Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice (original) (raw)
References
Aakhus, Mark. 1999. Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 2(3): 20–37. Article Google Scholar
Aakhus, Mark. 2007. Communication as design. Communication Monographs 74: 112–117. Article Google Scholar
Aakhus, Mark, and Sally Jackson. 2005. Technology, design, and interaction. In Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. Kristine Fitch, and Robert E. Sanders, 411–436. Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Bero, Lisa, and Drummond Rennie. 1995. The Cochrane collaboration: Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effect of health care. Journal of the American Medical Association 274(24): 1935–1938. Article Google Scholar
Biro, John, and Harvey Siegel. 1992. Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In Argument illuminated, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard, 85–103. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Borenstein, Michael, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P.T. Higgins, and Hannah R. Rothstein. 2009. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470743386. Book Google Scholar
Craig, Robert T., and Karen Tracy. 1995. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory 5: 248–272. Article Google Scholar
Glass, Gene V. 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 5: 3–8. Article Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1997. Argumentation and interpersonal justification. Argumentation 11(2): 155–164. Article Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Book Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jean, and Lee Honeycutt. 2009. When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority. Studies in Communication Sciences 9(2): 19–30. Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. 2000. The power of the written tradition. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Google Scholar
Goody, Jack, and Ian Watt. 1963. The consequences of literacy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5(3): 304–345. Article Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2009. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1989. Method as argument. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. Bruce E. Gronbeck, 1–8. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1992. “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Argument illuminated, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Jackson, Sally. 1998. Disputation by design. Argumentation 12: 183–198. Article Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 2008. Black box arguments. Argumentation 22: 437–446. Article Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 2012. Black box arguments and accountability of experts to the public. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. Jean Goodwin, 1–18. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Jackson, Sally. 2014. Deference, distrust, and delegation: Three design hypotheses. Paper presented at the conference of International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam.
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–265. Article Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 2006. Designing countermoves to questionable argumentative tactics. In Contemporary perspectives on argumentation: Views from the Venice argumentation conference, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, Michael D. Hazen, Peter Houtlosser and David C. Williams, 83–100. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20: 177–203. doi:10.1002/crq.19. Article Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1982. Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J. Robert Cox and Charles A. Willard, 205–237. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: So. Ill. U. Press.
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1983. Speech act structure in conversation: Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy, ed. Robert T. Craig, and Karen Tracy, 47–66. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1989. Building a model of conversational argument. In Rethinking communication: Paradigm exemplars, ed. Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella, 153–171. Beverly Hills/Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1992. Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation 6: 161–176. Article Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, Sally Jackson, Susan A. Stearns, and Barbara Hall. 1991. Digressions in third-party mediation of disputes: Multiple goals and standing concerns. In Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals to discourse, ed. Karen Tracy, 43–61. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Kneale, William, and Martha Kneale. 1962. The development of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Light, Richard J., and Paul Smith. 1971. Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educational Review 41: 429–471. Article Google Scholar
Nelson, Harold, and Erik Stolterman. 2012. The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Robert. 1979. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86: 638–641. Article Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50: 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243. Article Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382. doi:10.2307/413107. Article Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2012. The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. Jean Goodwin, 345–354. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Sprain, Leah, Martín Carcasson, and Andy J. Merolla. 2014. Utilizing “on tap” experts in deliberative forums: Implications for design. Journal of Applied Communication Research 42. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.859292.
Sprain, Leah, Andy M. Merolla, and Martín Carcasson. (2012). Do experts help or hinder? An empirical examination of experts and expertise during public deliberation. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. Jean Goodwin, 355–364. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Book Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen. 2013. In Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation, ed. Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Google Scholar
Willard, Charles Arthur. 1990. Authority. Informal Logic 12(1): 11–22. Google Scholar
Ziliak, Stephen T., and Deirdre N. McCloskey. 2008. The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar