|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]||Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author|
>One of the issues that has come up recently is about the structure of
>rebuttal to arguments. An awful lot of problem solving discussion centers
>on groups evaluating the validity and relevance of arguments, which means
>that there's a whole "sub-grammar" for debate about argument validity (as
>opposed to pros and cons about options/alternatives/ideas).
I think this relates to the least satisfying part of IBIS for me at the moment, which I'm sure can be overcome. Currently if a participant challenges an arguement I'm using what Jeff suggested in a Dialog Mapping training course to link a question node to the arguement with the text "really?", then an idea node with "yes or no" and then a pro or con node with the counter evidence. I don't like the adversarial feel to this, given how good Dialog Mapping is at creating collaboration. It also uses precious space. It may not disrupt the group, but it disrupts me as the facilitator which has a knock-on effect to the group. Has anyone tackled this differently?
The Management School
GB LA1 4YX
Office: 01524 593635
Home: 01524 64106