11 found
Order:
  1.  34
    Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):161-185.
    In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation literature, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  2.  19
    Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.Mark Aakhus & Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):179-207.
    This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places in addition to players and positions into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  3.  20
    Framing Fracking.Elena Musi & Mark Aakhus - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):112-135.
    This article offers a first large scale analysis of argumentative polylogues in the fracking controversy. It provides an empirical methodology that identifies, from large quantities of text data through semantic frame analysis, the many players, positions and places presumed relevant to argumentation in a controversy. It goes beyond the usual study of framing in communication research because it considers that a controversy’s communicative context is shaped, and in turn conditions, the making and defending of standpoints. To achieve these novels aims, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4.  17
    Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining.Elena Musi & Mark Aakhus - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):397-430.
    A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  5.  80
    Revisiting the Role of “Shared Value” in the Business-Society Relationship.Mark Aakhus & Michael Bzdak - 2012 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 31 (2):231-246.
    This article critically examines Porter and Kramer’s shared value concept to identify its boundaries and limits as a framework for understanding the role of philanthropy and CSR relative to the role of business in society. Cases of implementation and alternative perspectives on innovation reveal that, despite its appeal and uptake in corporate and philanthropic circles, shared value merely advances the conventional rhetoric that what is good for business is good for society. The shared value approach narrows what counts as social (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  6.  14
    Deliberation Digitized: Designing Disagreement Space Through Communication-Information Services.Mark Aakhus - 2013 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1):101-126.
    A specific issue for argumentation theory is whether information and communication technologies play any role in governing argument — that is, as parties engage in practical activities across space and time via ICTs, does technology matter for the interplay of argumentative content and process in managing disagreement? The case made here is that technologies do matter because they are not merely conduits of communication but have a role in the pragmatics of communication and argumentation. In particular, ICTs should be recognized (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  7.  21
    Neither Naïve nor Critical Reconstruction: Dispute Mediators, Impasse, and the Design of Argumentation.Mark Aakhus - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (3):265-290.
    This study investigates how dispute-mediators handle impasse in the re-negotiation of divorce decrees by divorced couples. Three sources of impasse and three strategies for handling impasse are identified based on analysis of mediation transcripts. The concern here lies not so much in the disputant's arguments but in the discussion procedures dispute-mediators use to craft the disputant's argumentation into a tool to solve conflict. Their moves are understood here as a practice of reconstructing argumentative discourse that is neither naïve nor critical (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  8.  21
    The Communicative Work of Organizations in Shaping Argumentative Realities.Mark Aakhus - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (2):191-208.
    It is argued here that large-scale organization and networked computing enable new divisions of communicative work aimed at shaping the content, direction, and outcomes of societal conversations. The challenge for argumentation theory and practice lies in attending to these new divisions of communicative work in constituting contemporary argumentative realities. Goffman’s conceptualization of participation frameworks and production formats are applied to articulate the communicative work of organizations afforded by networked computing that invents and innovates argument in all of its senses—as product, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9.  16
    Science Court: A Case Study in Designing Discourse to Manage Policy Controversy.Mark Aakhus - 1999 - Knowledge, Technology & Policy 12 (2):20-37.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  10.  40
    Frans H. Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen : Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies.Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):489-492.
    Every 4 years, for the past three decades, the world of argumentation research has gathered in Amsterdam at the International Society for the Study of Argumentation conferences to explore advances in understanding argumentation and how argumentation advances our understanding of the human condition. While comprehensive proceedings of selected papers are produced to document what has transpired in the world of argumentation over the preceding 4 years, there remains the important matter of taking the intellectual pulse of the world’s argumentation scholars, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11.  2
    Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2022 - Cambridge University Press.
    A pervasive aspect of human communication and sociality is argumentation: the practice of making and criticizing reasons in the context of doubt and disagreement. Argumentation underpins and shapes the decision-making, problem-solving, and conflict management which are fundamental to human relationships. However, argumentation is predominantly conceptualized as two parties arguing pro and con positions with each other in one place. This dyadic bias undermines the capacity to engage argumentation in complex communication in contemporary, digital society. This book offers an ambitious alternative (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark