Deliberation digitized
Designing disagreement space through communication-information services
Mark Aakhus | School of Communication & Information | Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
A specific issue for argumentation theory is whether information and communication technologies (ICTs) play any role in governing argument — that is, as parties engage in practical activities across space and time via ICTs, does technology matter for the interplay of argumentative content and process in managing disagreement? The case made here is that technologies do matter because they are not merely conduits of communication but have a role in the pragmatics of communication and argumentation. In particular, ICTs should be recognized as communication-information services that are delegated degrees of responsibility for managing disagreements arising from practical activities. These services are organized around practical theories for designing disagreement space. However, recognizing this relationship between argument and technology requires accounting for procedures, techniques, or rules (i.e., such as found in technology) and speech acts that are not argumentative propositions in any strict sense but that are consequential for what becomes argumentation in any setting. An account about designing disagreement space, grounded in Jackson and Jacobs’s theory of Disagreement Management, is put forward to address these issues while more generally contributing to understanding argument in context.
References (48)
Aakhus, Mark. 1999. “Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy.” Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 2 (3): 20–37. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark. 2000. “Constituting deliberation as “buy-in” through GDSS design and implementation.” The Electronic Journal of Communication La Revue Electronique de Communication 10 (1): 21.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark. 2001. “Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 29 (4): 341–371. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark. 2002a. “Modeling reconstruction in groupware technology.” In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 121–126. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark. 2002b. “The design of forums for online public deliberation and the consequences for argumentation.” Kentucky Journal of Communication 21 (2): 137–148.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark. 2003. “Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation.” Argumentation 17 (3): 265–290. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark. 2007. “Communication as design.” Communication Monographs 74 (1): 112–117. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark. 2009. “Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society.” Proceedings of the 16th NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, Alta UT, 1–12.
Aakhus, Mark. 2013. “Managing conflict in information system design stakeholder conferences: The role of transparency work.” In Creativity and rationale: Enhancing human experience by design, ed. by John M. Carroll, 327–351. London: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark, and Alan Aldrich. 2002. “Crafting communication activity: Understanding felicity in ‘I Wish I.’ compliments.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 35 (4): 395–425. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark, and Sally Jackson. 2005. “Technology, interaction and design.” In Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. by Kristine Fitch, and Robert Sanders, 411–433. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński. 2011. “Argument analysis in large scale deliberation.” In Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics, ed. by Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 165–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark, and Alena L. Vasilyeva. 2008. “Managing disagreement space in multiparty deliberation.” In Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 197–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aakhus, Mark, and Paul Ziek. 2008. “Sustainability communication: A role for IT and IS in relating business and society.” In Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the AIS Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research, ed. by Pär J. Ågerfalk, Mark Aakhus, and Mikael Lind, 29–37. Amsterdam: Sprouts Alliance.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ågerfalk, Pär, Mark Aakhus, and Mikael Lind. 2010. “Researching open innovation through social media.” Open Innovation Forum. Available: [URL].![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Atkinson, John M., and Paul Drew (eds). 1979. Order in the Court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Black, Donald, and Mary P. Baumgartner. 1983. “Toward a theory of the third party.” In Empirical theories about Courts, ed. by Keith O. Boyum, and Lynn Mather, 84–114. New York: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan L. Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. The journal of academic librarianship, (vol. 26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, Herbert H. 1992. Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Craig, Robert T., and Karen Tracy. 1995. “Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion.” Communication Theory 5 (3): 248–272. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davies, Todd, and Seeta P. Gangadharan (eds). 2009. Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dingwall, Robert. 1980. “Orchestrated encounters: An essay in the comparative analysis of speech-exchange systems.” Sociology of Health and Illness 2 (2): 151–173. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing talk at work: An introduction.” In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Erving. 1983. “Felicity’s condition.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (1): 1–53. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldkuhl, Göran, and Kalle J. Lyytinen. 1982. “A language action view of information systems.” International Conference on Information Systems.
Goldkuhl, Göran, and Pär J. Ågerfalk. 2002. “Actability: A way to understand information systems pragmatics.” In Coordination and communication using signs: Studies in organisational semiotics 2, ed. by Kecheng Liu, et al., 85–113. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilbert, Martin. 2009. “The maturing concept of e-democracy: From e-voting and online consultations to democratic value out of jumbled online chatter.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 6 (2): 87–110. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutchby, Ian. 2001. Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet. New York: Polity Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackson, Sally. 1992. “‘Virtual standpoints’ and the pragmatics of conversational argument.” In Argumentation illuminated, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackson, Sally. 2005. “Designing countermoves to reshape disagreement space.” In Engaging argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Patricia Riley, 409–415. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackson, Sally. 2008. “Black box arguments.” Argumentation 22 (3): 437–446. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1980. “Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (3): 251–265. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Scott. 1989. “Speech acts and arguments.” Argumentation 3 (4): 345–365. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Scott., and Mark Aakhus. 2002. “What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20 (4): 177–204. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1989. “Building a model of conversational argument.” In Rethinking communication (Vol. 2), ed. by Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen A. Wartella, 153–171. Thousand Oaks: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1992. “Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach.” Argumentation 6 (2): 161–176. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 2006. “Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango.” In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. by Peter Houtlosser, and M. Agnès van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. “Activity types and language.” Linguistics 17: 365–399. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewiński, Marcin 2010. Internet 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyytinen, Kalle J. 1985. “Implications of language theories for information systems.” MIS Quarterly 9 (1): 61–74. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Moor, Aldo, and Mark Aakhus. 2006. “Argumentation support: From technologies to tools.” Communications of the ACM 49 (3): 93–98. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silverman, David. 1998. Harvey sacks: Social science & conversation analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Star, Susan L., and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. “Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces.” Information Systems Research 7 (1): 111–134. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas. N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Weger, Harry, and Mark Aakhus. 2003. “Arguing in Internet chat rooms: Argumentative adaptations to chat room design and some consequences for public deliberation at a distance.” Argumentation & Advocacy 40 (1): 23–38.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Tracy, Karen
2020.
Design and Interactional Challenges of Informal Justice Practices in the US. In
The Handbook of Applied Communication Research,
► pp. 781 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.