How can tool use improve the process and outcomes of human deliberation on paths of action?

在审议对话中，参与者集体决定采取何种行动。这种对话的结果可能产生巨大影响。这样的例子在政策、产业战略、学术界、灾害应对和治理等各个领域都很普遍。因此，提高审议结果的质量和审议过程的非功能性需求的满足率可以提供重要的，可扩展的改善这些关键决策的结果。在这个项目中，我们接近的问题“如何使用工具可以改善人类审议的过程和结果的行动路径？“我的研究计划包括两个主要阶段。首先，分析了协商对话，找出现实世界中协商的特点，这些特点往往会产生最好的结果和过程。第二，构建一个工具，专门培养和促进参与审议的用户的这些功能。第一阶段的目标是回答以下问题：-现有的正式审议模型在多大程度上捕捉实际的人类-人类审议？哪些修改将使最有前途的模型更充分地描述真实的审议？这些都是悬而未决的问题，因为大多数正式模型的最初设计并不是为了模拟人与人之间的讨论。然而，通过在这个方向上扩展它们，论证理论的强大见解可以应用于关键的审议过程，一旦发现了促进良好结果和过程的审议特征，下一阶段的研究就是设计和构建一个促进它们的工具。由于它依赖于早期研究的结果，这项工作的确切形状目前很难绘制出来。在这个阶段，谨慎的做法是对支持审议的工具可能是什么样的以及如何实现保持中立，因为这些事实应该完全由以前的研究确定，因此在这个阶段预先承诺一些细节不太可能选择最佳行动方针。我们的初步工作集中在有前途的方法的论点映射，并已涉及建立一个框架，以捕捉参与外化的想法，以一个论点map.By支持最好的审议对话的功能，我们生产的工具将旨在改善的结果，关键的现实世界的审议。

In deliberation dialogues, participants collectively decide on which action is to be taken. The outcomes of such dialogues can be enormously impactful. Examples are rife across varied domains, such as policy, industrial strategy, academia, disaster response, and governance. Therefore, improvements in the quality of deliberative outcomes and the satisfaction rate of non-functional requirements of the deliberative process could deliver important, scalable improvements in the results of these critical decisions.In this project, we approach the question "How can tool use improve the process and outcomes of human deliberation on paths of action?"My proposed research consists in two broad phases. Firstly, an analysis of deliberation dialogues, to find features of real-world deliberations which tend to produce the best outcomes and processes. Secondly, the construction of a tool to specifically nurture and promote these features in users who are participants in deliberations.The first phase will aim to answer the following questions:- To what extent do existing formal models of deliberation capture actual human-human deliberations?- Which modifications will allow the most promising models to more fully describe real deliberations?These are open questions because the original design of most of the formal models was not intended to model human-human deliberations. However, by expanding them in this direction, the powerful insights of argumentation theory can be applied to critical deliberation processes.Once deliberative features that promote good outcomes and processes have been found, the next phase of the proposed research is to design and build a tool that promotes them. Due to its reliance on the results of earlier sections of the research, the precise shape of this work is harder to map out at present. At this stage, it is prudent to remain neutral on what a tool to support deliberation might be like and how it will be realised, because these facts should be fully determined by the previous research, and thus a pre-commitment to some set of specifics at this stage is unlikely to select the best course of action. Our initial work has focussed on the promising method of argument mapping, and has involved building a framework to capture the mental operations involved in externalising ideas to an argument map.By supporting the features of the best deliberation dialogues, our produced tool will aim to improve the outcomes of critical real-world deliberation.