Global Sensemaking > ESSENCE > EVENTS > ESSENCE09 Workshop

ESSENCE09 Workshop

This page has been designed to discuss the draft programme for the first ESSENCE workshop that will be held next May 2009. Here below you find the draft programme open to the ESSENCE09 group for discussion, changes and refinements.

 

Click here for a workshop report [Anna, Jack, please add your workshop maps and the group photo here]. The workshop was a great success, generating many ideas for the future. We have started work on a roadmap.

Draft Programme:

ESSENCE09 workshop
FIRST FACE-TO-FACE FORUM ON ‘ESSENCE’ ONLINE EXPERIMENT

May 5-6, 2009
KMi, The Open University
Milton Keynes, UK

The ESSENCE challenge

ESSENCE is the first public event organised by Global Sensemaking (GSm), a network formed in 2008 to develop human-centred computing tools to help tackle wicked problems such as Climate Change.
The overall idea behind the project is that digital discussion and deliberation technologies have the potential to provide a structured medium for building collective intelligence from diverse stakeholders, who often disagree.
Within this context the ESSENCE online experiment has been conceived with the overall goal to improve how climate science and policy deliberation is conducted, in local networks, national organizations, and inter-governmentally.
In particular, ESSENCE has been designed to develop a comprehensive, distilled, visual map of the issues, evidence, arguments and options facing the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, and being tackled by many other networks, which will be available for all to explore and enrich across the web.

Research

Within the ESSENCE project we study and develop technologies for online discussion and deliberation, with the overall goal in mind to help to build online environments for:
•    scientists to explore and discover common grounds and agendas in a very complex and extensive domain as environmental science is;
•    policymakers to identify problematic issues to be faced in order to reinforce public policies and make them more accepted or even agreed;
•    the Public to widen or build understanding on climate change issues and consensus about new climate change policies.

Outcomes

The workshop seeks to develop a roadmap for ESSENCE to COP15.  We will also discuss strategies for further research lines and challenge to address for the ESSENCE team/GSm community.

Organizing Committee

Simon Buckingham Shum (KMi, Open University)
Anna De Liddo, (KMi, Open University)
Aldo De Moor (CommunitySense)
David Price (Debategraph)

May 5th, Tuesday

9,00:9,30 Welcome coffee and introduction

9,30:10,15 Update/Demo on Debategraph
David Price
Debategraph, UK

10,15:11,00 Update/Demo on MIT Deliberatorium
Luca Iandoli
University of Naples Federico II / MIT Center for collective Intelligence

11,00:11,30 coffee break

11,30:12,15 Update/Demo on ESSENCE activation
Aldo De Moor
CommunitySense

12,15:13,00 Update/Demo on Compendium/Cohere development
Anna De Liddo, Jack Park & Simon Buckingham Shum
KMi Knolwedge Media Institute,
The Open University, UK

13,00:14,00 lunch

14,00:15,30 Invited experts round table, I part: What stakeholders? What needs? 
Invited experts: Joe Smith (The Open University), Stephen Peake (The Open University), Jane Corbett (The Open University)
What stakeholders are involved in the deliberation processes on climate change? What are their argumentation needs? What types of argumentation (meta)-maps do they need?

15,30:16,00 coffee break

16,00:17.00 Invited experts round table, II Part: Tools and Use Cases
Invited experts: Joe Smith (The Open University), Stephen Peake (The Open University), Jane Corbett (The Open University)
Discussion on tools and use cases (What tools for deliberation, argumentation and sensemaking? What use cases could we build to show the benefit of digital deliberation? How can we engage stakeholders in the climate change arena in online debates?)

May 6th, Wednesday

9,00:9,30 Coffee

9,30:11,00 The road to COP15, I part
Action plan to develop a demonstrator suitable for different audiences

11,00:11,30 coffee break

11,30:13,00 ESSENCE tools: What next?
Focus on 1 or many tools? Will tool interoperability really help? Do we need a basic conceptual model we can use to describe tool interoperability?

13,00:14,00 lunch

14,00:15,30 Exploring connections
Discussion about: International Advisory Panel, network (Who are we trying to impress? which roles?); dissemination (Can we crowdsource input?) and sponsoring (looking for new partners and Logos for Essence project)

15,30:16,00 coffee break

16,00:17.00 ESSENCE Roadmap
Discussion on future goals and research challenges for ESSENCE and next milestone and events organizations

Venue

Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
United Kingdom

Find Us

The Knowledge Media Institute occupies the top floor of the Berrill Building on the Open University's Walton Hall campus. Follow the signs to Visitor Reception - we're just a short distance away by stairs or lift.

Information

For additional information please visit the webpage below or contact:
Anna De Liddo (a.deliddo@open.ac.uk),
tel +44 1908 653591; fax. +44 1908 653169)

http://events.kmi.open.ac.uk/essence/

Final Programme


Tag page

Files 5

FileSizeDateAttached by 
 2009ESSENCE_Aldo de Moor.ppt Preview
No description
988.5 kB11:26, 6 May 2009Aldo de MoorActions
 Debategraph - Essence.pdf
Presentation by David Price (Co-founder of Debategraph)
2.53 MB08:20, 11 May 2009AdminActions
 ESSENCE09-workshop-DeLiddo.pdf
Anna De Liddo Presentation: Compendium and Cohere within the ESSENCE project
10.03 MB10:54, 29 Sep 2009a.deliddoActions
 ESSENCE09-Wshp_Programme.pdf
No description
227.31 kB21:27, 2 Jul 2009a.deliddoActions
 UNINA-MITCCI.ppt Preview
Luca Iandoli presentation on MIT deliberatorum
4.42 MB11:46, 5 May 2009LucaiandoliActions
Viewing 10 of 10 comments: view all
I just fiddled with a tiny Issue Map related to Anna's "Focus on 1 or many tools?". It's the image NumTools.jpg, in which I make a few ontological commitments, some of which might provoke conceptual challenges. Still, the primary argument is that many tools should be required if for no other reason than "different strokes for different folks" is at play here. That opens the door to more issue mapping related to Anna's question: "Will tool interoperability really help?" --Jack
Posted 23:18, 16 Apr 2009
In the very long run, I hope to be able to make the case that a new class (not really new to computing, but to sensemaking ) of tools will/should come into play: qualitative modeling tools that produce "envisionments" of scenarios that one or another argument entails.
Posted 23:20, 16 Apr 2009
A paper that is appropriate to deliberations on interoperability is found here.
From Social Computing to Reflexive Collective Intelligence
"The IEML research program promotes a radical innovation in the notation and processing of semantics. IEML (Information Economy MetaLanguage) is a regular language that provides new methods for semantic interoperability, semantic navigation, collective categorization and self-referential collective intelligence. " edited 23:29, 16 Apr 2009
Posted 23:28, 16 Apr 2009
From the Schneider & Londer 1984 book (page 139) The Coevolution of Climate and Life I drew a tiny issue map (ClimateSubSys.jpg) of the interconnected climate subsystems. I suspect that such a map might serve as one of the high-level dimensions (facets) serving deliberations and any navigational system applied to climate change.
Posted 23:49, 16 Apr 2009
The question: "Will tool interoperability really help?" is addressed in a small issue map (Interoperability.jpg) in which I sketch some ideas. These issue maps are meant to just contribute some ideas, perhaps start dialogues intended to flesh out the issues, contest assertions I have made, and, perhaps, lead to a few position papers for ESSENCE. I can make the Compendium exports available.
Posted 01:18, 17 Apr 2009
I consider the question: "What use cases could we build to show the benefit of digital deliberation?" to be the primary question worthy of major deliberation.
Posted 01:23, 17 Apr 2009
Another "ESSENCE" discovered while querying "essence climate change" at trueknowledge.com --
"ESSENCE (Ensemble SimulationS of Extreme weather events under Nonlinear Climate changE) is a DEISA (Distributed European Infrastructure for Supercomputing Applications) project that is conducted by CKO (Centrum voor Klimaatonderzoek) to explore the changing climate and its variability. A large-member ensemble of runs with a state-of-the-art climate model is performed to investigate the range of possible future climate change. The project is led by Henk Dijkstra from Utrecht University."
Posted 16:55, 18 Apr 2009
The The Trade and Environment Database" has this entry Global Climate Change: Losing the War for Scientific Evidence dated November, 1997 (prior to Kioto), with the following abstract:
"As the Kyoto meeting on climate change grows nearer, the scientific evidence about changes in the world's temperature, and what it purports to show, is being hotly debated. The fact is that the debate depends on complex environmental and economic assumptions about climate change, an area where actual scientific knowledge is limited. Moreover, policy makers will decide if evidence for such a change exists and what should be done about it. The scientific debate on climate change, in the end, should be based on what would seem to be simple measurements of temperature. In fact, the data are limited and controversial and not of sufficient quality and quantity to support a rigorous scientific debate. One outcome of the Kyoto meeting would be an agreement to ensure better data in the future."
Posted 17:02, 18 Apr 2009
We need argumentation support at two different levels: - Scientific argumentation (what is climate change?) - "Political" meta-argumentation (how are we going to create/use the scientific argumentation maps?) It is crucial for success that we don't get lost in the first level only, only trying to advance the state-of-the-art of the experts' debate. Much more important to investigate now is how we can facilitate the uptake of those scientific results by stakeholders involved in the wider climate change policy making debate.
Posted 12:06, 19 Apr 2009
Is Reducing Carbon Emissions Worth The Cost? is a debate in the form of a downloadable mp3 (55mb). There were two sides debated: those for the idea that it is worth the cost, and those opposed. It turns out that those opposed raised points that, on the surface, provoked the some in the audience to believe that side won. If one were to create an issue map of this debate, then overlay it with further argumentation, evidence, and so forth, I suspect that those opposed would not appear so convincing. The event was sponsored by intelligencesquaredus.org which sponsors many useful debates. edited 16:33, 19 Apr 2009
Posted 16:30, 19 Apr 2009
Viewing 10 of 10 comments: view all
You must login to post a comment.