Search results

This study developed two presentation modes of scientific articles and evaluated their usability with user experiments.

Two presentation modes of scientific articles, simply referred to as “genre presentation mode” and “argument presentation mode”, were constructed based on their genre structure and argument structure respectively. Their usability was evaluated by being compared against the existing RichHTML presentation mode in the experiments using eye-tracking and questionnaire methods.

The participants who were going to find the specific information of scientific articles rated the genre presentation mode higher than they did with either the argument or the RichHTML presentation mode for effectiveness. In contrast, those who were going to understand the general idea of scientific articles rated both the genre and argument presentation mode higher than they did with the RichHTML mode. In terms of efficiency, the participants took less reading time when the articles of non-native language were presented with the genre mode than they did when the articles were presented with the argument mode. When reading the articles in native language to understand the general idea, the participants took less reading time for the articles presented with the argument mode than they did for the articles presented with the genre mode. In comparison, they took less reading time when the articles were presented with the argument mode if they were going to find specific information. For satisfaction, the genre presentation mode was more popular than the argument mode and the RichHTML mode. However, the participants were less satisfied with the argument presentation mode than the other two when reading in native language and intending to find specific information.

The two presentation modes of scientific articles are found to improve the accuracy of information acquisition, shorten the total reading time and be more acceptable by readers.

The purpose of the paper is to analyse the interactions of bridging users in Twitter discussions about vaccination.

Conversational threads were collected through filtering the Twitter stream using keywords and the most active participants in the conversations. Following data collection and anonymisation of tweets and user profiles, a retweet network was created to find users bridging the main clusters. Four conversations were selected, ranging from 456 to 1,983 tweets long, and then analysed through content analysis.

Although different opinions met in the discussions, a consensus was rarely built. Many sub-threads involved insults and criticism, and participants seemed not interested in shifting their positions. However, examples of reasoned discussions were also found.

The study analyses conversations on Twitter, which is rarely studied. The focus on the interactions of bridging users adds to the uniqueness of the paper.

In order to further optimize the methods of modern urban planning, the philosophical basis, planning theory, planning measures and practice are analyzed, and some discussions are made in connection with China's planning practice. The research results show that the core of modern urban planning is constructed by traditional rationalism with classical physics as its core. Urban planning is both a technology and a social science. Whether it is traditional or modern urban planning, it has been closely linked with the legal system since its birth. It is an important direction to promote the development of urban planning discipline. The most influential rational ideas of city planning are instrumental rationality, bounded rationality and communicative rationality. Instrumental rationality derives from rational comprehensive planning, systematic planning and procedural planning; the separation-gradualism and hybrid inspection model are developed under the influence of bounded rationality and are amendments to instrumental rationality; communication planning, collaborative planning and consultative planning are developed on the basis of communicative rationality, which is one of the important development directions at present.

The search for top executives is fraught with pitfalls. Understanding them will set the process off on a strong footing and maximize the chances of a sustainable hire. This chapter examines three aspects of the search dynamic: “stakeout,” “trust-building” and the search consultant’s “ambassador role.” We reveal nine important insights. Has digitization made headhunting any easier? We correct common misconceptions and reveal the difficulty of approaching top executives with role propositions, the building of trusted relationships with clients, and the ambassador role of the executive search consultant. We examine the need for empathy and deep discernment in reading candidates. We next go more deeply into the full search process: the selection of the search firm, the search itself, the presentation of the chosen candidate and onboarding. We reveal points of attention for clients and candidates that underpin best practice.

An earlier form of this chapter by the author was published in Dutch in “Bestemming Boardroom: over zoeken en gevonden worden” (Boom, Amsterdam, 2018).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate practices of argumentation on Twitter discussions about climate change.

Conversational threads were collected from the Twitter API. Fundamental concepts from argumentation theory and linking practices were operationalised through a coding schema for content analysis. Tweets were analysed in the context of the discussions and coded according to their argumentative approach, interaction type and argumentation stage. Linked and embedded sources were analysed in order to find how they were used in arguments, the plausibility and soundness of the message, the consistency and trustworthiness of the linked source and its adequacy with the target audience.

Among the interactions between arguers, this study found five typical practices and several patterns involving the dynamics of the conversations, the strategy of the argumentation and the linking practices. Although the rhetorical approach was prominent, the agreement was rarely achieved. The arguers used a variety of sources to justify or support their positions, often embedding non-textual content. These linking practices, together with the strategy adopted and the topics discussed, suggest the involvement of a multiple audience engaged in discussing ad lib scientific artefacts, topics and outputs.

While Twitter has been the focus for many research papers, the conversational threads have been given little attention so far. With the Twitter API making conversations more accessible for research, this paper does not only give insight into multiple audience group argumentation dynamics but also provides a method to study the conversations from an argumentation theory perspective.

This paper develops a typology of argumentation strategies used in lobbying. Unlike in other strategic communication functions such as crisis or risk communication, such typologies have not been proposed in the sub-field of public affairs.

The article synthesises the strategic communication, political communication and policy studies literature and employs exchange theory to explain the communicative-strategic exchange in public affairs. It showcases its explanatory potential with illustrative examples from Big Tech lobbying.

The paper describes that categories of argumentation strategies that a public affairs professional will choose are based on the contingency of the issue, policy objective and lobbying objective. The descriptive typology will require empirical testing to develop further.

The paper describes how public affairs professionals influence public policy through their argumentation strategies, which sheds light on the usually opaque activities of lobbying.

The proposed typology is the first of its kind for the field of public affairs. Beyond, it contributes communication-scientific insights from a rhetorical tradition to strategic communication research and other social science fields where lobbying is studied, e.g. policy studies.

Most digital libraries (DL) are now available online. They also provide the Z39.50 standard protocol which allows computer-based systems to effectively retrieve information stored in the DLs. The major difficulty lies in inconsistency between database schemas of multiple DLs. The purpose of this paper is to present a system known as Argumentation-based Digital Library Search (ADLSearch), which facilitates information retrieval across multiple DLs.

The proposed approach is based on argumentation theory for schema matching reconciliation from multiple schema matching algorithms. In addition, a distributed architecture is proposed for the ADLSearch system for information retrieval from multiple DLs.

Initial performance results are promising. First, schema matching can improve the retrieval performance on DLs, as compared to the baseline technique. Subsequently, argumentation-based retrieval can yield better matching accuracy and retrieval efficiency than individual schema matching algorithms.

The work discussed in this paper has been implemented as a prototype supporting scholarly retrieval from about 800 DLs over the world. However, due to complexity of argumentation algorithm, the process of adding new DLs to the system cannot be performed in a real-time manner.

In this paper, an argumentation-based approach is proposed for reconciling the conflicts from multiple schema matching algorithms in the context of information retrieval from multiple DL. Moreover, the proposed approach can also be applied for similar applications which require automatic mapping from multiple database schemas.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse scholarly subjectivity in the context of citation practices in interdisciplinary PhD research.

The paper provides an analysis of longitudinal series of qualitative interviews with PhD students who write scholarly articles as dissertation components. Conceptualizations of subjectivity within practice theories form the basis for the analysis.

Scholarly argumentation entails a rhetorical paradox of “bringing something new” to the communication while at the same time “establishing a common ground” with an audience. By enacting this paradox through citing in an emerging interdisciplinary setting, the informants negotiate subject positions in different modes of identification across the involved disciplines. In an emerging interdisciplinary field, the articulation of scholarly subjectivity is a joint open-ended achievement demanding knowledgeability in multiple disciplinary understandings and conducts. However, identifications that are expressible within the informants’ local site, i.e. interactions with supervisors, other seniors and peers, are not always expressible when negotiating subject positions with journals.

This paper contributes to research on citation practices in emerging interdisciplinary fields. By linking the enactment of citing in scholarly writing to the negotiation of subject positions, the paper provides new insights about the complexities involved in becoming a scholar.

The paper investigates knowledge sharing and co‐creation in an organisation‐wide discussion supported by Computer‐Mediated Communication (CMC). The paper draws on the empirical evidence from a field study of a consultative process as part of a University strategic decision‐making. Informed by Habermas’s theory of communicative action, the investigation focuses on communicative practices in the CMC discussion and the ways participants interact, share knowledge and co‐create meanings in a particular situation. Communicative analysis of organisational discourse via CMC reveals hidden structures and mechanisms that impede knowledge sharing and inhibit cooperative meaning making. The issue here is whether CMC enables or disables some of these structures and mechanisms. By interpreting the CMC discussion as an argumentation process the paper aims to provide deeper insights into this issue. Among the lessons learned are requirements for new technologies to support knowledge sharing and meaning co‐creation.

The current method of information retrieval used for bibliographic and full‐text databases of journal articles assumes a semantic representation together with stemming, Boolean connectives and so on. This requires searchers to have a well‐defined idea of what it is that they are searching for. This is unhelpful for many categories of searcher, in particular expert browsers and non‐expert searchers. An alternative method is developed in this paper, based on the idea that articles advance an argument and that this argumentation can be represented in a manner which enables flexible and robust searching to be carried out.