Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures

Communication Methods and Measures

Volumn 4, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 27-45

  Meyers, Renee A ^a   Brashers, Dale ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650047117     PISSN: 19312458     EISSN: 19312466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19312451003680467     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Auld, F., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology, 42, 273-281.
2. Barge, J. K. (2002). Enlarging the meaning of group deliberation: From discussion to dialogue. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 159-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 67-94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Brashers, D., & Meyers, R. A. (1989). Tag-team argument and group decision making: A preliminary investigation. In B. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 542-550). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
5. Brossmann, B. G., & Canary, D. J. (1990). An observational analysis of argument structures: The case of Nightline. Argumentation, 4, 199-212.
6. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12, 398-422.
7. Canary, D. J. (1992). Manual for coding conversational arguments. Department of Speech Communication, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
8. Canary, D. J., Brossmann, B. G., & Seibold, D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, 18-37.
9. Canary, D. J., Brossmann, B. G., Sillars, A. L., & LoVette, S. (1987). Married couples' argument structures and sequences: A comparison of satisfied and dissatisfied dyads. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 475-484). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
10. Canary, D. J., Ratledge, N. T., & Seibold, D. R. (1982, November). Argument and group decision making: Development of a coding scheme. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY.
11. Canary, D. J., & Sillars, A. L. (1992). Argument in satisfied and dissatisfied married couples. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 737-764). New York: Foris.
12. Canary, D. J., Weger, H., Jr., & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 159-179.
13. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 67-91). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (1999). Bringing deliberation to the democratic dialogue. In M. McCombs & A. Reynolds (Eds.), The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Gastil, J. (1992). A definition of small group democracy. Small Group Research, 23, 278-301.
17. Gastil, J. (1993). Identifying obstacles to small group democracy. Small Group Research, 24, 5-27.
18. Gastil, J. (2000). By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19. Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). The aims, methods, and effects of deliberative civic education through the National Issues Forums. Communication Education, 48, 1-14.
20. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21. Gouran, D. S. (2004, November). Moving forward/looking back: The functions of argument in inducing and managing conflict in decision-making and problem-solving groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
22. Graham, T., & Witschge, T. (2003). In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussion. Communications, 28, 173-204.
23. Hatfield, J. D., & Weider-Hatfield, D. (1978). The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis. Communication Monographs, 45, 44-50.
24. Huber, J., Johnson, M., Hill, R., Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (2007, November). Examining the argument process in jury decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
25. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic cases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
26. Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267-294.
27. Lemus, D. R., Seibold, D. R., Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2004). Argument in computermediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54, 302-320.
28. Lovaglia, M., Mannix, E. A., Samuelson, C. D., Sell, J., & Wilson, R. K. (2005). Conflict, power, and status in groups. In M. S. Poole & A. B. Hollingshead (Eds.), Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 139-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Mansbridge, J. J. (1990). Feminism and democracy. American Prospect, 1, 126-139.
30. Mansbridge, J., Hartz-Karp, J., Amengual, M., & Gastil, J. (2006). Norms of deliberation: An inductive study. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2. Retrieved September 4, 2008, from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art7
31. Meyers, R. A. (1987). Argument and group decision-making: An interactional test of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an alternative Structurational perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1987. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 12.
32. Meyers, R. A. (1989). Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions. Human Communication Research, 15, 357-381.
33. Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1995). Multi-stage versus single-stage coding of small group argument: A preliminary comparative assessment. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 93-100). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
34. Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (2002). Rethinking traditional approaches to argument in groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 141-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority/minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcomes links. Journal of Communication, 50, 3-30.
36. Meyers, R. A., Seibold, D. R., & Brashers, D. (1991). Argument in initial group decision-making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 47-68.
37. Murray, E. J. (1956). A content-analysis method for studying psychotherapy. Psychological Monographs, 70 (13, Whole No. 420).
38. Page, B. I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Perelman, C. H., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
40. Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
41. Ratledge, N. E. T. (1986). Theoretical and methodological integrity of a structurational scheme for coding argument in decision-making groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
42. Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work? In N. Polsby (Ed.), Annual review of political science (8th ed., Vol. 8, pp. 49-71). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
43. Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25, 347-376.
44. Seibold, D. R., Canary, D. J., & Tanita-Ratledge, N. (1983, November). Argument and group decision-making: Interim report on a structurational research program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, DC.
45. Seibold, D. R., & Lemus, D. R. (2005). Argument quality in group deliberation: A structurational approach and quality of argument index. In C. A. Willard (Ed.), Critical problems in argumentation (pp. 203-215). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
46. Seibold, D. R., McPhee, R. D., Poole, M. S., Tanita, N. E., & Canary, D. J. (1981). Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes. In C. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second SCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation (pp. 663-692). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
47. Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312-336.
48. Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.
49. Smith, G., & Wales, C. (1999). The theory and practice of citizen juries. Policy and Politics, 27, 295-308.
50. Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3. Available from http://services.bepress.com/cgi/query.cgi
51. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Weger, H., Jr., & Canary, D. J. (1991). A closer look at argument behavior in dyads. In D. W. Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 211-216). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.