Abstract
This study used Toulmin's analytical framework of argumentative structure in order to examine employees' argumentative discourse on the way they handle conflict situations in their workplace. The way in which this analytical tool has been applied here challenges critics on the usefulness of the particular analytical tool for the analysis of real-life argumentation. The definition of argumentative elements according to their function in the context of a particular argument, together with the analysis beyond the level of what has been stated explicitly enabled a comprehensive understanding of how specific information, statements or assumptions are interpreted and utilized in arguments examined. Finally, the acknowledgment of the importance of `field-dependency' of argumentative discourse, through the consideration of the social context within which this discourse is embedded, elicited the way in which this context made employees' argumentation a meaningful and acceptable discourse in this particular setting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this article
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Antaki, C.: 1994, Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts, Sage, London.
Antaki, C.: and I. Leudar: 1992, ‘Explaining in Conversation: Towards an Argument Model’, European Journal of Social Psychology 22, 181-194.
Ball, W. J.: 1994, ‘Using Virgil to Analyze Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal logic’, Social Science Computer Review 12(1), 26-37.
Berelson, B.: 1952, Content Analysis in Communication Research, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill.
Boulding, K.: 1963, Conflict and Defense, Harper and Row, New York.
Burelson, B. R.: 1992, ‘On the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments: Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations’, in W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation, Foris, Berlin, pp. 259-277.
Canary, D. J. and A. L. Sillars: 1992, ‘Argument in Satisfied and Dissatisfied Married Couples’, in W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation, Foris, Berlin, pp. 737-764.
Chambliss, M. J.: 1995, ‘Text Cues and Strategies Successful Readers Use to Construct the Gist of Lengthy Written Arguments’, Reading Research Quarterly 30(4), 778-807.
Dijk, T. A. van: 1997, ‘The Study of Discourse’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process, Sage, London, pp. 1-34.
Dunn, W. N.: 1981, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1997, ‘Argumentation’, in T. A. van Dijk, (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process, Sage, London, pp. 208-229.
Freeman, J. B.: 1991, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Foris, Berlin.
Govier, T.: 1987, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kneupper, C. W.: 1978, ‘On Argument and Diagrams’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 14, 181-186.
Kolb, D. M. and L. L. Putnam: 1992, ‘Introduction: The Dialectics of Disputing’, in D. M. Kolb and D. M. Bartunek (eds.), Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind the-Scenes Disputes, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 1-31.
Krippendorff, K.: 1980, Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, London.
Mishler, E. G.: 1986, Research Interviewing, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Personal Narratives Group: 1989, ‘Truths’, in Personal Narratives Group, (ed.), Interpreting Women's Lives: Feminist Theory and Personal Narratives, Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, pp. 261-264.
Riessman, C. K.: 1993, Narrative Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Toulmin, S.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, London.
Toulmin, S., R. RIEKE and A. JANIK: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd edition, Macmillan, New York.
TRIANDIS, H. C. and V. Vassiliou: 1972, ‘A Comparative Analysis of Subjective Culture’, in H. C. Triandis et al. (eds.), The Analysis of Subjective Culture, Wiley, New York, pp. 299-335.
Weber, A. L., J. H. Harvey and T. L. Orbuch: 1992, ‘What Went Wrong: Communicating Accounts of Relationship Conflict’, in M. L. McLaughlin et al. (eds.), Explaining One's Self to Others, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 261-280.
Wenzel, J. W.: 1992, ‘Perspectives on Argument’, in W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (eds), Readings in Argumentation, Foris, Berlin, pp. 121-143.
Willard, C. A.: 1976, ‘On the Utility of Descriptive Diagrams for the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments’, Communication Monographs 43, 308-319.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simosi, M. Using Toulmin's Framework for the Analysis of Everyday Argumentation: Some Methodological Considerations. Argumentation 17, 185–202 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024059024337
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024059024337