Supporting the submission and retrieval of controversial knowledge in a deliberative, decision-making context: A case study in the Maryland legislature

This dissertation aims to support the submission and retrieval of controversial knowledge in a deliberative, decision-making context. Controversial knowledge is knowledge that competes with other knowledge to influence a decision maker, such as knowledge about how to reform the health care system or knowledge about the interpretation of financial data, and is found in domains ranging from law, business, politics, military, and medicine.;Three research questions are asked: what is a conceptual model of the information needs and design parameters for a KMS to support the submission and retrieval of controversial knowledge in a deliberative, decision-making context? (RQ1); what is a formal representation of the conceptual model for such a KMS? (RQ2); and what utility does a prototype KMS based upon the conceptual model and formal representation provide? (RQ3).;The first question is answered through a document describing validated insights based on observations, document analysis, and interviews. It discusses the nature of controversial knowledge, the domain of the Maryland Legislature, the information desired about people and content, and design guides related to principles, challenges, features, and concerns about a system for supporting the submission and retrieval of controversial knowledge in the Legislature. An ontology based upon a translation of the conceptual model into OWL classes, object properties, and data properties is created as the formal representation to answer the second research question. Lastly, a working prototype is created using the conceptual model as a design guide, and the ontology as its knowledge representation. Demonstration videos of this system were shown to legislators and lobbyists who evaluated its usefulness through perceived usefulness questionnaires and open-ended discussions. The prototype was evaluated to be significantly useful along each of the usefulness factors examined. The prototype and these utility results answer the third research question.;These findings are significant. They establish the reality of controversial knowledge and support updating the taxonomy of knowledge types to reflect its existence. They provide a conceptual model, ontology, and prototype KMS for guiding the development of systems for supporting the submission and retrieval of controversial knowledge. Third, they demonstrate that supporting controversial knowledge has perceived utility.