Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation and Patient Centered Care
Edited by Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Roosmaryn Pilgram and Nanon Labrie
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 7:2] 2018
► pp. 181–203

The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer

 | Academic Medical Center
 | University of Amsterdam
 | Academic Medical Center
 | Academic Medical Center
 | Academic Medical Center
A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns – patterns that can be theoretically expected in view of the type of standpoint defended, the institutional aim, and the conventions and constraints of the context (Van Eemeren 2016: 13–15). This paper aims to add a new dimension to both this line of research and research on health communication by determining whether the prototypical types of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer are stereotypical as well, that is, whether they are dominant in a quantitative sense (van Eemeren 2016: 16). For this purpose, a valid and reliable measurement instrument is developed and used in a content analysis of the transcripts of 49 consultations. On the basis of the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that the use of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation is stereotypical in this type of consultations.
Keywords: prototypical types of argumentation, stereotypical types of argumentation, symptomatic argumentation, pragmatic argumentation, argumentative pattern, doctor-patient communication, palliative care
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Types of argumentation in the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory
  • 3.The process of weighing and balancing in SDM in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
  • 4.Symptomatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
  • 5.Pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
  • 6.Objectives of the content analysis
  • 7.Methodology
    • 7.1Content analysis
    • 7.2Sample
    • 7.3Procedures
    • 7.4Measures
    • 7.5Validity and study reliability
  • 8.Results
    • 8.1Symptomatic argumentation and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
    • 8.2Authority argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
References (21)
References
Charles, Cathy, Amiram Gafni, and Tim Whelan. 1997. “Shared Decision-Making in the Medical Encounter: What Does it Mean (or It Takes At Least Two to Tango).” Social Science and Medicine 44 (5): 681–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2016. “Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics.” Argumentation 30 (1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans. 2005. Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands. Een pragma-dialectische studie. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans. 2011. Argumentatie. Inleiding in het identificeren van meningsverschillen en het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. 2017. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geest, Ingeborg M. van der. 2015. Argumentatie voor een keuze. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van gemotiveerde keuzes in overheidsbesluiten over m.e.r.-plichtige projecten. Ablasserdam: HavekaGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 11, 77–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henselmans, Inge, Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven, Jane van der Vloodt, Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes, and Ellen M. A. Smets. 2017. “Shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: A qualitative observation of talk about patients’ preferences.” Palliative Medicine 31 (7): 625–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huth, Edward J. 1994. ““in the Balance”: Weighing the Evidence.” Annals of Internal Medicine 120 (10): 889. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labrie, Nanon H. M., and Peter J. Schulz. 2015. “Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.” Argumentation 291: 33–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor-patient communication.” Health Communication 29 (10): 996–1008. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Pilgram, Roosmaryn. 2015. A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: Medical consultation as a pragmadialectical communicative activity type.” Studies in Communication Sciences 921: 153–169.Google Scholar
Prigerson, Holly G., Yuhua Bao, Manish A. Shah, M. Elizabeth Paulk, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Bryan J. Schneider, Melissa M. Garrido, M. Carrington Reid, David A. Berlin, Kerin B. Adelson, Alfred I. Neugut, and Paul K. Maciejewski. 2015. Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA Oncology 11: 778–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schellens, Peter J., and Gerard Verhoeven. 1988. Argument en tegenargument. Een inleading in de analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A. 2017. “Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (1): 59–75.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A., and Dima Mohammed. 2012. “Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1): 19–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A., and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2012. “The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making.” In Between scientists & citizens: proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. by Jean Goodwin, 345–354. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
Wierda, Renske M. 2015. Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements: An analytical and empirical study concerning the strategic anticipation of critical questions. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Labrie, Nanon H.M., Anne A.M.W. van Kempen, Marleen Kunneman, Sylvia A. Obermann-Borst, Liesbeth M. van Vliet & Nicole R. van Veenendaal
2025. Effects of reasoned treatment decision-making on parent-related outcomes: Results from a video-vignette experiment in neonatal care. Patient Education and Counseling 133 ► pp. 108625 ff. DOI logo
Svačinová, Iva
2024. Consolation Through Argumentation? Prototypical and Stereotypical Argumentative Patterns in Secular Eulogies. Argumentation 38:3 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Labrie, Nanon, Marleen Kunneman, Nicole van Veenendaal, Anne van Kempen & Liesbeth van Vliet
2023. Using expert opinion rounds to develop valid and realistic manipulations for experimental video-vignette research: Results from a study on clinicians’ (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care. Patient Education and Counseling 112 ► pp. 107715 ff. DOI logo
Wackers, Dunja Y.M., H. José Plug & Gerard J. Steen
2021. “For crying out loud, don't call me a warrior”: Standpoints of resistance against violence metaphors for cancer. Journal of Pragmatics 174 ► pp. 68 ff. DOI logo
Akkermans, Aranka, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon Labrie, Inge Henselmans & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven
2019. Characteristics of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Labrie, Nanon
2019. “Doctor, I disagree”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:3 ► pp. 336 ff. DOI logo
Kunneman, Marleen, Fania R. Gärtner, Ian G. Hargraves & Victor M. Montori
2018. Commentary on “The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 7:2 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 2025. 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.