Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate practices of argumentation on Twitter discussions about climate change.

Conversational threads were collected from the Twitter API. Fundamental concepts from argumentation theory and linking practices were operationalised through a coding schema for content analysis. Tweets were analysed in the context of the discussions and coded according to their argumentative approach, interaction type and argumentation stage. Linked and embedded sources were analysed in order to find how they were used in arguments, the plausibility and soundness of the message, the consistency and trustworthiness of the linked source and its adequacy with the target audience.

Among the interactions between arguers, this study found five typical practices and several patterns involving the dynamics of the conversations, the strategy of the argumentation and the linking practices. Although the rhetorical approach was prominent, the agreement was rarely achieved. The arguers used a variety of sources to justify or support their positions, often embedding non-textual content. These linking practices, together with the strategy adopted and the topics discussed, suggest the involvement of a multiple audience engaged in discussing ad lib scientific artefacts, topics and outputs.

While Twitter has been the focus for many research papers, the conversational threads have been given little attention so far. With the Twitter API making conversations more accessible for research, this paper does not only give insight into multiple audience group argumentation dynamics but also provides a method to study the conversations from an argumentation theory perspective.

This paper develops a typology of argumentation strategies used in lobbying. Unlike in other strategic communication functions such as crisis or risk communication, such typologies have not been proposed in the sub-field of public affairs.

The article synthesises the strategic communication, political communication and policy studies literature and employs exchange theory to explain the communicative-strategic exchange in public affairs. It showcases its explanatory potential with illustrative examples from Big Tech lobbying.

The paper describes that categories of argumentation strategies that a public affairs professional will choose are based on the contingency of the issue, policy objective and lobbying objective. The descriptive typology will require empirical testing to develop further.

The paper describes how public affairs professionals influence public policy through their argumentation strategies, which sheds light on the usually opaque activities of lobbying.

The proposed typology is the first of its kind for the field of public affairs. Beyond, it contributes communication-scientific insights from a rhetorical tradition to strategic communication research and other social science fields where lobbying is studied, e.g. policy studies.

Most digital libraries (DL) are now available online. They also provide the Z39.50 standard protocol which allows computer-based systems to effectively retrieve information stored in the DLs. The major difficulty lies in inconsistency between database schemas of multiple DLs. The purpose of this paper is to present a system known as Argumentation-based Digital Library Search (ADLSearch), which facilitates information retrieval across multiple DLs.

The proposed approach is based on argumentation theory for schema matching reconciliation from multiple schema matching algorithms. In addition, a distributed architecture is proposed for the ADLSearch system for information retrieval from multiple DLs.

Initial performance results are promising. First, schema matching can improve the retrieval performance on DLs, as compared to the baseline technique. Subsequently, argumentation-based retrieval can yield better matching accuracy and retrieval efficiency than individual schema matching algorithms.

The work discussed in this paper has been implemented as a prototype supporting scholarly retrieval from about 800 DLs over the world. However, due to complexity of argumentation algorithm, the process of adding new DLs to the system cannot be performed in a real-time manner.

In this paper, an argumentation-based approach is proposed for reconciling the conflicts from multiple schema matching algorithms in the context of information retrieval from multiple DL. Moreover, the proposed approach can also be applied for similar applications which require automatic mapping from multiple database schemas.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the way organizational actors argue to obtain a license to operate for new ventures.

The design, which addresses the issue at the industry level, consists of a case study of the ways in which power developers argue for the development of wind energy in Sweden.

The study shows that wind power developers proffer a necessity‐ability‐acceptability line of argument that relies not only on the convincing character of claims grounded in premises, but also on the persuasive character of values, knowledge and opinion likely to win the adherence of the audience.

From a theoretical perspective, this is an illustration of the relevance of bridging the divide between argumentation theories in tune with formal or informal logic and those oriented toward rhetoric and the social practice of communication.

More practically, the paper suggests that in order to obtain a license to operate, managers need to combine and balance in their practice of argumentation a logical approach to factual knowledge with a situational sense for the rhetoric favored by the audience.

This study emphasizes the key role played by argumentation in corporate communication.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate participants' contributions to the development of discussion and knowledge creation as organizational knowledge management, and thereby help them better develop the discussion.

To evaluate participants' contributions more accurately, a method which analyzes discussion structures by Discourse Semantic Authoring was employed, which represents discussion structures explicitly in terms of discourse and dialogue relations.

The method successfully evaluates participants based on the content of their comments rather than their number. More fine‐grain semantic structure should be considered in order to improve the accuracy of this evaluation.

This paper presents a first attempt to analyze discussion structures to evaluate participants' contributions.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the development of definitional standards for research information as a wicked problem. A central solution strategy for such problems, increasing transparency by argumentation visualisation, is being evaluated.

Qualitative formal content analysis is used in order to examine whether the process of definition standardisation in the project can be characterised as a wicked problem. Action Research is used to assess the effect of argumentation visualisation in the project.

The results of the content analysis confirm the interpretation of the standardisation process as a wicked problem. The implementation of argumentation visualisation shows to increase the meetings’ focus and effectiveness.

The relationship between information exchange, transparency and acceptance of the development result should be addressed in future empirical analyses. Visualisation solutions require further development in order to accommodate needs of the stakeholders.

Argumentation visualisation is of high value for finding a consensus for definitional standards and should be considered for managing and exchanging information.

Applying solution strategies from design research on wicked problems to large-scale standardisation efforts opens up new possibilities for not only handling such projects but also providing new avenues of research for both the design and research information communities.

In this paper the extent to which modern indexing and information retrieval research meets the needs and requirements of different types of readers is criticised. A review of the stagnation in this field gives evidence for the need for a radically different approach. The main problem is identified as the assumption that knowledge contained in a scientific article can be represented by a semantic network only, and therefore can be manipulated by formal logic approaches. Complementary to this, a plea is made to start an argumentational analysis of the — highly structured — corpus of scientific articles (mainly in physics). Such an analysis might lead to an argumentational syntax which will also enable the non‐expert to browse through large quantities of electronically stored articles. A first attempt at such an approach is given. Furthermore the possible use of the Standard General Markup Language (sgml) approach in relation to a hypertext environment for a possible application is discussed.

Braiding organization theory and argumentation theory, the paper seeks to unfold how organizations act as social loci for the production, diffusion and development of arguments.

A Swedish association dedicated to the defense and promotion of nuclear power, Miljövänner För Kärnkraft (approximately Environmentalists for Nuclear Power) serves as a case study, describing the association's argumentative activity with a particular focus on its argument that “nuclear power is environment friendly as it produces no greenhouse gas emissions”.

The manner in which the association contextualizes this key argument illustrates the inter‐relationships that exist between organizing and arguing.

Organizing and arguing belong to each other's conditions of possibility, and it is therefore argued that an understanding of the organized character of argumentation is symmetrical to the argumentative character of organizing.

The paper criticises the dominant paradigm of public relations theory for lack of interest in discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations. An alternative theoretical approach to public relations is identified that does treat discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations, but it is indicated that at present it has not been sufficiently integrated into dominant public relations theory. The paper explores the points of convergence between rhetoric and public relations. The narrow and broad conceptions of rhetoric are presented, the first characterising rhetoric with persuasive and argumentative discourse, the second with different types of discourse. It is suggested that elements of the broad conception of rhetoric could provide heuristics for analysing public relations techniques as “genre repertoire” of public relations discourse. In the second part, an enquiry into the narrow conception of rhetoric as persuasive and argumentative discourse is made. Positivistic understanding of “truth” and “objectivity” as normative criteria of public relations discourse is criticised on the basis of the so‐called “rhetoric as epistemic” view. It is argued that in corporate discourse, especially in situations of confrontation with active publics, key managerial decisions have to be justified in argumentation. In the last part of the paper, Toulmin’s model of argumentation is suggested as especially suitable for analysis of the argumentative nature of corporate discourse.

Current indexing methods used in automated bibliographic and full text information retrieval assume that knowledge can be adequately represented as a semantic network which is manipulable by means of Boolean operators. However, this semantic approach requires the user to state formally what it is that he wants to find. This paper presents an alternative argumentation‐based method. It involves representing a learned article by means of rhetorical structure rather than by a semantic representation of content.