IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v9y2000i1d10.1023_a1008796822813.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Folding Arguments: A Method for Representing Conflicting Views of a Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Masahide Horita

    (Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane)

Abstract

This article presents a method for representing social conflict under disagreements over its representation, with the view that the resolution of such disagreements often affects the resolution of the conflict itself. The Argumentative Analysis of Options (AAO) method proposed here extends Howard's Analysis of Options method for conflict analysis. The AAO method highlights the role of policy discourse in resolving the disagreed representation, and models arguments made in these social processes. In this method, people's arguments are folded into a "strategic map" of a conflict, using a new coding system based on modal logic. The method is designed to be incorporated into group support systems (GSS) as a non-exclusive, non-specialist communication medium for both principal players and grassroots people. An experimental study is reported in which use of a prototype of GSS with the AAO method resulted in an assembly of rational and structured arguments in an attempt to resolve a hypothetical conflict. An evaluation by users of the prototype GSS suggested that it was less simple and more difficult to use, but richer than a more traditional electronic mail system. Design implications and potential pitfalls of this approach to GSS are discussed based on the results of the experimental study.

Suggested Citation

  • Masahide Horita, 2000. "Folding Arguments: A Method for Representing Conflicting Views of a Conflict," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 63-83, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:9:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008796822813
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008796822813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008796822813
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008796822813?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    2. Dean Hoover & David Kowalewski, 1992. "Dynamic Models of Dissent and Repression," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 150-182, March.
    3. Robert W. Zmud & Mary R. Lind & Forrest W. Young, 1990. "An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 440-457, December.
    4. Donald A. Sylvan & Stuart J. Thorson, 1992. "Ontologies, Problem Representation, and the Cuban Missile Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(4), pages 709-732, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hermans, Leon M. & Thissen, Wil A.H., 2009. "Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 808-818, July.
    2. Yu Maemura & Masahide Horita, 2012. "Humour in Negotiations: A Pragmatic Analysis of Humour in Simulated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 821-838, November.
    3. Masahide Horita, 2000. "Mapping Policy Discourse with CRANES: Spatial Understanding Support Systems as a Medium for Community Conflict Resolution," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 27(6), pages 801-814, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ni Li & Minghui Sun & Zhuming Bi & Zeya Su & Chao Wang, 2014. "A new methodology to support group decision-making for IoT-based emergency response systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 953-977, November.
    2. Mateos, A. & Jimenez, A. & Rios-Insua, S., 2006. "Monte Carlo simulation techniques for group decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1842-1864, November.
    3. Andy Stirling & Go Yoshizawa & Tatsujiro Suzuki, 2009. "Electricity System Diversity in the UK and Japan - a Multicriteria Diversity Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 176, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Nicolai j. Foss & Lars Frederiksen & Francesco Rullani, 2016. "Problem‐formulation and problem‐solving in self‐organized communities: How modes of communication shape project behaviors in the free open‐source software community," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(13), pages 2589-2610, December.
    5. Bendoly, Elliot & Bachrach, Daniel G., 2003. "A process-based model for priority convergence in multi-period group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 534-545, August.
    6. Hoegl, Martin & Proserpio, Luigi, 2004. "Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1153-1165, October.
    7. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.
    8. S H Choi & B S Ahn, 2009. "IP-MAGS: an incomplete preference-based multiple attribute group support system," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(4), pages 496-505, April.
    9. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    10. Tavares, L. Valadares, 2012. "An acyclic outranking model to support group decision making within organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 782-790.
    11. Wee-Kek Tan & Chuan-Hoo Tan & Hock-Hai Teo, 2012. "Conveying information effectively in a virtual world: Insights from synthesized task closure and media richness," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1198-1212, June.
    12. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (Wanda Janina). & Gash, Debra Carol, 1959-., 1992. "Changing frames : understanding technological change in organizations," Working papers 3368-92., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    13. João N. Clímaco & Luis C. Dias, 2006. "An Approach to Support Negotiation Processes with Imprecise Information Multicriteria Additive Models," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 171-184, March.
    14. Contreras, I. & Marmol, A.M., 2007. "A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria group decision problems with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1530-1539, September.
    15. Driouchi, Tarik & Leseure, Michel & Bennett, David, 2009. "A robustness framework for monitoring real options under uncertainty," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 698-710, June.
    16. Paolo Viappiani, 2020. "Robust Winner Determination in Positional Scoring Rules with Uncertain Weights," Post-Print hal-02373399, HAL.
    17. Ahti Salo & Antti Punkka, 2011. "Ranking Intervals and Dominance Relations for Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 200-214, January.
    18. Salo, Ahti & Punkka, Antti, 2005. "Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 338-356, June.
    19. Gerardine DeSanctis & Peter Monge, 1999. "Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(6), pages 693-703, December.
    20. Tommi Gustafsson & Ahti Salo & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2003. "Multicriteria methods for technology foresight," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 235-255.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:9:y:2000:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008796822813. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.