Orientadores: Ana Estela Antunes da Silva, Antonio Carlos Zambon / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Faculdade de Tecnologia / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-24T06:09:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Garcia-Nunes_PedroIvo_M.pdf: 2562537 bytes, checksum: 108da20ed77cbe9587a585ea453fb49f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 / Resumo: Tomadores de decisão são frequentemente confrontados por fenômenos que envolvem uma grande quantidade de atores e interações pertinentes a problemas cada vez mais complexos e, por isso, difíceis de serem gerenciados. As teorias da racionalidade limitada assumem que o tratamento dessa complexidade se dá pela consideração do conhecimento compartilhado entre um número representativo de diferentes agentes de decisão. A identificação desse tipo de comunidade depende de métodos de análise e comparação das estruturas utilizadas para representar conhecimento. Modelos mentais (MMs) são diagramas de representação, baseados em linguagem natural, que consistem de relações lógicas de causa-efeito utilizadas para descrever os fenômenos. Este trabalho teve por objetivo principal desenvolver e aplicar um método matemático para análise e comparação de modelos mentais, a fim de possibilitar a identificação dos modelos mais adequados ao consenso típico de um processo de tomada de decisão colaborativa. O método foi estruturado a partir de uma base de regras nebulosas que foi automatizada por meio de um sistema inteligente de apoio à decisão (SIAD). O SIAD foi utilizado em um estudo de caso para analisar e comparar os MMs utilizados por universitários para descrever os protestos ocorridos no Brasil entre os meses de junho e julho de 2013. Os resultados indicam os modelos mais representativos no que diz respeito às descrições das causas dessas manifestações, cuja ambiguidade se apresentou como motivo de uma incerteza que despertou o interesse internacional pela investigação acerca do caráter das reivindicações / Abstract: Decision makers are often confronted with phenomena that involve a lot of actors and interactions relevant to complex problems that are difficult to manage. Theories of bounded rationality assume that the treatment of this complexity occurs by the consideration of the shared knowledge among a representative number of different decision-makers. The identification of this type of community depends on methods of analysis and comparison of the structures used to represent knowledge. Mental models (MMs) are diagrams of representation, based on natural language, which consist of logical relations of cause and effect used to describe the phenomena. This study aimed at developing and applying a mathematical method for analyzing and comparing mental models in order to enable the identification of the most suitable models for typical consensus of the collaborative decision making. The method was structured on a base of fuzzy rules that was automated by means of an intelligent decision support system (IDSS). The IDSS was used in a case study to analyze and compare the MMs used by academics to describe the Brazilian protests in June and July 2013. The results indicate the most representative models with regard to the descriptions of the causes of these revolts, which created uncertainty and sparked international interest in research on the nature of the claims / Mestrado / Tecnologia e Inovação / Mestre em Tecnologia

This research investigated the relationships among four personality traits (affiliation, achievement, aggression, and dominance), actual influence, perceived influence, and individual consensus. My hypotheses consisted of a path model showing the relationships among these variables. The purpose of this research is to increase our understanding of group dynamics. By understanding group dynamics, managers can design meetings to optimize the commitment to and quality of the group’s decision. The methodology for my research was relational. In relational studies, variables aren’t manipulated. To test my hypotheses, I measured several variables that weren’t manipulated but were obtained in an experimental situation. Subjects (308) were randomly placed in 77 four-person groups. Each group consisted of three subjects and a confederate. The confederates weren’t part of my study and I didn’t collect data on them. All group members completed the Lost on the Moon exercise three times: an initial individual rank, a group rank, and a final individual rank. For each subject, I collected data on seven variables: affiliation, achievement, aggression, dominance, actual influence, perceived influence, and individual consensus. I measured affiliation, achievement, aggression, and dominance with Jackson’s Personality Research Form. Actual influence was measured by the absolute difference between the group member’s individual ranking and the final group ranking. A low score indicated high influence. Perceived influence and individual consensus were measured with a questionnaire. Both scales were derived from a factor analytic study. I found the following significant relationships: - affiliation was negatively related to actual influence, - affiliation was positively related to individual consensus, - achievement was positively related to perceived influence, - achievement was positively related to individual consensus, - actual influence was positively related to perceived influence, and - perceived influence was positively related to individual consensus. The first five relationships were found to be significant at the .05 level. The relationship between perceived influence and individual consensus was found to be significant at the .01 level. In interpreting the results, this relationship is suspicious. Since both scales were derived from a factor analysis of the same questionnaire, this significant relationship may result partially from measurement bias. In my exploratory analysis, I found gender to affect group dynamics more than personality. Therefore, further studies which manipulate gender need to be performed before the relationships among gender, personality traits, and group dynamics are fully understood. / Master of Science

This study looks at the National Citizens' Technology Forum (NCTF), a modified version of the consensus conference, which took place in March, 2008 in six cities across the U.S. to understand how inclusive these methods of public participation are in practice. The research focused on two of these sites. Inclusion of participants was defined in terms of presence, voice and being heard. Transcripts of the audio-visual recordings of the proceedings were the main data of analysis. By focusing on the talk within these deliberative forums, the study looked at how the rules of engagement and status (ascribed and achieved) differences between participants can affect inclusion. The analysis did not reveal any substantial effects of ascribed characteristics on deliberation. Facilitation and the presence of expertise among the participants were found to influence inclusion and equality among participants. These findings suggest that organizers and facilitators of deliberative exercises have to be reflexive of their role as well as aware of the group dynamics. The results also address the larger questions within science and technology policy like the role of expertise and the public in decision making, the institutional design of participatory exercises, and their relation to the political culture and the policy process.

Conflict in deeply divided societies often has a profound impact both on the societies in which the conflict is located, and on the surrounding states and societies. Constitutional engineers working in such societies are inevitably attracted to power-sharing as a means of stabilising inter-group relations. Consociational democracy is a form of power-sharing democracy which is particularly attractive for a divided society, because its demands on the society are relatively few. It aims to separate the communities in the conflict as much as possible, while emphasising elite co-operation in the formal institutions of government. A difficulty with consociational democracy, however, is that the elite co-operation it requires to function is also required for the system to be adopted, yet will not necessarily be present. Cyprus is an excellent example of the difficulty of gaining agreement on a consociational regime for a divided society. In 1963, the consociational Republic of Cyprus collapsed as a result of mistrust between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In 2004, a consociational system of government was designed for Cyprus by a team of UN experts under the direction of then-Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. The system of government was rejected in April 2004 at a referendum, and, consequently, was not adopted. This thesis examines why Cyprus has thus far been unable to adopt a political settlement. Failure is as hard to explain as success. Success may have many fathers and failure none, but there are as many possible causes of a failure as of a success. There is also the difficulty of the counter-factual: what facts would need to be different to produce success where experience is only of failure. The thesis systematically examines possible causes of failure, including the idea of consociational democracy itself, the particular consociational designs proposed for Cyprus, and the influence of historical aspirations and experiences. Particular attention is paid to the idea that there may be key factors which must be present before a consociational solution can be adopted. The factors, selected for this case study for their apparent relevance to Cyprus, are elite co-operation, segmental isolation, a balance of power between the disputant groups, and the ability of the international community to offer incentives for compromise. It is argued that these factors, especially elite relations and the complex web of causes which determine these, are central to an explanation of the Cyprus experience.