1887
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns – patterns that can be theoretically expected in view of the type of standpoint defended, the institutional aim, and the conventions and constraints of the context (Van Eemeren 2016: 13–15). This paper aims to add a new dimension to both this line of research and research on health communication by determining whether the prototypical types of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer are stereotypical as well, that is, whether they are dominant in a quantitative sense (van Eemeren 2016: 16). For this purpose, a valid and reliable measurement instrument is developed and used in a content analysis of the transcripts of 49 consultations. On the basis of the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that the use of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation is stereotypical in this type of consultations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
2018-10-12
2019-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Charles, Cathy , Amiram Gafni , and Tim Whelan
    1997 “Shared Decision-Making in the Medical Encounter: What Does it Mean (or It Takes At Least Two to Tango).” Social Science and Medicine44 (5): 681–692. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(96)00221‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2016 “Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics.” Argumentation30 (1): 1–23. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  3. Eemeren, Frans H. van , and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Peter Houtlosser , and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans
    2005Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands. Een pragma-dialectische studie. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, Frans H. van , and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans
    2011Argumentatie. Inleiding in het identificeren van meningsverschillen en het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Feteris, Eveline T.
    2017Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑024‑1129‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Geest, Ingeborg M. van der
    2015Argumentatie voor een keuze. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van gemotiveerde keuzes in overheidsbesluiten over m.e.r.-plichtige projecten. Ablasserdam: Haveka
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hayes, A. F. , & Krippendorff, K.
    2007 Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89. 10.1080/19312450709336664
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664 [Google Scholar]
  9. Henselmans, Inge , Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven , Jane van der Vloodt , Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes , and Ellen M. A. Smets
    2017 “Shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: A qualitative observation of talk about patients’ preferences.” Palliative Medicine31 (7): 625–633. 10.1177/0269216316676010
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216316676010 [Google Scholar]
  10. Huth, Edward J.
    1994 ““in the Balance”: Weighing the Evidence.” Annals of Internal Medicine120 (10): 889. 10.7326/0003‑4819‑120‑10‑199405150‑00012
    https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-120-10-199405150-00012 [Google Scholar]
  11. Labrie, Nanon H. M. , and Peter J. Schulz
    2015 “Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.” Argumentation29: 33–55. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9331‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9331-5 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor-patient communication.” Health Communication29 (10): 996–1008. 10.1080/10410236.2013.829018
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.829018 [Google Scholar]
  13. Neuendorf, Kimberly A.
    2002The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Pilgram, Roosmaryn
    2015A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2009 “Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: Medical consultation as a pragmadialectical communicative activity type.” Studies in Communication Sciences92: 153–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Prigerson, Holly G. , Yuhua Bao , Manish A. Shah , M. Elizabeth Paulk , Thomas W. LeBlanc , Bryan J. Schneider , Melissa M. Garrido , M. Carrington Reid , David A. Berlin , Kerin B. Adelson , Alfred I. Neugut , and Paul K. Maciejewski
    2015 Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA Oncology1: 778–784. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2378
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2378 [Google Scholar]
  17. Schellens, Peter J. , and Gerard Verhoeven
    1988Argument en tegenargument. Een inleading in de analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A.
    2017 “Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements.” Journal of Argumentation in Context6 (1): 59–75.10.1075/jaic.6.1.04hen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.04hen [Google Scholar]
  19. Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A. , and Dima Mohammed
    2012 “Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context1 (1): 19–32. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh [Google Scholar]
  20. Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A. , and Jean H. M. Wagemans
    2012 “The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making.” InBetween scientists & citizens: proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. by Jean Goodwin , 345–354. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Wierda, Renske M.
    2015Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements: An analytical and empirical study concerning the strategic anticipation of critical questions. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error