Extending the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme: Argument Categories, Units, and Coding Procedures

REFERENCES

• Auld , F. and White , A. M. 1956 . Rules for dividing interviews into sentences . Journal of Psychology , 42 : 273 – 281 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barge , J. K. 2002 . “ Enlarging the meaning of group deliberation: From discussion to dialogue ” . In New directions in group communication , Edited by: Frey , L. R. 159 – 178 . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib , S. 1996 . “ Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy ” . In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political , Edited by: Benhabib , S. 67 – 94 . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press .
   Google Scholar
• Brashers , D. and Meyers , R. A. . Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Annandale, VA. Tag-team argument and group decision making: A preliminary investigation , Edited by: Gronbeck , B. pp. 542 – 550 . Speech Communication Association .
   Google Scholar
• Brossmann , B. G. and Canary , D. J. 1990 . An observational analysis of argument structures: The case of Nightline . Argumentation , 4 : 199 – 212 .
   Google Scholar
• Burkhalter , S. , Gastil , J. and Kelshaw , T. 2002 . A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups . Communication Theory , 12 : 398 – 422 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. 1992 . Manual for coding conversational arguments , Department of Speech Communication, Pennsylvania State University, University Park .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. , Brossmann , B. G. and Seibold , D. R. 1987 . Argument structures in decision-making groups . Southern Speech Communication Journal , 53 : 18 – 37 .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. , Brossmann , B. G. , Sillars , A. L. and LoVette , S. . Married couples' argument structures and sequences: A comparison of satisfied and dissatisfied dyads . Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Annandale, VA. Edited by: Wenzel , J. W. pp. 475 – 484 . Speech Communication Association .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. , Ratledge , N. T. and Seibold , D. R. . Argument and group decision making: Development of a coding scheme . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association . Louisville, KY. November ,
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. and Sillars , A. L. 1992 . “ Argument in satisfied and dissatisfied married couples ” . In Readings in argumentation , Edited by: Benoit , W. L. , Hample , D. and Benoit , P. J. 737 – 764 . New York : Foris .
   Google Scholar
• Canary , D. J. , Weger , H. Jr. and Stafford , L. 1991 . Couples argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics . Western Journal of Speech Communication , 55 : 159 – 179 .
   Google Scholar
• Cohen , J. 1997 . “ Deliberation and democratic legitimacy ” . In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics , Edited by: Bohman , J. and Rehg , W. 67 – 91 . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press .
   Google Scholar
• Davis , R. 1999 . The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system , New York : Oxford University Press .
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin , J. S. and Luskin , R. C. 1999 . “ Bringing deliberation to the democratic dialogue ” . In The poll with a human face: The National Issues Convention experiment in political communication , Edited by: McCombs , M. and Reynolds , A. 3 – 38 . Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum .
   Google Scholar
• Gastil , J. 1992 . A definition of small group democracy . Small Group Research , 23 : 278 – 301 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil , J. 1993 . Identifying obstacles to small group democracy . Small Group Research , 24 : 5 – 27 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil , J. 2000 . By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections , Berkeley : University of California Press .
   Google Scholar
• Gastil , J. and Dillard , J. P. 1999 . The aims, methods, and effects of deliberative civic education through the National Issues Forums . Communication Education , 48 : 1 – 14 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddens , A. 1984 . The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration , Berkeley : University of California Press .
   Google Scholar
• Gouran , D. S. . Moving forward/looking back: The functions of argument in inducing and managing conflict in decision-making and problem-solving groups . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association . Chicago. November ,
   Google Scholar
• Graham , T. and Witschge , T. 2003 . In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussion . Communications , 28 : 173 – 204 .
   Google Scholar
• Hatfield , J. D. and Weider-Hatfield , D. 1978 . The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis . Communication Monographs , 45 : 44 – 50 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber , J. , Johnson , M. , Hill , R. , Meyers , R. A. and Seibold , D. R. . Examining the argument process in jury decision making . Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association . Chicago. November ,
   Google Scholar
• Jackson , S. and Jacobs , S. 1980 . Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic cases for the enthymeme . Quarterly Journal of Speech , 66 : 251 – 265 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauffeld , S. and Meyers , R. A. 2009 . Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 18 : 267 – 294 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemus , D. R. , Seibold , D. R. , Flanagin , A. J. and Metzger , M. J. 2004 . Argument in computer-mediated groups . Journal of Communication , 54 : 302 – 320 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovaglia , M. , Mannix , E. A. , Samuelson , C. D. , Sell , J. and Wilson , R. K. 2005 . “ Conflict, power, and status in groups ” . In Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives , Edited by: Poole , M. S. and Hollingshead , A. B. 139 – 184 . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge , J. J. 1990 . Feminism and democracy . American Prospect , 1 : 126 – 139 .
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., Hartz-Karp, J., Amengual, M., & Gastil, J. (2006). Norms of deliberation: An inductive study. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2 http://services. bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art7 (Accessed: 4 September 2008 ).
   Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. 1987 . Argument and group decision-making: An interactional test of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an alternative Structurational perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1987 . Dissertation Abstracts International , 49 : 12
   Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. 1989 . Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions . Human Communication Research , 15 : 357 – 381 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. and Brashers , D. E. . Multi-stage versus single-stage coding of small group argument: A preliminary comparative assessment . Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Annandale, VA. Edited by: Jackson , S. pp. 93 – 100 . Speech Communication Association .
   Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. and Brashers , D. E. 2002 . “ Rethinking traditional approaches to argument in groups ” . In New directions in group communication , Edited by: Frey , L. R. 141 – 158 . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
   Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. , Brashers , D. E. and Hanner , J. 2000 . Majority/minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcomes links . Journal of Communication , 50 : 3 – 30 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers , R. A. , Seibold , D. R. and Brashers , D. 1991 . Argument in initial group decision-making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis . Western Journal of Speech Communication , 55 : 47 – 68 .
   Google Scholar
• Murray , E. J. 1956 . A content-analysis method for studying psychotherapy . Psychological Monographs , 70 ( 13 ) Whole No. 420
   Google Scholar
• Page , B. I. 1996 . Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy , Chicago : University of Chicago Press .
   Google Scholar
• Perelman , C. H. and Olbrechts-Tyteca , L. 1969 . The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation , Edited by: Wilkinson , J. and Weaver , P. Notre Dame, IN : University of Notre Dame Press .
   Google Scholar
• Poole , M. S. , Seibold , D. R. and McPhee , R. D. 1985 . Group decision-making as a structurational process . Quarterly Journal of Speech , 71 : 74 – 102 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratledge , N. E. T. 1986 . Theoretical and methodological integrity of a structurational scheme for coding argument in decision-making groups , Los Angeles : Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California .
   Google Scholar
• Ryfe , D. M. 2005 . “ Does deliberative democracy work? ” . In Annual review of political science , 8th , Edited by: Polsby , N. Vol. 8 , 49 – 71 . Palo Alto, CA : Annual Reviews .
   Google Scholar
• Sanders , L. M. 1997 . Against deliberation . Political Theory , 25 : 347 – 376 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seibold , D. R. , Canary , D. J. and Tanita-Ratledge , N. . Argument and group decision-making: Interim report on a structurational research program . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association . Washington, DC. November ,
   Google Scholar
• Seibold , D. R. and Lemus , D. R. 2005 . “ Argument quality in group deliberation: A structurational approach and quality of argument index ” . In Critical problems in argumentation , Edited by: Willard , C. A. 203 – 215 . Washington, DC : National Communication Association .
   Google Scholar
• Seibold , D. R. , McPhee , R. D. , Poole , M. S. , Tanita , N. E. and Canary , D. J. . Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes . Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second SCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation . Annandale, VA. Edited by: Ziegelmueller , C. and Rhodes , J. pp. 663 – 692 . Speech Communication Association .
   Google Scholar
• Seibold , D. R. and Meyers , R. A. 2007 . Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program . Small Group Research , 38 : 312 – 336 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smircich , L. and Morgan , G. 1982 . Leadership: The management of meaning . The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 18 : 257 – 273 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith , G. and Wales , C. 1999 . The theory and practice of citizen juries . Policy and Politics , 27 : 295 – 308 .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3. http://services.bepress.com/cgi/query.cgi
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin , S. E. 1958 . The uses of argument , Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
   Google Scholar
• Weger , H. Jr. and Canary , D. J. . A closer look at argument behavior in dyads . Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation . Annandale, VA. Edited by: Parson , D. W. pp. 211 – 216 . Speech Communication Association .
   Google Scholar