Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Crowd-Scale Deliberation for Group Decision-Making

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

  • 100 Accesses

Abstract

Many of humanity’s most pressing and challenging problems – such as environmental degradation, physical and economic security, and public health – are inherently complex (involve many different interacting components) as well as widely impactful (effect many diverse stakeholders). Solving such problems requires crowd-scale deliberation in order to cover all the types of disciplinary expertise needed, as well as to take into account the many impacts the decision will have. Current approaches to group decision-making, however, fail at scale, producing outcomes that are needlessly suboptimal for all the parties involved. This chapter will investigate why group decision-making fails in this way, explaining the problems of achieving Pareto optimality and noting the tendency to miss win-win solutions that are not the “dream choices” of any participant. It will go on to describe how recent advances in social computing technology can address these failings, for example, through the use of deliberation maps, idea filtering, and crowd-scale complex negotiation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    i.e., the summed utility of the stakeholders involved.

References

  • Bao J, Sakamoto Y, Nickerson JV (2011) Evaluating design solutions using crowds. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth Americas conference on information systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein MS, Little G, Miller RC, Hartmann B, Ackerman MS, Karger DR, Crowell D, Panovich K (2015) Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside. Commun ACM 58(8):85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjelland OM, Wood RC (2008) An inside view of IBM’s ‘innovation jam’. Sloan Manage Rev 50(1):32

    Google Scholar 

  • Blohm I, Bretschneider U, Leimeister JM, Krcmar H (2011) Does collaboration among participants lead to better ideas in IT-based idea competitions? An empirical investigation. Int J Netw Virtual Organ 9(2):106–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr CS (2003) Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In: Kirschner PA, Shum SJB, Carr CS (eds) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, London, pp 75–96

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cook MB, Smallman HS (2007) Visual evidence landscapes: reducing bias in collaborative intelligence analysis. In: Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting proceedings

    Google Scholar 

  • De La Hoz E, Marsa-Maestre I, Gimenez-Guzman JM, Orden D, Klein M (2017) Multi-agent nonlinear negotiation for Wi-Fi channel assignment. In: Proceedings of the Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin JS, Luskin RC (2005) Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Polit 40(3):284–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K, Ito T, Klein M (2014) Efficient issue-grouping approach for multiple interdependent issues negotiation between exaggerator agents. Decis Support Syst 60:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia ACB, Klein M (2015) Making sense of large-group discussion using automatically generated RST-based explanations. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2554838

  • Hattori H, Klein M, Ito T (2007) Using iterative narrowing to enable multi-party negotiations with multiple interdependent issues. In: Sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Iandoli L, Klein M, Zollo G (2009) Enabling on-line deliberation and collective decision-making through large-scale argumentation: a new approach to the design of an internet-based mass collaboration platform. Int J Decis Support Syst Technol 1(1):69–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iandoli L, Quinto I, Spada P, Klein M, Calabretta R (2017) Argumentation vs ideation in online political debate: evidence from an experiment of collective deliberation. New Media Soc 20:1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler F (1995) Team decision making: pitfalls and procedures. Manag Dev Rev 8(5):38–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittur A, Suh B, Pendleton BA, Chi EH (2007) He says, she says: conflict and coordination in Wikipedia. SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittur A, Nickerson JV, Bernstein M, Gerber E, Shaw A, Zimmerman J, Lease M, Horton J (2013) The future of crowd work. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computer supported cooperative work, pp 1301–1318

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M (2012) Enabling large-scale deliberation using attention-mediation metrics. Comput-Support Collab Work 21(4):449–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Convertino G (2015) A roadmap for open innovation systems. J Soc Media 1(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Iandoli L (2008) Supporting collaborative deliberation using a large-scale argumentation system: the MIT collaboratorium. Directions and implications of advanced computing; Conference on online deliberation (DIAC-2008/OD2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Faratin P, Sayama H, Bar-Yam Y (2003) Negotiating complex contracts. Group Decis Negot 12(2):111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Spada P, Calabretta R (2012) Enabling deliberations in a political party using large-scale argumentation: a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on the design of cooperative systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Gruzd A, Lannigan J (2017) Using deliberation-centric social network analysis to assess interactive signed ties. In: Proceedings of the sunbelt

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani KR, Jeppesen LB (2007) R&D: getting unusual suspects to solve R&D puzzles. Harv Bus Rev 85(5):30–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsa-Maestre I, Klein M, Jonker CM, Lopez-Carmona MA, Aydoğan R (2014) From problems to protocols: towards a negotiation handbook. Decis Support Syst 60:39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas M, Scarce R (2004) “The intention was good”: legitimacy, consensus-based decision making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia, Canada. Soc Nat Resour 17(1):17–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleson D, Sorokin A, Laughlin GP, Hester V, Le J, Biewald L (2011) Programmatic gold: targeted and scalable quality assurance in crowdsourcing. Hum Comput 11(11):43

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond E (1999) The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowl Technol Policy 12(3):23–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt S, Frey D, Lüthgens C, Moscovici S (2000) Biased information search in group decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 78(4):655–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shum SJB, Selvin AM, Sierhuis M, Conklin J, Haley CB (2006) Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In: Dutoit AH, McCall R, Mistrik I, Paech B (eds) Rationale management in software engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Spada P, Klein M (2014) Argument maps and epistemic outcomes of large groups e-deliberation. In: Proceedings of the American Political Science Association annual meeting

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen MR, Bachtiger A, Sporndli M, Steiner J (2003) Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index. Comp Eur Polit 1(1):21–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromer-Galley J (2007) Measuring deliberation’s content: a coding scheme. J Public Deliberat 3(1):12

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2006) Infotopia: how many minds produce knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki J (2005) The wisdom of crowds. Anchor, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taboada M, Mann WC (2006) Rhetorical structure theory: looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Stud 8(3):423–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott D, Williams AD (2006) Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. Portfolio Hardcover, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgments under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2003) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380):1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walter TP, Back A (2013) A text mining approach to evaluate submissions to crowdsourcing contests, pp 3109–3118

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN, Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerski A, Dalamagas T, Iglesias CA (2013) Classifying and comparing community innovation in idea management systems. Decis Support Syst 54(3):1316–1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Klein M, Marsa-Maestre I (2014) Scalable complex contract negotiation with structured search and agenda management. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-14), pp 1507–1514

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the JST CREST program in Japan, the FP7 program in the European Union, the National Science Foundation in the United States, and the Templeton Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Collective Intelligence, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA

    Mark Klein

Authors
  1. Mark Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Klein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wilfrid Laurier University Dept. Mathematics, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. University of Strathclyde Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Colin Eden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Klein, M. (2020). Crowd-Scale Deliberation for Group Decision-Making. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_40-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_40-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation