Advancing critical discourse analysis of Indigenous consultations: Argument Continuity v. epistemic vigilance

References

• Ball, S. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories, and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2): 10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, T. R. 1977. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, A., and R. H. Johnson. 1987. “Argumentation as Dialectical.” Argumentation 1 (1): 41–56. doi:10.1007/BF00127118.
   Google Scholar
• Braman, E. 2009. Law, Politics, and Perception: How Policy Preferences Influence Legal Reasoning. Charlottesville: the University of Virginia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, K., and Holroyd, C. (2019). Natural Resources and Aboriginal Autonomy: Economic Development and the Boundaries of Indigenous Control and Engagement. In Reclaiming Indigenous Governance: Reflections and Insights from Australia, edited by N. Nikolakis, W. Cornell, Stephen. Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. University of Arizona Press: ProQuest Ebook Central.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., and Smith, E. (1996). A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psycology, 71(1): 5–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., and E. Smith. 1996. “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 71 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. 1990. “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 15 (2): 226–243. doi:10.1177/016224399001500204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1981. “Questioning and Organizing Attention: Toward a Critical Theory of Planning and Administrative Practice.” Administration & Society 13 (2): 161–205. doi:10.1177/009539978101300203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, F., and B. Staw. 1979. “The Trapped Administrator: Effects of Job Insecurity and Policy Resistance Upon Commitment to a Course of Action.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (3): 449–471. doi:10.2307/2989922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, J. 2007. “Argument Has No Function.” Informal Logic 27 (1): 69. doi:10.22329/il.v27i1.465.
   Google Scholar
• Goudge, S. 2016. “The Berger Inquiry in Retrospect: Its Legacy the Honourable Stephen Goudge.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 28 (2): 393–407. doi:10.3138/cjwl.28.2.393.
   Google Scholar
• Govier, T. (2019). Problems in Argument Anaysis and Evaluation. De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Hacker, J. 2004. “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing Benefits: Path Dependence, Policy Drift, and Welfare-State Reform in the United States.” The American Political Science Review 98 (2): 243–260. doi:10.1017/S0003055404001121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, U. 2011. “The Problem of Circularity in Evidence, Argument, and Explanation.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (2): 172–182. doi:10.1177/1745691611400240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaczynski, P. 1997. “Bias in Adolescents’ Everyday Reasoning and Its Relationship with Intellectual Ability, Personal Theories, and Self-Serving Motivation.” Developmental Psychology 33 (2): 273–283. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Political Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagewaard, T. J. 2021. “Epistemic Injustice and Deepened Disagreement.” Philosophical Studies 178 (5): 1571–1592. doi:10.1007/s11098-020-01496-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalwani, A., Z. Jin, T. Vaidhya, X. Shen, Y. Ding, Z. Lyu, M. Sachan, R. Mihalcea, and B. Schoelkopf. 2022. “Logical Fallacy Detection.” Computation and Language. 7209–7227. Published online.
   Google Scholar
• Levi, M. 1981. “The Predatory Theory of Rule.” Politics & Society 10 (4): 431–465. doi:10.1177/003232928101000403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., and T. Charles. 2000. “Three Steps Toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason. Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, edited by A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, and S. Popkin, 183–213. London: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511805813.009.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, C., L. Ross, and M. Lepper. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 37 (11): 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory & Society 29 (4): 507–548. doi:10.1023/A:1007113830879.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. 1964. “Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary Approaches.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkowitz, 192–229. New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., and H. Landemore. 2012. “Reasoning is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation.” Political Psychology 33 (2): 243–258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 57–74. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. 2005. “Power and Political Institutions.” Perspectives on Politics 3 (2): 215–233. doi:10.1017/S1537592705050176.
   Google Scholar
• Muldoon, P. R. 1989. Law of Intervention. Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, D. 1983. Pipelines and Public Politics: A Study of the Public Record of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Saskatoon: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pimenova, O. (2022). Argument Continuities in Theory and Practice: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11(2): 200–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pimenova, O. (2023). Dominant Discourse in Indigenous Consultations: A Comparative Study of the Crown’s Reasoning. International Journal on Minority & Group Rights, 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepsle, K., and B. Weingast. 1981. “Structure-Induced Equilibrium and Legislative Choice.” Public Choice 37 (3): 503–520. doi:10.1007/BF00133748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., F. Clement, C. Heintz, O. Mascaro, H. Mercier, G. Origgi, and D. Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25 (4): 359–393. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. 2021. The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking. MIT Press Direct. doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2): 175–195. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., and M. Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, L. Skitka, R. Boettger, and P. E. Tetlock. 1989. “Social and Cognitive Strategies for Coping with Accountability.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 57 (4): 632–640. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tindale, C. 2007. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806544.
   Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400831456.
   Google Scholar
• Valadez, J. 2010. “Deliberation, Cultural Difference, and Indigenous Self-Governance.” The Good Society 19 (2): 60–65. doi:10.5325/goodsociety.19.2.0060.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, F. 2017. “Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse.” In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics, F. van Eemeren and W. Peng, John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/aic.12
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, and R. Grootendorst. 2016. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315538662.
   Google Scholar
• Zajonc, R. 1965. “Social Facilitation.” Science 149 (Whole No. 3681): 269–274. doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar