Note-taking as communication design: promoting democratic processes

References

• Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 341–371. doi: 10.1080/00909880128113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74, 112–117. doi: 10.1080/03637750701196383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aakhus, M. (2011). Crafting interactivity for stakeholder engagement: Transforming assumptions about communication in science and policy. Health Physics, 101, 531–535. doi: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318222ede0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aakhus, M., & Bzdak, M. (2015). Stakeholder engagement as communication design practice. Journal of Public Affairs, 15, 188–200. doi: 10.1002/pa.1569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411–435). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Barbour, J. B., Gill, R. & Barge, J. K. (2018a). Exploring the intersections of individual and collective communication design: A research agenda. In P. J. Salem & E. Timmerman (Eds.), Transformative practice and research in organizational communication (pp. 89–108). doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2823-4.ch006
   Google Scholar
• Barbour, J. B., Gill, R., & Barge, J. K. (2018b). Organizational communication design logics: A theory of communicative intervention and collective communication design. Communication Theory, 28, 332–353. doi: 10.1093/ct/qtx005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barge, J. K., & Craig, R. T. (2009). Practical theory in applied communication scholarship. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 55–78). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit-Barne, C., & Corren, F. (2009). The accomplishment of authority through presentification: How authority is distributed among and negotiated by organizational members. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 5–31. doi: 10.1177/0893318909335414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcasson, M., & Sprain, L. (2016). Beyond problem solving: Reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Communication Theory, 26, 41–63. doi: 10.1111/comt.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373–393. doi: 10.1177/1350508404041998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, R. T. (2006). Communication as a practice. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as … : Perspectives on theory (pp. 38–47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2014). Building grounded practical theory in applied communication research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(3), 229–243. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2014.916410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer, K. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Creese, A., Bhatt, A., Bhojani, N., & Martin, P. (2008). Fieldnotes in team ethnography: Researching complementary schools. Qualitative Research, 8, 197–215. doi: 10.1177/1468794107087481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fagotto, E., & Fung, A. (2006). Embedded deliberation: Entrepreneurs, organizations, and public action. Final Report for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Fitch, K. L. (2005). Preface to Section IV: Discourse analysis. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 253–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, T. R. (2014). Enhancing communication interventions and evaluations through communication design. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 135–149. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2013.825047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. (1998). Disputation by design. Argumentation, 12(2), 183–198. doi: 10.1023/A:1007743830491
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S., & Aakhus, M. (2014). Becoming more reflective about the role of design in communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 125–134. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2014.882009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leighninger, M. (2005). The recent evolution of democracy. National Civic Review, 94(1), 17–28. doi: 10.1002/ncr.79
   Google Scholar
• MacLean, S., & Burgess, M. M. (2010). In the public interest: Assessing expert and stakeholder influence in public deliberation about biobanks. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 486–496. doi: 10.1177/0963662509335410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114–133. doi: 10.1177/1461444810365313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEachern, R. W. (1998). Meeting minutes as symbolic action. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12, 198–216. doi: 10.1177/1050651998012002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, K. R., & Hunt, S. (2017). The lost art of lecturing: Cultivating student listening and notetaking. Communication Education, 66, 239–241. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2016.1275719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullen, K. C., & Thompson, J. L. (2013). Graphic recording: Using vivid visuals to communicate climate change. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 23(3). Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/023/3/023034.html
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80–103. doi: 10.1080/03637758809376159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pateman, C. (2012). APSA presidential address: Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1), 7–19. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23327060 doi: 10.1017/S1537592711004877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., Carcasson, M., & Merolla, A. J. (2014). Utilizing “on tap” experts in deliberative forums: Implications for design. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 150–167. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2013.859292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titsworth, B. S. (2004). Students’ notetaking: The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity. Communication Education, 53, 305–320. doi: 10.1080/0363452032000305922
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, K. (2008). “Reasonable hostility”: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(2), 169–191. doi: 10.1515/JPLR.2008.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, K. (2010). Challenges of ordinary democracy: A case study in deliberation and dissert. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walford, G. (2009). The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Ethnography and Education, 4, 117–130. doi: 10.1080/17457820902972713
   Google Scholar
• Whittaker, S., Tucker, S., Swampillai, K., & Laban, R. (2008). Design and evaluation of systems to support interaction capture and retrieval. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12, 197–221. doi: 10.1007/s00779-007-0146-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, J. (2006). Meeting minutes as a rhetorical genre: Discrepancies between professional writing textbooks and workplace practice tutorial. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 354–364. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2006.885837
   Google Scholar
• Wolfinger, N. H. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: Collection strategies and background expectancies. Qualitative Research, 2, 85–93. doi: 10.1177/1468794102002001640
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., & Chang, L. (2014). Perceived speech conditions and disagreement of everyday talk: A proceduralist perspective of citizen deliberation. Communication Theory, 24, 124–145. doi: 10.1111/comt.12034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar