Monday
Jul182011
- “Argumentation in Political Deliberation”, 2 September 2011
International Colloquium
ArgLab - IFL
Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa
2 September 2011
Abstracts:
1. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation
ILIAS and University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract:
Frans van Eemeren explains how to tackle the problems involved in analyzing and
evaluating argumentative discourse in political deliberation from a pragma-dialectical
perspective. After having first discussed the pragma-dialectical perspective on
argumentative discourse he makes clear why incorporating a reconstruction of the
the strategic maneuvering that takes place in argumentative discourse adds to the
thoroughness and preciseness of its analysis and evalualuation. Next he concentrates
on the specific problems involved in the analysis and evaluation of strategic
maneuvering in argumentative discourse in the institutional context of political
deliberation. In his discussion of these problems he focuses on the commonalities
and differences between strategic maneuvering in political deliberation in different
communicative activity types.
2. Strategic maneuvering in the European Parliament
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract:
To be announced
Commentary:
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
3. Pursuing multiple aims in European Parliamentary debates: debating EU
immigration policies as a case in point
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract:
In this paper, I aim to shed light on the multi-purposive nature of debates in the
European Parliament. In these debates, Members of European Parliament (MEPs)
pursue several institutional aims (further national interests, negotiate a European
identity, promote political groups agendas, hold the EU executive bodies to account
for their performance, etc.). In particular, I examine the debate on immigration in
the wake of the exceptional migratory flows from North Africa early this year. By
analysing the different points of view argued for by MEPs in their contributions to
this debate, I aim at identifying the different aims that are typically pursued by MEPs
in such debates and the ways in which argumentation is employed in this pursuit.
Commentary:
University of East Anglia, UK
4. Dealing with counterarguments in the public deliberations on the future promised
by nanotechnologies
Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France
Abstract:
In this paper, we examine two methods of public participation, namely consensus
conference (conférence de citoyens) and public hearing (débat public), that have
been applied in France on the deliberation over the issue of the development and
applications of nanotechnology. While both methods come under the deliberative
genre of communication, they differ in a number of aspects, such as the status and role
of the participants involved, the time scale and the duration as well as the mode of
communication. Our aim is to look at the ways in which the procedural properties of
these two methods of public participation affect the expression and the evaluation of
counter-arguments.
Commentary (t.b.c.):
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
5. Deliberation Digitized: Governing argument in mediated society.
Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA
Abstract:
This paper discusses the problem of argumentative governance in deliberation.
Deliberative activity involves advancing and responding to positions taken up by
participants but it also involves responsibility for how the direction of argumentation
is managed and thus the content and outcomes of deliberation. This has not been a
focal concern of much contemporary argumentation theory, which has tended to focus
on the reasonableness of messages and the correctness of inferences about messages
while leaving unaddressed the pragmatic problems of argumentative governance.
To address this, this paper examines deliberative practice by taking stock of online
deliberation. It first considers some key matters facing interlocutors in managing the
content and process of online deliberation. This reveals the problem of looking at
online deliberation without considering the technological context. It then considers
how the digitization of communication and information has fostered the proliferation
of communication-information services for deliberation. When seen as solutions
to the differing aspects of the problem of argumentative governance, then it is
possible to see new ways in which argumentation can be analyzed that can advance
understanding of deliberation in the mediated society.
6. The development of online echo-chambers: the inclusion and exclusion of
dissenting voices on online forums about public issues
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract:
According to the deliberative theory of democracy public deliberation is aimed at
the transformation of privately held preferences and opinions into positions that
can withstand public scrutiny and criticism. This assumes the availability of public
fora on which individuals with different points of view participate in argumentative
discussions. Several studies have highlighted that the fragmentation of the online
domain results in the emergence of ‘echo chambers’ which tend to amplify pre-
existing views and to exclude dissenting voices (Sunstein, 2001).
In this paper we look at the processes by which an online forum may develop into
such a homogeneous community. Which processes of inclusion and exclusion
take place and how? How do these processes manifest themselves in verbal
communication between participants? How are community managers involved in
this? We look at the Dutch skeptical website Climategate.nl that was established in
November 2009 after the hack of emails of climate scientists of the Climatic Research
Unit of the University of East-Anglia.
Commentary:
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
7. "Super participation" in online "Third Spaces"
University of East Anglia, UK University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Abstract:
This paper takes forward a new agenda for online deliberation research: the study of
everyday political talk in non-political, online “third spaces” (Wright, forthcoming;
Graham, 2011). Conducting research in third spaces raises difficult methodological
questions. This paper uses an innovative, multi-method approach (Wright, UR) to
overcome these issues. Moreover, it will focus on “super-participants” (SPs): most
studies of deliberation online have found dominant minorities. Surprisingly no
detailed analysis of their behavior has been undertaken.
This paper develops a typology of participation to categorize users. For example, SPs
are defined as users who have made 2000+ posts, created more than 5% of messages,
or started more than 5% of new threads. The paper focuses on one “third space”,
www.moneysavingexpert.com, and explores two principal research questions:
1) What is the volume and nature of participation?
2) What motivates and drives SPs?
First, a screen-scraping script will be used to collect and analyze posting
patterns across the whole forum. This is adapted from Wright’s (2006) previous
groundbreaking study that used live screen scraping to analyze (post) moderation
practices on the Downing Street forum. Second, thirty SPs will be randomly selected
for a hand-coded content analysis of their postings, which will determine whether they
attempt to dominate or facilitate discussions, and how they discuss. Regarding the
latter, the analysis will focus on the deliberativeness of SPs’ participation. In addition
to examining the levels of rationality, critical reflection, and use of supporting
evidence, the coding scheme will pay particular attention to several key dispositional
and social conditions of deliberation (e.g. reciprocity, reflexivity, and discursive
equality). Finally, interviews will be conducted with SPs to explore how they
perceive their posting behavior and why they participate. To summarize, the paper
will make several contributions to the field. It will: provide the first detailed analysis
of SPs; extend the new third space research agenda; and break new methodological
ground.
Commentary:
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
8. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract:
Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion
in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue” (pro and con). However,
many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online
deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the
same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible
opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this paper is
to shed extra light on such “polylogical” clash of opinions in online deliberation,
by examining the multi-layered participation in such discussions and analyzing the
formulation and development of multiple positions in actual online debates. The
examples will be drawn from the readers’ discussions on Osama bin-Laden’s killing
in two online versions of British newspapers: Guardian and The Telegraph.
Commentary:
Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France