Part of
Argumentation in Political Deliberation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 75100
Abelson, Julia, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, John Eyles, Patricia Smith, Elisabeth Martin, and Francois-Pierre Gauvin
2003 “Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.” Social Science and Medicine 57: 239–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amjarso, Bilal
2010Mentioning and then refuting an anticipated counterargument: A conceptual and empirical study of the persuasiveness of a mode of strategic manoeuvring. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Andersen, Ida-Elisabeth, and Birgit Jaeger
1999 “Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making.” Science and Public Policy 26: 331–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis, Pierre-Yves Brandt, and Gustavo Quiroz
1993 “The function of negation in argumentation.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Jeffery
1962 “The counterfeit debates.” In The great debates: Background, perspective, effects, ed. by Sindey Kraus, 142–150. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bourg, Dominique, and Daniel Boy
2005Conférences de citoyens, mode d’emploi. Paris: Editions Charles Léopold Mayer, Descartes et Cie.Google Scholar
Doury, Marianne, and Marie-Cecile Lorenzo-Basson
2012 “Les rôles d’expert et de citoyen dans un dispositif de démocratie participative : la conférence des citoyens sur les OGM (France, 1998).” In Discours d’experts et d’expertise, ed. by Isabelle Léglise, and Nathalie Garric, 179–213. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011 “In context: Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation.” Argumentation 25: 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einsiedel, Edna F
2008 “Public participation and dialogue.” In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. by Massimiano Bucchi, and Brian Trench, 173–184. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Einsiedel, Edna F., and Deborah I. Eastlick
2000 “Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective.” Science Communication 21: 323–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodnight, Thomas
1982 “The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 214–227.Google Scholar
Joss, Simon, and John Durant
(eds) 1995Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
Kerr, Anne, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Richard Tutton
2007 “Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue.” Social Studies of Science 37: 385–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laurent, Brice
2009 “Replicating participatory devices: The consensus conference confronts nanotechnology.” Papiers de Recherche du CSI n°018, Paris.
2010Les Politiques des nanotechnologies. Pour un traitement démocratique d’une science emergente. Paris: Editions Charles Léopold Mayer, Vivagora.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin
2010Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type: A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring in reacting critically. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, Phil, Matthew Kearnes, and Brian Wynne
2005 “Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication 27: 268–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Annika Porsborg, Jesper Lassen, and Peter Sandoe
2007 “Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20: 13–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Revel, Martine, Loïc Blondiaux, Cécile Blatrix, Jean-Michel Fourniau, Bertrand Hériard, and Rémi Lefebvre
(eds) 2007Le débat public: Une expérience française de démocratie participative. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Rowe, Gene, and Lynn J. Frewer
2000“Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.” Science, Technology & Human Values 25: 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “A typology of public engagement mechanisms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 30: 251–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca
1992Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis
2011 “From connectives to argumentative markers: A quest for markers of argumentative moves and of related aspects of argumentative discourse.” Argumentation 25: 427–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vlandas, Alexis, and Joscha Wullweber
2006 “Talking about the revolution: Nanotechnology and public dialogues.” Quaderni 61: 103–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe
1995Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar