Using argumentative structure to interpret debates in online deliberative democracy and erulemaking

John Lawrence, Joonsuk Park, Katarzyna Budzynska, Claire Cardie, Barbara Konat, Chris Reed

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

Governments around the world are increasingly utilising online platforms and social media to engage with, and ascertain the opinions of, their citizens. Whilst policy makers could potentially benefit from such enormous feedback from society, they first face the challenge of making sense out of the large volumes of data produced. In this article, we show how the analysis of argumentative and dialogical structures allows for the principled identification of those issues that are central, controversial, or popular in an online corpus of debates. Although areas such as controversy mining work towards identifying issues that are a source of disagreement, by looking at the deeper argumentative structure, we show that a much richer understanding can be obtained. We provide results from using a pipeline of argument-mining techniques on the debate corpus, showing that the accuracy obtained is sufficient to automatically identify those issues that are key to the discussion, attracting proportionately more support than others, and those that are divisive, attracting proportionately more conflicting viewpoints. 2017 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).

LanguageEnglish
Article number25
JournalACM Transactions on Internet Technology
Volume17
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2017

Fingerprint

Pipelines
Feedback

Keywords

  • Analytics
  • Argument
  • Argumentation
  • Corpus
  • Dialogue
  • Engagement
  • Sensemaking

Cite this

@article{1f4cc28e6a7f46c7ab0bd4264e550691,
title = "Using argumentative structure to interpret debates in online deliberative democracy and erulemaking",
abstract = "Governments around the world are increasingly utilising online platforms and social media to engage with, and ascertain the opinions of, their citizens. Whilst policy makers could potentially benefit from such enormous feedback from society, they first face the challenge of making sense out of the large volumes of data produced. In this article, we show how the analysis of argumentative and dialogical structures allows for the principled identification of those issues that are central, controversial, or popular in an online corpus of debates. Although areas such as controversy mining work towards identifying issues that are a source of disagreement, by looking at the deeper argumentative structure, we show that a much richer understanding can be obtained. We provide results from using a pipeline of argument-mining techniques on the debate corpus, showing that the accuracy obtained is sufficient to automatically identify those issues that are key to the discussion, attracting proportionately more support than others, and those that are divisive, attracting proportionately more conflicting viewpoints. 2017 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).",
keywords = "Analytics, Argument, Argumentation, Corpus, Dialogue, Engagement, Sensemaking",
author = "John Lawrence and Joonsuk Park and Katarzyna Budzynska and Claire Cardie and Barbara Konat and Chris Reed",
note = "We acknowledge that the work reported in this article has been supported in part by EPSRC in the UK under grant EP/N014871/1, the Innovate UK under grant 101777, and the National Science Foundation in the USA under Grant 1314778",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1145/3032989",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
journal = "ACM Transactions on Internet Technology",
issn = "1533-5399",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery",
number = "3",

}

Using argumentative structure to interpret debates in online deliberative democracy and erulemaking. / Lawrence, John; Park, Joonsuk; Budzynska, Katarzyna; Cardie, Claire; Konat, Barbara; Reed, Chris.

In: ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3, 25, 01.07.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using argumentative structure to interpret debates in online deliberative democracy and erulemaking

AU - Lawrence, John

AU - Park, Joonsuk

AU - Budzynska, Katarzyna

AU - Cardie, Claire

AU - Konat, Barbara

AU - Reed, Chris

N1 - We acknowledge that the work reported in this article has been supported in part by EPSRC in the UK under grant EP/N014871/1, the Innovate UK under grant 101777, and the National Science Foundation in the USA under Grant 1314778

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - Governments around the world are increasingly utilising online platforms and social media to engage with, and ascertain the opinions of, their citizens. Whilst policy makers could potentially benefit from such enormous feedback from society, they first face the challenge of making sense out of the large volumes of data produced. In this article, we show how the analysis of argumentative and dialogical structures allows for the principled identification of those issues that are central, controversial, or popular in an online corpus of debates. Although areas such as controversy mining work towards identifying issues that are a source of disagreement, by looking at the deeper argumentative structure, we show that a much richer understanding can be obtained. We provide results from using a pipeline of argument-mining techniques on the debate corpus, showing that the accuracy obtained is sufficient to automatically identify those issues that are key to the discussion, attracting proportionately more support than others, and those that are divisive, attracting proportionately more conflicting viewpoints. 2017 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).

AB - Governments around the world are increasingly utilising online platforms and social media to engage with, and ascertain the opinions of, their citizens. Whilst policy makers could potentially benefit from such enormous feedback from society, they first face the challenge of making sense out of the large volumes of data produced. In this article, we show how the analysis of argumentative and dialogical structures allows for the principled identification of those issues that are central, controversial, or popular in an online corpus of debates. Although areas such as controversy mining work towards identifying issues that are a source of disagreement, by looking at the deeper argumentative structure, we show that a much richer understanding can be obtained. We provide results from using a pipeline of argument-mining techniques on the debate corpus, showing that the accuracy obtained is sufficient to automatically identify those issues that are key to the discussion, attracting proportionately more support than others, and those that are divisive, attracting proportionately more conflicting viewpoints. 2017 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).

KW - Analytics

KW - Argument

KW - Argumentation

KW - Corpus

KW - Dialogue

KW - Engagement

KW - Sensemaking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024482229&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/3032989

DO - 10.1145/3032989

M3 - Article

VL - 17

JO - ACM Transactions on Internet Technology

T2 - ACM Transactions on Internet Technology

JF - ACM Transactions on Internet Technology

SN - 1533-5399

IS - 3

M1 - 25

ER -