rss feed

Journal of Argumentation in Context

image of Journal of Argumentation in Context
ISSN 2211-4742
E-ISSN 2211-4750

<p>The <em>Journal of Argumentation in Context</em> aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory. These papers may also report on case studies concerning specific argumentative speech events.</p><p>The journal aims to attract authors from various kinds of disciplinary background who are interested in studying argumentative practices in their fields of interest. In all cases, in papers published in the journal an interesting and revealing connection should be established between certain insights from argumentation theory and some particular context of argumentative practice.</p>

Volumes & issues:

Show / Hide descriptions

Latest content:


Most cited this month

  • Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services
    • Author: Mark Aakhus
    • Source: Journal of Argumentation in Context, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013, pages: 101 –126
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • A specific issue for argumentation theory is whether information and communication technologies (ICTs) 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 as communication-information services that are delegated degrees of responsibility for managing disagreements arising from practical activities. These services are organized around practical theories for designing disagreement space. However, recognizing this relationship between argument and technology requires accounting for procedures, techniques, or rules (i.e., such as found in technology) and speech acts that are not argumentative propositions in any strict sense but that are consequential for what becomes argumentation in any setting. An account about designing disagreement space, grounded in Jackson and Jacobs’s theory of Disagreement Management, is put forward to address these issues while more generally contributing to understanding argument in context.
  • Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making
    • Authors: A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, and D. Mohammed
    • Source: Journal of Argumentation in Context, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012, pages: 19 –32
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.
  • Argumentation and informed consent in the doctor–patient relationship
    • Author: Jerome Bickenbach
    • Source: Journal of Argumentation in Context, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012, pages: 5 –18
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • Argumentation theory has much to offer our understanding of the doctor-patient relationship as it plays out in the context of seeking and obtaining consent to treatment. In order to harness the power of argumentation theory in this regard, I argue, it is necessary to take into account insights from the legal and bioethical dimensions of informed consent, and in particular to account for features of the interaction that make it psychologically complex: that there is a fundamental asymmetry of authority, power and expertise between doctor and patient; that, given the potential for coercion, it is a challenge to preserve the interactive balance presumed by the requirement of informed consent; and finally that the necessary condition that patients be ‘competent to consent’ may undermine the requirement of respecting patient autonomy. I argue argumentation theory has the resources to deal with these challenges and expand our knowledge, and appreciation, of the informed consent interaction in health care.
  • Teaching argumentation theory to doctors: Why and what
    • Authors: Sara Rubinelli, and Claudia Zanini
    • Source: Journal of Argumentation in Context, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012, pages: 66 –80
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • This paper supports the need for health professionals to be trained in argumentation theory, by illustrating the challenges that they face in interacting with patients and according to the different models of consultation that patients prefer. While there is no ideal model of consultation that can be promoted universally, the ability to construct arguments in support of health professionals’ points of view, as well as the ability to engage in critical discussion with patients, translate in essential skills for reaching patients’ agreement when communication develops through the interpretative model or the informed decision model or, eventually, shared decision-making.
  • Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases
    • Author: Marcin Lewiński
    • Source: Journal of Argumentation in Context, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2013, pages: 151 –177
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue” (pro and con). However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this paper is to shed extra light on such “polylogical” clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining the multi-layered participation in actual online debates. The examples are drawn from the readers’ discussions on Osama bin Laden’s killing in online versions of two British newspapers: The Guardian and The Telegraph. As a result of the analysis, a distinction between sides, positions, and cases in argumentative deliberation is proposed.
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address