which a knowledge-based system with a model of different dialogue “trajectories” influences the human-computer dialogue based on its trace of what has taken place so far (e.g. Pilkington et al., 1992; Ravenscroft, 2000; Sillince, 1997). p. 14

The earliest work is probably that of Turoff and Hilz, who comment on their early work from the 1970s on group support CMC systems such as EMISARI and TOPICS: Both systems had very specialized structures for group communications, very specific content type classifications and relationships related to the application domains (crisis management and unpredictable information exchange), specific human roles supported by software, and voting capabilities to be able to expose quickly and efficiently areas of agreement and disagreement. (Turoff et al., 1999, Section 1) p. 14

Turoff (1970) describes an early implementation of the Delphi conferencing system which incorporates a meta-discussion structure based on the Hegelian Inquiry Process to scientific discourse. An explicit link to argumentation is made when they proceed to propose a future CMC system that could support varieties of “discourse template”, one example being for “debating and argumentation”, providing Argument contribution types, with Pro and Con links, plus a voting mechanism to resolve disagreements. Significantly, they conclude by introducing the idea of visualizing discourse grounded in the argumentation template: p. 15

Right now one key missing element in asynchronous CMC systems is the appreciation of the evolution of the discussion that occurs in a face to face meeting. […] What were the crucial arguments that caused agreement to occur? […] The voting process is a logical approach to capturing the resulting group dynamics of the discussion and the type of tool to do this could be the following three dimensional visualization. Let us imagine something akin to a complex organic molecule that, on screen, can be rotated and “zoomed” to focus on different parts and their relationships. More importantly, the history of this structure can be played back through time. We are using the argumentation template for the example and there are two types of nodes or atoms (options and arguments); and three types of links or relationships (pro, con, and opposition). Any member of the group may add to the collaborative construction using these building modules. p. 15

In the same year, Sillince and Saeedi (1999) published a paper analysing design issues for argumentation-augmented CMC, including the possibility of visualizations. Thus, in this branch of work we finally see the convergence of CMC and CSAV in proposals for future systems, albeit not until the late 1990s.1 (An ongoing project to implement a CMC-CSAV system for scholarly research discourse is described in Chapter 9.) p. 16

Within the hypertext research community, for a decade from the early 1980s to early 1990s, argument mapping became something of an “experimental white rat”, with many of the pioneering systems for idea processing and then collaborative hypertext choosing argumentation as one of their standard demonstration applications: consider Textnet (Trigg and Weiser, 1983), NoteCards (Halasz et al., 1987), gIBIS (Conklin and Begeman, 1988), rIBIS (Rein and Ellis, 1991), SEPIA (Streitz et al., 1989), AAA (Schuler and Smith, 1990), Colab (Tatar et al., 1991), and Aquanet (Marshall and Rogers, 1992). In addition to the gIBIS system introduced above, several other design rationale efforts (Fischer, et al., 1991; McCall, 1991) grounded their approaches in Rittel’s concept of argumentative design. Others developed variations on gIBIS, varying the notation and its visual layout, determining how large and elaborate an argument could be expressed. Design Space Analysis (MacLean et al., 1991; 1993) changed IBIS’s Issues, Positions, Arguments to the more design oriented Questions, Options, Criteria. The Decision Representation Language (Lee, 1991) extended gIBIS (e.g. with the Goal node type), allowing participants to explore Alternatives, Claims backing them, and to contest through Questions and counter-Claims the relationships between these constructs.2 p. 16

However, after the initial flush of excitement at hypertext’s representational possibilities, subsequent analyses of CSAV began to draw more sobering lessons. A number of critiques highlighted cognitive and social challenges for CSAV, and by extension, any approach that seeks to support intellectual work with semi-formal or formal representations. From a CSCW perspective, see Shipman and Marshall (1999), p. 16

See Conklin (1987) for a review of hypertext systems in mid-1980s, and Buckingham Shum and Hammond (1994) for a more recent review, specifically from the perspective of argumentation-based design rationale. p. 16

from a design rationale perspective Buckingham Shum and Hammond (1994), on groupware see Grudin (1994), and on collaborative modelling (Selvin, 1999). Educational applications of CSAV have reported similar initial learning overheads for students in structuring their thoughts into network structures (Suthers and Weiner, 1995). p. 17

It has become apparent that CSAV’s successes and failures result from a combination of one’s expertise in the argument mapping approach, training in CSAV tools, user interface design, the kind of domain and problem being tackled, and the incentive to use CSAV. p. 17

What we have seen with CSAV – at least its history as proposed here – is typical of the maturation of many new intellectual technologies. After an initial (e.g. a decade’s) flurry of prototype building in research labs, the complexities of making it work in the real world start to bite. Many move on to the next emerging technology, as is obviously important in technology research, but those who persevere may after a few years create stable versions/products that can be run reliably on what are by then everyday workplace computers. Crucially, in parallel, they slowly acquire the missing knowledge and craft skill that helps them embed and customise the raw tool in the workplace. In CSAV’s case, learning ways to introduce it into the classroom or businesses often implicates integration with other technologies (e.g. standard office software; email and the web; specialist tools such as CAD), or organisational processes (e.g. national curricula; design methodologies). p. 17

Of all the factors that seem to influence uptake of argument mapping, one in particular is recurring (cf. van Gelder, Chapter 5, and Conklin, Chapter 6). The process of learning the representational notation inculcates a useful new ability to attend to the underlying structure of arguments and debates (whether spoken or written) in the terms of that particular notation. An important consequence of this, however, is that until one has had some practice, often prompted by some initial instruction, argument mapping initially feels like learning a new foreign language, and the temptation is to lapse back into more familiar languages (conversational patterns and modes of writing). The tools can be made user friendly, and the notations lightweight and informal, but the human element of the system must co-evolve as well. We are, in short, talking about a new literacy in being able to read and write in the new medium, and a new fluency in using these conversational tools in appropriate ways in different contexts. p. 17

Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1994). An instructional environment for practising argumentation skills. AAAI'94: Proceedings of Annual Conferrence American Assoc. Artificial Intelligence, 485-492. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Ed.). (in press). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Baker, M.J. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In J. Andriessen & P. Coier (Eds.) Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press. Begeman, M. and Conklin, J. (1988). The right tool for the right job. BYTE, Oct. 1988. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Leng, P. H., & Stanford, G. (1998). A computer supported environment for the teaching of legal argument. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/98-3/capon.html Bootstrap Institute. Available from http://www.bootstrap.org Brown, J. S. (1986). From cognitive ergonomics to social ergonomics and beyond. In D. Norman & S. Draper (Ed.), User Centered System Design (pp. 457-486). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown/MIT (1995). Brown/MIT Bush Symposium. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.cs.brown.edu/memex/ Buckingham Shum, S., & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation-Based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(4), 603652. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm Buzan, T. (1974). Use your head. London: BBC. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20(9), 1741. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(6), 303-331. CSILE: Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://cs ile.oise.utoronto.ca/ DiagrammaticReasoning (2002). Gateway to the diagrammatic reasoning website. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/gal/Diagrams/ p. 18

Eastgate Systems: Storyspace. Available from http://www.eastgate.com Engelbart, D. C. (1962). Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework (SRI Project No. 3578, Summary Report AFOSR-3233). Stanford Research Institute. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/EngelbartPapers/B5_F18_ConceptFramew orkInd.htm l Engelbart, D. C. (1963). A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect. In P. Howerton & D. Weeks (Eds.), Vistas in information handling (pp. 1- 29). Washington, DC: Spartan Books. Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., & Morch, A. I. (1991). Making Argumentation Serve Design. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3&4), 393-419. Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H., & Chandrasekaran, B. (Ed.). (1995). Diagrammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press. Greif, I (ed.), Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings. Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, California, 1988. Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 92-105. Halasz, F. G., Moran, T. P., & Trigg, R. H. (1987). NoteCards in a nutshell. Proceedings of CHI and GI’87: Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphic Interface, 45-52. New York: ACM. Horn, R. (1989). Mapping hypertext: The analysis, organization, and display of knowledge for the next generation of on-line text and graphics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Institute. Horn, R. (1998). Visual language: Global communication for the 21st century. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU, Inc. Knowledge Forum. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.learn.motion.com/lim/kf/KF0.html Kolb, D. (1994). Socrates in the Labyrinth: Hypertext, Argument, Philosophy (A Hypertext). Watertown: Eastgate Systems. http://www.eastgate.com Kolb, D. (1997). Scholarly hypertext: Self-represented complexity. Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext, (Southampton), 29-37. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://journals.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/ht97/pdfs/kolb.pdf Lee, J. (1991). Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, 114-125. New York: IEEE-ACM. MacLean, A. Bellotti, V. and Buckingham Shum, S. (1993). Developing the design space with design space analysis. In P. F. Byerley, P. J. Barnard, and J. May (Eds.). Computers, Communication and Usability: Design issues, research and methods for integrated services. (North Holland Series in Telecommunication) pp.197-219. Amsterdam: Elsevier:. MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human -Computer Interaction, 6(3, 4), 201- 250. p. 19

Malone, T. W., Grant, K. R., Lai, K.-Y., Rao, R., & Rosenblitt, D. (1987). Semistructured messages are surprisingly useful for computer-supported coordination. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 5,(2), 115-131. Marshall, C. C. (1989). Representing the structure of legal arguments. Proceedings of the International Conference on AI and Law, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Marshall, C. C., & Rogers, R. A. (1992). Two years before the mist: Experiences with aquanet. Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Hypertext (pp. 53-62) Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Ed.). (1989). Mindweave: communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/literaturestore/mindweave/mindweave.html McCall, R. J. (1991). PHI: A conceptual foundation for design hypermedia. Design Studies, 12(1), 30-41 MindMap.com - Tony Buzan. Available from http://www.mind-map.com/ Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (Ed.). (1996). Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. MouseSite: Sloan School of Management, Stanford University, CA. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/ Novak, J. D. (1976). Understanding the learning process and effectiveness of teaching methods in the Classroom, laboratory, and field. Science Education, 60(4), 493-512. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A Treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN.: Notre Dame University Press. Pilkington, R. M., Hartley, J. R., Hintze, D., & Moore, D. J. (1992). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: An interface for computer-based dialogue games. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 3(3), 275-285. PPIG (2002). Psychology of Programming Interest Group: Workshops. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.ppig.org/workshops Ravenscroft, A. (2000). Designing argumentation for conceptual development. Computers and Education, 34, 241-255. Rein, G. L., & Ellis, C. A. (1991). rIBIS: A real-time group hypertext system. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24(3), 349-367. Rittel, H. W. J. (1972). Second generation design methods. Interview in: Design Methods Group 5th Anniversary Report: DMG Occasional Paper, 1, 5-10. Reprinted in: Developments in Design Methodology, N. Cross (Ed.), 1984, pp. 317-327. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51-68. Schuler, W., & Smith, J. (1990). Author’s Argumentation Assistant (AAA): A hypertextbased authoring tool for argumentative texts. Proceedings of ECHT'90: European p. 20

Conference on Hypertext: Argumentation, Design & Knowledge Acquisition, 137-151. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts : An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. Selvin, A. (1999). Supporting collaborative analysis and design with hypertext functionality. Journal of Digital Information, 1(4). Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/i04/Selvin/ Shipman, F. M., & Marshall, C. C. (1999). Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in Interactive systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(4), 333-352. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://bush.cs.tamu.edu:80/~shipman/cscw.pdf SIGWEB Special Interest Group in Hypertext, Hypermedia and the Web. New York: ACM. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.acm.org/sigweb/ Sillince, J. A. A. (1997). Intelligent argumentation systems: Requirements, models, research agenda and applications. In A. Kent (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Library and Information Science, 59(22) (pp. 176-218). New York: Marcel Dekker. Sillince, J. A. A., & Saeedi, M. H. (1999). Computer-Mediated communication: problems and potentials of argumentation support systems. Decision Support Systems, 26, 287-306. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://staff.abs.aston.ac.uk/jsillince/ARTICLE8.htm Sjöberg, C., & Timpka, T. (1995). Inside multidisciplinary design in medical informatics: Experiences from the use of an argumentative design method. MEDINFO’95: Tri- annual World Conference in Medical Informatics, Vancouver. Stefik, M. (1986). The next knowledge medium. AI Magazine, 7(1), 34-46. Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D. G., Kahn, K., Lanning, S., and Suchman, L. (1987). Communications of the ACM, 30(1), 32-47 Streitz, N., Hanneman, J., & Thüring, M. (1989). From ideas and arguments to hyperdocuments: Travelling through activity spaces. Proceedings of Hypertext’89, 343364. New York: ACM. Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. (1995, October). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. Paper presented at CSCL'95: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Bloomington, IN. Tatar, D. G., Foster, G., & Bobrow, D. G. (1991). Design for conversation: Lessons from cognoter. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 185-209. Reprinted from Computer supported cooperative work and Groupware, 55-80, by S. Greenberg, Ed., 1991, London: Academic Press. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. Toulmin:ICAIL (2002). Results of a search on “Toulmin” in proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Digital Library. Retrieved on August 1 2002 from http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=2680449&CFT OKEN=58630376 Toulmin: Research Index (2002). Results of a search on “Toulmin” in computer Science literature. Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=toulmin&cs=1 p. 21

Trigg, R., & Weiser, M. (1983). TEXTNET: A network-based approach to text handling. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(1). Turoff, M. (1970). Delphi conferencing: computer based conferencing with anonymity. Journal of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3(2), 159-204. Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Bieber, M., Fjermestad, J., & Rana, A. (1999). Collaborative discourse structures in computer mediated group communications. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved on August 1, 2002 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/turoff.html Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press. VanLehn, K. (1985). Theory reform caused by an argumentation tool (Technical Report ISL- 11). Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Veerman, A., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. In C. Hoadly & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 640- 650). Palo Alto, California: Stanford University. Walton, D. G. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wigmore, H. J. A. (1913). The principles of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and General experience and illustrated in judicial trials. Boston: Little Brown (2nd Edition, 1931. Reprint 2000, William S. Hein & Co., Inc.). p. 22