Inviting Constructive Argument

References

• Annas, P. J. , & Tenney, D. (1996). Positioning oneself: A feminist approach to argument. In B. Emmel , P. Resch , & D. Tenney . (Eds), Argument revisited; Argument redefined: Negotiating meaning in the composition classroom (pp. 127–152.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Baxter, L. A. , & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics .New York: Guilford..
   Google Scholar
• Biesecker, B. (1992). Coming to terms with recent attempts to write women into the history of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 25, 140–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickford, S. (1996). The dissonance of democracy: Listening, conflict and citizenship . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bile, J. T. (1995). Communication, advocacy, argumentation, and feminisms: Toward a dialectical partnership. Speaker and Gavel , 32, 55–70.
   Google Scholar
• Board of Student Advisors, Harvard Law School (1981). Introduction to advocacy: Brief writing and oral argument in moot court competition (3rd ed.). Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brockriede, W. (1972). Arguers as lovers. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 5, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner, M. L. (1996). Producing identities: Gender problematization and feminist argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy , 32, 185–198.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, D. C. (1953). Rhetoric: Its function and its scope. QuarterlyJournal of Speech , 39, 401–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1950).
   Google Scholar
• Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and change. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1935).
   Google Scholar
• Bush, R. A. B. , & Folger, J. P. (1994). The promise of mediation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Canary, D.J. , Brossman, B. G. , & Seibold, D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal , 53, 18–37.
   Google Scholar
• Canary, D. J. , Weger, H. Jr. , & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples' argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication , 55, 159–179.
   Google Scholar
• Canary, D. J. , Brossman, J.E. , Brossman, B. G. , & Weger, H., Jr . (1995). Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: Analyses of episode-specific argument structures. Communication Monographs , 62, 183–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conger, J. A. (1998). The necessary art of persuasion. Harvard Business Review , 76(3), 84–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crenshaw, C. (1995). The arguer's identity: A feminist perspective on the practice of argumentation theory. Speaker and Gavel , 32, 13–25.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, D. B. , Winsor, J. L. , & Stephens, R. D. (1989). National preferences in business and communication education. Communication Education , 38, 6–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelman, J. & Crain, M. B. (1993). The tao of negotiation . New York: Harper Business.
   Google Scholar
• Emmel, B. , Resch, P. , & Tenney, D. . (Eds). (1996). Argument revisited; Argument redefined: Negotiating meaning in the composition classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R. , & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Building relationships as we negotiate . New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R , Ury, W , & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Folger, J. P , Poole, M.S. , & Stutman, R. K. (1993). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups and organizations . New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Follett, M. P. (1942). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick . (Eds), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49).New York: Harper & Brothers. (Reprinted from H. C. Metcalf (Ed.), Scientific foundations of business administration , Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1926).
   Google Scholar
• Foss, K. A. , & Foss, S. K. (1989). Incorporating the feminist perspective in communication scholarship: A research commentary. In K. Carter & C. Spitzack . (Eds.), Doing research on women's communication: Perspectives on theory and method (pp. 65–91. Harwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, S.K. , & Griffin, C.L. (1992). A feminist perspective on rhetorical theory: Toward a clarification of boundaries. WesternJournal of Communication , 56, 330–349.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, S. K. , & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62, 2–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritz, J.M.H. (1995). Feminist perspectives, structuration theory and compliance-gaining: An exploratory integration. Speaker and Gavel , 32, 38–54.
   Google Scholar
• Fulkerson, R. (1996). Transcending our conception of argument in light of feminist critiques. Argumentation and Advocacy , 32, 199–217.
   Google Scholar
• Gearhart, S.M. (1979). The womanization of rhetoric. Women's Studies International Quarterly , 2, 195–201.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhouse, C J. (1992). Signs of quality: Individual and hierarchy in American culture. American Ethnologist , 79, 233–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna, M. S. (1978). Speech communication training needs in the business community. Central States Speech Journal , 29, 163–172.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, R. P. , & Burks, D. M. (1972). Rhetorical sensitivity and social interaction. Speech Monograph , 39, 75–91.
   Google Scholar
• Hocker, J. L. , & Wilmot, W. W. (1995). Interpersonal conflict (4th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
   Google Scholar
• Jarratt, S.C. (1991). Rereading the sophists: Classical rhetoric refigured Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johannesen, R. L. (1971). The emerging concept of communication as dialogue. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 57, 373–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, T. S. (1997, November). Emotional communication in conflict: Essence and impact. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, N. H. , & Lawyer, J. W. (1985). Communication and conflict resolution skilh . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, N. , & McNulty, K. (1994). Interpersonal conflict resolution skilh. Unpublished course materials, Syracuse University.
   Google Scholar
• Kells, M. H. (1999). [Review of the book Argument revisited, argument redefined: Negotiating meaning in the composition classroom]. Argumentation and Advocacy , 35, 192–195.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorf, K. (1995). Undoing power. Critical Studies in Mass Communication , 72, 101–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1990). Talking power . New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lax, D. A. & Sebenius, J. K. (1993). Interests: The measure of negotiation. In J. W. Breslin & J. Z. Rubin . (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 161–180). Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. (Reprinted from Negotiation Journal , 2, 73–92, 1986).
   Google Scholar
• O'Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monograph , 55, 80–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osmunson, S. E. , & Miller, L. D. (1982, May). Can we teach reframing? An empirical test of a communication probhm solving skill. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 216 406).
   Google Scholar
• Palczewski, C. H. (1996). Special issue: Argumentation and feminisms [editor's introduction]. Argumentation and Advocacy , 32, 161–169.
   Google Scholar
• Palmerton, P. R. (1992). Teaching skills or teaching thinking? Journal of Applied Communication Research , 20, 335–341.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, W. B. , & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C. , & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation ( J. Wilkinson , P. Weaver , Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958).
   Google Scholar
• Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M. H. Bazerman & R.J. Lewicki . (Eds), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 35–50. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, L. L. (1994). Challenging the assumptions of traditional approaches to negotiation. Negotiation Journal , 70, 337–346.
   Google Scholar
• Tindell, J. H. (1999). Argumentation and debate textbooks: An overview of content and focus. Argumentation and Advocacy , 35, 185–191.
   Google Scholar
• Vatz, R. E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 6, 154–161.
   Google Scholar
• Willard, C.A. (1989). A theory of argumentation . Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, N. (1993, November 29). Are opinions male? The New Republic , pp. 20–25.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegelmueller, G. , Harris, S. , & Bloomingdale, D. (1995). Advancing in debate: Skilh and concept . Topeka, KS: Clark.
   Google Scholar