- Thomas A. Hollihan , “Conditional Arguments and the Hypothesis Testing Paradigm: A Negative View,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , this issue, pp. 178.
- David Zarefsky and Bill Henderson , “Hypothesis Testing in Theory and Practice,” Journal of the American Forensic Association , this issue, p. 182.
- Robert D. Hershey, Jr. , “Stockman and His Doubts are Rejected,” New York Times , 16 November 1981, IV, p. 1:3.
- Anthony Giddens , New Rules of Sociological Method (London: Hutchingson, 1976), p. 53.
- For an excellent discussion of struc-turationist theory see: Patricia Riley , “Organizational Political Image: A Structurationist Communication Analysis,” unpublished dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1982, pp. 62–92.
- Robert D. McPhee and Marshall Scott Poole , “A Theory of Structuration: The Perspective of Anthony Giddens and Its Relevance to Contemporary Communication Research,” paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, New York, November, 1980, p. 3.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 180.
- Hollihan , p. 176.
- Hollihan , p. 177.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 180.
- For a discussion of the problems surrounding the wording of hypotheses see: Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research , 2d ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1973), p. 23.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 180.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 181.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 181.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 185.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 185.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 185.
- Wayne Brockriede , “Arguing About Human Understanding,” Communication Monographs , 49 (September 1982): 137–47.
- Brockriede , p. 138.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 185.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 185.
- For a discussion of the “study” counterplan see: Thomas J. Hynes, Jr., “Study: Hope or False Promise,” Journal of the American Forensic Association 16 (Winter 1980): 192–98.
- This is the distinction Zarefsky and Henderson make between the National Development Conference goals they claim that I endorse and those they claim to endorse. See: Zarefsky and Henderson, p. 185.
- Robert C. Rowland , “The Primacy of Standards for Paradigm Evaluation: A Rejoinder,” Journal of the American Forensic Association 18 (Winter 1982), p. 160.
- Zarefsky and Henderson , p. 184.
- This argument uses “communication style” in Bormann's sense of the term. See: Ernest G. Bormann, Communication Theory (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980), pp. 59–80. It is more fully developed in Patricia Riley and Thomas A. Hollihan, “Paradigms as Eristic: A Changed Element in Intercollegiate Debate,” paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Louisville, Kentucky, November, 1982.
The Journal of the American Forensic Association
Volume 19, 1983 - Issue 3