Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis

Studies of the function and process of interactive argument in group contexts have become increasingly prevalent in the last decade. A prominent program of research in this domain is work associated with the structurational perspective on group decision‐making. To date, much of this research has been theoretical and qualitative in nature. This investigation extends prior work in pursuing two objectives: (a) refinement of the structurational argument coding scheme, and (b) preliminary quantitative analysis of argument in decision‐making groups. Following a review of past structurational argument research, the coding scheme is evaluated and revised. Forty‐five decision‐making discussions were coded using the revised coding scheme and these results were evaluated via descriptive statistics. Findings revealed that (a) the groups’ arguments consisted mainly of Assertions, Elaborations, and Agreement, and (b) the revisions to the coding scheme provided increased conceptual clarity. Implications of each finding are discussed.

Notes

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Scott Britten, Larry King, Paul Lakey, and Jimmy Smith (University of Oklahoma) for their help in coding the data, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.