Part of
Argumentation in Political DeliberationEdited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 101–126
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 101–126
Deliberation digitized
Designing disagreement space through communication-information services
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
Aakhus, Mark
1999 “Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy.” Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 2 (3): 20–37. 
2000 “Constituting deliberation as “buy-in” through GDSS design and implementation.” The Electronic Journal of Communication La Revue Electronique de Communication 10 (1): 21.
2001 “Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 29 (4): 341–371.
2002a “Modeling reconstruction in groupware technology.” In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 121–126. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
2002b “The design of forums for online public deliberation and the consequences for argumentation.” Kentucky Journal of Communication 21 (2): 137–148.
2003 “Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation.” Argumentation 17 (3): 265–290.
2007 “Communication as design.” Communication Monographs 74 (1): 112–117.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ågerfalk, Pär, Mark Aakhus, and Mikael Lind
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.
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.
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.
Clark, Herbert H
1992 Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Craig, Robert T., and Karen Tracy
1995 “Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion.” Communication Theory 5 (3): 248–272.
Davies, Todd, and Seeta P. Gangadharan
(eds) 2009 Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Dingwall, Robert
1980 “Orchestrated encounters: An essay in the comparative analysis of speech-exchange systems.” Sociology of Health and Illness 2 (2): 151–173.
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.
van Eemeren, Frans H
2010 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
1993 Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Goffman, Erving
1983 “Felicity’s condition.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (1): 1–53.
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.
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.
Hutchby, Ian
2001 Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet. New York: Polity Press.
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.
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.
2008 “Black box arguments.” Argumentation 22 (3): 437–446.
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
1980 “Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (3): 251–265.
Jacobs, Scott
1989 “Speech acts and arguments.” Argumentation 3 (4): 345–365.
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.
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.
1992 “Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach.” Argumentation 6 (2): 161–176.
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.
Levinson, Stephen C
1979 “Activity types and language.” Linguistics 17: 365–399.
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.
Lyytinen, Kalle J
1985 “Implications of language theories for information systems.” MIS Quarterly 9 (1): 61–74.
de Moor, Aldo, and Mark Aakhus
2006 “Argumentation support: From technologies to tools.” Communications of the ACM 49 (3): 93–98.
Silverman, David
1998 Harvey sacks: Social science & conversation analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Walton, Douglas. N
1998 The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
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.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Tracy, Karen
2020. Design and Interactional Challenges of Informal Justice Practices in the US. In The Handbook of Applied Communication Research, ► pp. 781 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 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.