Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 11:2 (2022) ► pp. 200242
Aakhus, M.
2013Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 101–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., and Lewinski, M.
2016Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy. Argumentation, 311, 179–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, A.
1983Sequences of social events: Concepts and methods for the analysis of order in social processes. Historical Methods, 161, 129–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abelson, J., Forest, P., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E., Mackean, G.
2007Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: results from a Canadian comparative study. Social Science & Medicine, 64 (10), 2115–2128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, S., and Chapin, III
2018Going beyond “it depends:” the role of context in shaping participation in natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blair, A., and Johnson, R. H.
1987Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braman, E.
2009Law, politics, and perception: how policy preferences influence legal reasoning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., and Chen, S.
1996Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer and J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553–578). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chen, S., and Chaiken, S.
1999The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Coates, K., and Favel, B.
(2016) Understanding FPIC: from assertion and assumption on “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” to a new model for Indigenous engagement on resource development. Aboriginal Canada and the Natural Resource Economy Series 9, April. Ottawa: Macdonald-Laurier Institute.Google Scholar
Collier, D.
2011Understanding process tracing. Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823–830. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craik, Neil
2019Environmental assessment: a comparative legal analysis. In E. Lees and J. Vinuales (Eds.) Oxford handbook for comparative environmental law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Devine, P., & Ostrom, T.
1985Cognitive mediation of inconsistency discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 491, 5–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ditto, P., & Lopez, D.
(1992) Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 568–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J.
1997The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, K., & Smith, E.
1996A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., and Over, D. E.
1996Rationality and reasoning. Psychology/Erlbaum (Uk) Taylor & Fr.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N.
(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, J.
1996Causes and Counterfactuals in Social Science: Exploring an Analogy between Cellular Automata and Historical Processes. In P. Tetlock & A. Belkin (Eds.), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics, (pp. 39–67). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J.
1991Democracy and Deliberation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Freund, T., Kruglanski, A. W., and Shpitzajzen, A.
1985The freezing and unfreezing of impressional primacy: Effects of the need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 111, 479–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Govier, T.
1992What is a Good Argument? Metaphilosophy, 23(4), 393–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, D., and Shapiro, I.
1994Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D.
2003Deliberative democracy beyond process. In J. Fishkin and P. Laslett (Eds.). Debating Deliberative Democracy. Blackwell: Australia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, U.
2011The Problem of Circularity in Evidence, Argument, and Explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (2), 172–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J.
2001The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgement. Psychological Review, 1081, 814–834. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A.
1989Introduction. In P. A. Hall, ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations. Princeton. Princeton University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamlin, J. K., Mahajan, N., Liberman, Z., & Wynn, K.
2013Not like me = bad: infants prefer those who harm dissimilar others. Psychological Science, 24(4), 589–594. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
He, Baogang and Warren, Mark E.
2011Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R.
1976Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kanra, B.
2012Binary deliberation: the role of social learning in divided societies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klaczynsk, P.
1997Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33 (2), 273–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krabbe, Erik C. W., and van Laar, Jan Albert
2011The Ways of Criticism. Argumentation, 251, 199–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z.
1990The case for motivated political reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H., and Mercier, H.
2012 ‘Talking It Out with Others vs. Deliberation Within and the Law of Group Polarization: Some Implications of the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning for Deliberative Democracy’, Analise Social, 47(205), 910–34.Google Scholar
Levi, M.
1981The Predatory Theory of Rule. Politics & Society, 10 (4), 431–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. E.
(January 01 1959The science of “Muddling Through”. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M., & Charles, T.
2000Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, and S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason. Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. London: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R.
1979Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J.
2000Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, E., & Bradshaw, B.
2018Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in the Yukon: Established Practice or Untraveled Path? The Northern Review, 471, 113–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., and Parsons, S.
2007The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22 (1), 95–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W. J.
1964Inducing resistance to persuasion: some contemporary approaches. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz (New York: Academic Press), 192–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
2011Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 341, 57–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., and Sperber, D.
2017The enigma of reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moshman, D.
2021Reasoning, Argumentation, and Deliberative Democracy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R.
1998Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
North, D.
1990Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E.
1986An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48(1), 3–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P.
1993When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pimenova, O.
(2021) The Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: Path Dependency in the Crown’s Reasoning. American Review of Canadian Studies, 51 (4), 649–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pirsoul, N.
2019The deliberative deficit of prior consultation mechanisms. Australian Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 255–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Ch
1987The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
1999Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal complexity. Health Services Research, 34 (5), 1225–1239.Google Scholar
Rein, M., & Schön, D.
1993Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer, & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Restall, G., and Kaufert, J.
2011Understanding how context shapes citizen-user involvement in policymaking. Healthcare Policy, 7(2): 68–82.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.
1988An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 211, 129–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, T.
(1992) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K., and Weingast, B.
1981Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37(3), 503–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Ch., and Lodge, M.
2006Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tindale, Ch
2007Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press: New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H.
2005Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tuchman, B.
1984The march of folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F., and Grootendorst, R.
1987Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F.
2017Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse. In van Eemeren, F., and Peng, W. Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagenaar, H.
2011Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. Armonk, New York.Google Scholar
Walton, D.
1999The new dialectic: a method of evaluating an argument used for some purpose in a given case. ProtoSociology, 131, 70 – 91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B.
1965Social facilitation. Science, 149 (Whole No. 3681), 269–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar