A qualitative evidence synthesis of normative rhetorical theory scholarship

ABSTRACT

Normative rhetorical theory (NRT, also called normative theory of social support; Goldsmith, [(2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511606984]) has aided scholars in exploring when and why some interpersonal conversations are evaluated as more successful than others. Despite proliferation in its use, there has not yet been a review of this body of work until now. This manuscript reports on a qualitative evidence synthesis of 29 empirical articles that utilized NRT as a primary framework. Findings describe the nature of this scholarship including the features of NRT studies, commonalities in how theoretical components have been applied, and patterns across categories of dilemmas and strategies. Results help to hone NRT as a heuristic framework and provide a foundation for theorizing.

KEYWORDS:

• dilemmas
• normative theory of social support
• normative rhetorical theory
• communication theory
• multiple goals
• qualitative evidence synthesis

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Daena Goldsmith, John Caughlin and Steve Wilson for inspiring our thinking about the future of NRT scholarship, in part by participating in a conference panel on the topic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).f

Notes

1 We selected a health focus because most of the articles the authors were aware of prior to data collection examined social support in a health context.

2 Kosenko (2010) explained: ‘out of respect for the fluidity of gender and sexual identity experienced and expressed by participants, gender and sexual identity data are not reported here’ (p. 134).

3 This number represents all articles that reference strategies in some way. Our analysis, however, further categorized strategies into these three conceptual groups as outlined by Goldsmith (2019).

4 The three Goldsmith articles were incorporated into one data point as they reported on dilemmas and strategies from a single data set. We excluded the following: Donné et al., 2017; Gettings, 2019; Gray, 2014; Iannarino et al., 2017; Kosenko et al., 2012; Miller & Caughlin, 2013; and Wittenberg-Lyles et al., 2014.