Knowledge Support Systems for Constructively Channeling Conflict in Group Dynamics

The theoretical foundations for individual and collective dynamics are developed in terms of relations between knowledge structures. Neither individuals nor collectives need to be consistent in their knowledge structures to achieve effective performance, and the notion of conflict arises in modeling failures in coordination attributed to such inconsistency. Methodologies for eliciting and modeling knowledge structures from individuals and groups are described, and examples are given of the methodologies applied through computer-based systems to make overt the nature and sources of conflict. INTRODUCTION The focus of the research reported in this paper is the effective channeling of conflict in cooperative groups to achieve group objectives. Our theoretical position is constructivist in viewing conflict, both intra-individual and inter-individuals, as natural and essential to adaptive, anticipatory systems. Social processes enable the human species to form compound entities with a greater repertoire of adaptive behaviors than their components, and this involves managing diversity, recognizing the weaknesses of conformity, and encouraging and welcoming conflict that is essential to group creativity and goal achievement. The essence of group dynamics is that the compound entity forms a construct system that subsumes those of the different roles played by the individuals participating in the group. Group achievement involves the dual polarities of a core consensus that binds the group together, and encircling conflicts that give the group richer scope for creativity than is feasible for its parts. From a constructivist perspective what is most remarkable about human social behavior is the possibility of communication and consensus given the essentially idiosyncratic nature of personal models of the world. These issues and this viewpoint are well-established in group dynamics (Patton and Giffin, 1988), and operationalized through the activities of group facilitators operating to develop and channel constructive conflict. Our research has focused at one level on the practical impact of information technology in facilitating group processes, and at another level on the operational development of the constructivist theoretical position through logical and computational models grounded in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. The research is long-term and, over the past twenty years, has gone through a complete cycle. In the mid-1970s we developed highly interactive computer systems, on the one hand to facilitate group cooperation in goal-directed activities in domains such as stock exchange trading and hospital management (Gaines and Facey, 1975), and on the other hand to facilitate the mutual understanding of conflict in industry relations through the overt modeling of consensus and conflict in conceptual models (Shaw, 1978, 1979). In the 1980s the systems and techniques developed became valued as a basis for knowledge acquisition in the development of knowledge-based systems, and this led to the development of new methodologies and associated tools that reflected the need for knowledge to be not only overt but also operational (Shaw and Gaines, 1983, 1987). In the 1990s, with the growth of interest in computer-supported cooperative work, we have begun to revisit the objectives and systems of the seventies and apply the new technologies arising out of knowledge-based systems to the support of goal-directed communities, such as international collaborative research programs (Shaw and Gaines, 1993; Gaines and Shaw, 1994). Much of our previous work on eliciting and modeling consensus, correspondence and conflict in terminological and conceptual systems has been reported in the literature (Gaines and Shaw, 1989; Shaw and Gaines, 1989). It has resulted in individual and groupware interactive programs that are used to facilitate group processes (Shaw and Gaines, 1991a,b). This paper also reports on recent work that extends the previous systems by using concept mapping techniques to develop multi-level models of relations between concepts in group situations. The mapping work has been reported in terms of experiments to support individual creativity (Gaines and Shaw, 1993b), as a tool for knowledge acquisition (Woodward and Shaw, 1994), and as a basis for modeling and supporting the knowledge processes of scientific communities (Gaines and Shaw, 1994). The first section is an overview of the theoretical underpinnings in terms of a constructivist model of group dynamics. The second reviews work on eliciting terminological and conceptual consensus, conflict and correspondence using repertory grids on a network. The third section introduces concept maps, describes KMap a groupware tool for concept map development, Case Map an interviewing front-end to KMap that using laddering techniques to elicit concept maps of goals, their rationales and example applications. A COLLECTIVE STANCE The theoretical position underlying the methodologies and tools described is a collective stance that models humanity as a single organism distributed in time and space by recursive partitioning into parts similar to the whole (Gaines, 1994). The phrase is chosen by analogy with Dennett’s (1987) intentional stance, because its primary justification is one of utility. A collective stance provides a convenient perspective from which to view phenomena of human existence, including behavioral and knowledge processes, and the role of technological support systems. The parts into which the human organism is recursively partitioned include societies, organizations, groups, individuals, roles, and neurological functions. Many concepts that apply to individuals may be applied to social systems, not as metaphors or analogies, but because, from a systemic perspective, they are the same concepts being applied to different partitions of the system. Notions of expertise arise because the organism adapts as a whole through adaptation of its interacting parts. The behavioral mechanism is one of exchange of reinforcement through some parts allocating tasks to others. The preferential allocation of tasks to those parts which have performed well previously also gives those parts access to experience enabling them to adapt and perform better in the future. This positive feedback leads to functional differentiation of the parts and the distribution of activities. From a functionalist perspective, the coordination of the activities among the parts leads to phenomena of communication, discourse and language. The short lives of individual parts would lead to loss of knowledge by the organism as a whole unless compensated by social interactions supporting knowledge transfer, including the generation and storage of overtly represented knowledge. The improved performance resulting from adaptation may be modeled as the part involved having acquired a model of its task. Reflective processes in which parts model the behavior of other parts including themselves leads to a hierarchy of models of increasing abstraction, and detachment from direct experience. The modeling of human activity in terms of behavioral contingencies and its modeling in terms of symbolic interactions are complementary analyses of the same phenomena. There will be some situations which are more richly represented by one of the analyses and poorly by the other. Many of the phenomena of human action and expertise are behavioral and do not involve significant symbolic representations. Neither individuals nor collectives need to be logically consistent or coherent in their knowledge structures to achieve effective performance. The notion of conflict arises in modeling individuals and collectives as a construct of the observer to account for inconsistency and incoherence. Conflict is significant because many diverse adaptive and goal-seeking activities may be modeled in general terms as conflict-resolution behavior. World Anticipations Events 6