Difference between revisions of "Discussion"
Juha Villman (talk | contribs) m (Changed moderator parameter) |
(link to archived argumentation/discussion texts moved to Dealing with disputes) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:'''Discussion''' is a part of an [[attribute]] of a formally structured [[object]]. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the [[:en:Pragma-dialectics|pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]]<ref name="pragmadial">Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution. | :'''Discussion''' is a part of an [[attribute]] of a formally structured [[object]]. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the [[:en:Pragma-dialectics|pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]]<ref name="pragmadial">Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution. | ||
<section end=glossary /> | <section end=glossary /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Open collaboration embraces participation. Therefore all contributions in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the assessments, variables, methods as well as other content are most welcome. The contributions can change the outcome of the assessments by improving their information content and making it better understandable for decision makers, stakeholders and public. Documented discussions also show the reasoning behind the work done in assessments making it possible for decision makers, stakeholders and public to judge for themselves whether they agree with the reasoning behind the outcomes. In order to obtain an orderly discussion, rules and format for discussion in open collaboration have been created building on pragma-dialectics, a systematic theory of argumentation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == References == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <References/> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| Line 11: | Line 17: | ||
* [[Discussion method]] | * [[Discussion method]] | ||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory] | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 13:24, 11 November 2009
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en2382 |
|---|
| Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
<section begin=glossary />
- Discussion is a part of an attribute of a formally structured object. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory[1]. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution.
<section end=glossary />
Open collaboration embraces participation. Therefore all contributions in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the assessments, variables, methods as well as other content are most welcome. The contributions can change the outcome of the assessments by improving their information content and making it better understandable for decision makers, stakeholders and public. Documented discussions also show the reasoning behind the work done in assessments making it possible for decision makers, stakeholders and public to judge for themselves whether they agree with the reasoning behind the outcomes. In order to obtain an orderly discussion, rules and format for discussion in open collaboration have been created building on pragma-dialectics, a systematic theory of argumentation.
References
- ↑ Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
