skip to main content
10.1145/3513130.3559005acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Argumentation Mining: Design Thinking from A Feminist Perspective

Published:06 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper examines distribution and use of arguments related to women in the IBM Debater Claims and Evidence database to showcase an importance of feminist thinking in designing technology like Wearable Reasoner (WR)—a proof-of-concept wearable system for augmenting human reasoning— which used data from said source. Design thinking from a feminist perspective has an empirical and a pedagogical value as it allows designers to think critically regarding whose voice, agency and positionality are represented while designing certain technology.

References

  1. Benjamin, R. 2019. Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatti, M.M.A. 2021. Argument Mining on Twitter: A Case Study on the Planned Parenthood Debate. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Argument Mining (Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, Nov. 2021), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Caroline Criado Perez 2019. Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Abrams Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Corbin, B. 2020. Digital Micro-Aggressions and Discrimination: FemTech and the “Othering” of Women.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Danry, V. 2020. Wearable Reasoner: Towards Enhanced Human Rationality Through A Wearable Device With An Explainable AI Assistant. Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference (New York, NY, USA, Mar. 2020), 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D'Ignazio, C. and Klein, L.F. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fergadis, A. 2021. Argumentation Mining in Scientific Literature for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Argument Mining (Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 2021), 100–111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Kendall, R.D. 1978. Toulmin, Values, and the Rhetoric of Interpersonal Communication. (1978).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lippi, M. and Torroni, P. 2016. Argument Mining from Speech: Detecting Claims in Political Debates. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 30, 1 (Mar. 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Lloyd, K.S. 2005. An alternate use of the uses of argument: A feminist/perceptive adaptation of The Toulmin Model. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayer, T. 2018. Argument Mining on Clinical Trials. Computational Models of Argument. (2018), 137–148. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-906-5-137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Petersen, E.J. 2020. WOMEN'S LIVED EXPERIENCE AS AUTHORITY: ANTENARRATIVES AND INTERACTIONAL POWER AS TOOLS FOR ENGAGEMENT. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 53, 1 (2020), 47–74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Rinott, R. 2015. Show Me Your Evidence - an Automatic Method for Context Dependent Evidence Detection. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Lisbon, Portugal, 2015), 440–450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sanders, R. 2017. Self-tracking in the Digital Era: Biopower, Patriarchy, and the New Biometric Body Projects. Body & Society. 23, 1 (Mar. 2017), 36–63. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X16660366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Stab, C. and Gurevych, I. 2014. Annotating Argument Components and Relations in Persuasive Essays. Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (Dublin, Ireland, Aug. 2014), 1501–1510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Vecellio Segate, R. 2021. Cognitive Bias, Privacy Rights, and Digital Evidence in International Criminal Proceedings: Demystifying the Double-Edged ai Revolution. International Criminal Law Review. 21, 2 (Mar. 2021), 242–279. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10048.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Wachsmuth, H. 2016. Using Argument Mining to Assess the Argumentation Quality of Essays. Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (Osaka, Japan, Dec. 2016), 1680–1691.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Wyner, A. 2012. Semi-Automated Argumentative Analysis of Online Product Reviews. Computational Models of Argument. (2012), 43–50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-111-3-43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    SIGDOC '22: Proceedings of the 40th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
    October 2022
    187 pages
    ISBN:9781450392464
    DOI:10.1145/3513130

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 6 October 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • poster
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format