Argumentative Discourse Analysis Research Articles

Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments

The existing classifications of arguments are unsatisfying in a number of ways. This paper proposes an alternative in the form of a Periodic Table of Arguments. The newly developed table can be used as a systematic and comprehensive point of reference for the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse as well as for various kinds of empirical and computational research in the field of argumentation theory.

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues

In this article I scrutinise a crucial tension in understanding the debate over shale gas production in Europe. On the one hand, analyses predominantly grasp the debate in terms of pro-and-con dialectics, as if the pro-shale gas camp faced the anti-shale gas camp in a dyadic clash of opposing voices. On the other hand, it is commonly recognised that this debate is driven by multi-party and multi-position argumentative dynamics. In this broader context, I focus on one pivotal contribution to the debate – Gazprom’s press release from October 2013 outlining Russia’s energy giant’s strategy of dealing with unconventional gas production. I employ concepts and methods of argumentative discourse analysis to contend that an arguer to a multi-party debate – argumentative polylogue – faces a number of constraints and opportunities that cannot be adequately grasped in terms of dyadic pro-and-con dialectics. The analysis reveals how Gazprom needs to simultaneously design its discourse to address a number of other parties who might also disagree among themselves: from Greenpeace to European Union governments to shale gas companies. I show why and how a stakeholder analysis used in organisational communication might lead to a better understanding of this form of multi-party public argumentation.

The discursive politics of unconventional gas in Scotland: Drifting towards precaution?

With a long history of oil and gas production and potentially significant reserves of unconventional gas, Scotland represents a notable case amid the growing international controversy over unconventional gas development (UGD). This article applies argumentative discourse analysis to the Scottish debate over UGD and identifies several important storylines which have mobilised different discourse coalitions and shaped public opinion as well as policy-making. For now, anti-UGD storylines appear more encompassing and have achieved greater resonance. Of particular interest, however, is the role of the Scottish government as a third discourse coalition. Through a moratorium on all forms of UGD and a cautious ‘evidence-based approach', the government has established a form of discursive dominance and has successfully minimised electoral risks. But its anti-Westminster storyline – created in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 – has undermined the government's pragmatic strategy by invoking Scottish resistance to the UK’s pursuit of shale gas. While the evidence-based approach persists as the preeminent storyline, its interpretation has ‘drifted’ from (1) a modestly reformed planning policy to (2) an exercise in scientific fact-finding combined with a public consultation and, arguably, (3) to a precautionary approach that might lay the foundation for an extended moratorium.

From REDD+ forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC

This paper explores an emerging discourse at the UNFCCC level - the integrated landscape approach discourse, which brings new understandings of how to approach forests in a climate change nexus. Its proponents argue that forestry, agriculture and other land uses cannot be seen in isolation, but need to be integrated into a single management process. I apply argumentative discourse analysis (Hajer, 1995) to a series of documents, statements, observations and interviews to identify and analyze the power of this discourse in the UNFCCC and in particular on the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) negotiations. The paper highlights the central arguments of its storylines, its main critique and identifies members of its discourse coalition. It also assesses its discursive power, and concludes that although storylines of the integrated landscape approach discourse may be well recognized in the UNFCCC, in particular at side-events (discourse structuration), it has yet to impose its logics and rationales in a profound way (discourse institutionalization).

Opening the Black Box of Communication Policy-Making: Analysing Policy Change Through the Lenses of Networks and Discourse

The paper adds a new perspective to the existing research on communication policy by proposing a methodological framework for the study of policy-making processes and the role of discourse within policy debates. The focus is on the creation of policy discourse on communication issues taking place in intergovernmental settings. In order to compare or evaluate policy initiatives, we need to understand how initiatives come about in the complex and highly politicized settings of international organizations that have the particularity of regrouping actors with very diverse backgrounds and interests. But instead of analyzing the interests, ideas and power relations of the individual and organizational actors involved, the paper proposes to look at policy ideas as the outcome of discursive struggles among networks of actors. It not simply asks which ideas are taken up in policy debates, but questions how it comes that certain ideas come to be adopted as the dominant thinking in intergovernmental policy-making bodies. Based on a critical review of Foucault’s notions of discourse, knowledge and power, the paper elaborates a methodological approach that combines Argumentative Discourse Analysis (ADA) ­­– initiated as Argumentative Policy Analysis by Frank Fischer and John Forester and further developed by Marteen Hajer – with the conceptual ideas of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), as developed by Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. While the first approach is used to assess the argumentative structures and narratives constituting the discourses behind main policy ideas, the later is chosen in order to describe the actors, processes and practices leading to these ideas.

The Gun Control Debate: Why Experience and Culture Matters

ABSTRACT The article revisits the gun control debate policy comparing the varied and diverse perspectives and viewpoints held by both the culturalist and empiricist, pro-gun society and gun less society on how the gun debate may be properly resolved through a pragmatic approach of policy-making- putting emphasis on culture, experience and observation with regards to gun control. In the process of employing an idea-based coalition approach and argumentative discourse analysis towards the brewing gun control debate, the article consequently realizes the convergent role of both cultural worldviews and public opinion plays at the very heart of deliberation on gun debate.

Local embedding of international discourse: Chile and the international and transnational anti-corruption campaign

The international and transnational anti-corruption campaign (ITACC) has successfully called global attention to the ‘abuse of delegated power for private gain’. However, several anti-corruption scholars have argued that the currently dominant ITACC is flawed because it ignores the fact that local understandings of corruption vary around the world. Others who have analysed the ITACC have claimed it is capable of effectively covering up these differences, in turn creating misunderstandings about the aims in the fight against corruption. While both arguments have been developed quite separately, this article combines and thereby advances both. It applies constructionist interviews and argumentative discourse analysis (ADA) to explore the local anti-corruption discourse in Chile – a country that is considered a success case in Latin America. The exploration shows that Chile’s anti-corruption activities are highly political and they are deeply related to narratives of the country’s transition to democracy. By relating these narratives back to the ITACC, the article reveals a complex interplay between local (competing) corruption narratives and the ITACC.

Abolishing the Audit Commission: Framing, Discourse Coalitions and Administrative Reform

The abolition of the Audit Commission in England raises questions about how a major reform was achieved with so little controversy, why the agency lacked the institutional stickiness commonly described in the literature on organisational reform and why it did not strategise to survive. In this paper, we apply argumentative discourse analysis to rich empirical data to reveal the pattern and evolution of storylines and discourse coalitions, and the ways in which these interact with and affect the practices of Parliament, the media and the Audit Commission itself. Our analysis shows that the politics of administrative reform are as much about discursive framing and the ability of pro-reformers to gain discursive structuration and institutionalisation as they are about the material resources available to a newly elected government and its ministers. Questions of technical feasibility are unlikely to derail a reform initiative once its promoters gain discursive ascendency.

Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis

The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but… constructions. Based on ( N = 22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but… constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialectics. The analysis focuses on how in conceding arguments speakers re-present others’ discourse, what types of criticism they exercise through particular sequential patterns and which argumentative techniques they saliently use. We show in particular that, in disputing the standpoints supported by the complex argumentation they encounter, speakers raise different types of criticism (sufficiency, relevance, acceptability). We discuss how examining not only the sequencing of agreements and disagreements, but also the argumentative relations that generate these, may extend our understanding of such concessive constructions.

Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results

General practice consultation has often been characterized by pragma-dialecticians as an argumentative activity type. These characterizations are typically derived from theoretical insights and qualitative analyses. Yet, descriptions that are based on quantitative data are thus far lacking. This paper provides a detailed account of the development of an instrument to guide the quantitative analysis of argumentation in doctor–patient consultation. It describes the implementation and preliminary results of a content analysis of seventy videotaped medical consultations of which the extent and type of doctors’ argumentative support for medical opinions and advice are analyzed. Based on the study results, this paper addresses the merits of observational studies using content analysis as a method for the analysis of argumentative discourse in context as well as some of its key challenges and limitations, laying bare the opportunities for future research.

Duty of Care, Safety, Normalisation and the Mental Capacity Act: A Discourse Analysis of Staff Arguments about Facilitating Choices for People with Learning Disabilities in UK Services

AbstractThe benefits of having choice and control for people with learning disabilitiesare well documented, and front‐line carers often make efforts ensuring that these are facilitated. However, despite this, government policy reports that disempowerment within learning disability services in the UK is a persistent problem. Using critical discursive psychology, 15 interviews with support workers about empowering people with learning disabilities were analysed. Interpretative repertoires about ‘duty of care’, ‘safety’ and ‘normalisation’ and discursive strategies involving ‘comparative evaluations’ were found, which opened speaker positions of granting or withholding choice, assuming responsibility for those in care and constructing service users as lacking capacity. These resources also allowed speakers to regulate the choices of service users and to normalise limited choice in ways that undermined taking up more empowering practices. The findings may explain the persistence of disempowerment within services by indicating how such discourses are deeply entrenched in service talk and are invoked to justify disempowering practices. This is discussed in view of the implications for empowerment and also current legislative frameworks such as the Mental Capacity Act. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis

Shale gas has become an energy policy priority in the United Kingdom in light of profitable extraction activities in the United States. Since 2012 the Coalition Government has created key economic drivers to encourage shale exploration, whilst growing activism in affected site communities has stirred significant media and academic commentary. This study examines the growing national debate as a matter of discourse, adopting an argumentative discourse analytic approach to assess data collected from stakeholder interviews (n=21) and key policy actor statements quoted in broadsheet newspapers. We explore three dominant “storylines” emerging in relation to shale gas policy: (1) “cleanliness and dirt” concerns the relative framing of the environmental benefits and harms of shale gas; (2) “energy transitions – pathways and diversions” concerns geographic metaphors of transitions to carbon intensive and low-carbon energy systems; and (3) “geographies of environmental justice” concerns divisions of economic benefit distribution, environmental impact and procedural fairness. We find that central government policy rhetoric emphasises economic development, regulatory oversight and distribution of benefits to site communities, whilst minimising discussion of the implications of shale gas for anthropogenic climate change. The role of these discourses in influencing shale gas policy is discussed.

Discourse Analysis of the Arguments Developed in Model Rocketry Learning Environment

Discourse Analysis of the Arguments Developed in Model Rocketry Learning Environment

The blending of discourses in Sweden’s “urge to go ahead” in climate politics

This paper investigates what made possible Sweden’s “urge to go ahead” in climate policy, an issue particularly interesting given the problem with non-compliance in the climate regime. The material reveals that there was tension regarding how great burden Sweden should shoulder and to what extent emissions reductions should be made domestically. Despite this tension, Sweden decided to have a more ambitious national target (−4 %) than required by the EU burden sharing agreement (+4 %), which allocated the EU’s Kyoto Protocol targets within EU-15. It was also decided that emissions reductions should not account for the flexible mechanisms or carbon sinks. Importantly, the national −4 % target was over-implemented (−16 % in 1990–2011). These decisions were institutionalized until the center-right government in 2009 formulated the 2020 targets. Using argumentative discourse analysis, I conclude that what made possible Sweden’s comparatively ambitious climate policy was the discourse coalitions (although different in character) formed around primarily two story lines that were blended: Opportunity (in line with the discourse on ecological modernization) and Ecological Justice (in line with the discourse on civic environmentalism). However, the latter was de-emphasized by the center-right government that came to power in 2006, reflecting the influence of a Sacrifice story line and the increased importance of the norm of cost-efficiency. Convincing others about the truthfulness of the Opportunity story line would possibly be effective for making others willing to commit to obligations and actually implement them. However, the diminishing importance of the Ecological Justice story line may affect negatively how Sweden is viewed internationally. If the overarching aim is to get as many countries as possible to commit to and comply with quantitative commitments within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, then it might not only be of importance whether Sweden can “deliver” but possibly also how one delivers.

Ethos and Critical Discourse Analysis: From Power to Solidarity

Works within Critical Discourse Analysis tend to concentrate on the analysis of institutionally reproduced power by dominant groups in society. Furthermore, focusing on negative or exceptionally serious social or political events results in the transition of the object of inquiry from the use of power to the abuse of power or at least its socially negative consequences. Therefore, and despite the explicit aim of siding with non-dominant groups in society, Critical Discourse Analysis focuses solely on the discourse of dominant groups, paradoxically leaving the discourse on non-dominant groups underexposed. Borrowing from French and Argumentative Discourse Analysis, the article proposes the co-optation of the concept of ethos in order to alleviate this problem. Specifically, ‘solidarity in discourse’ is presented as a useful approach to ethos within a Critical Discourse Analysis framework. As an illustration of the concept of ‘solidarity’ in discourse, the article presents an analysis of two texts from a very different interdiscursive tradition: a military statement by the Zapatista guerrilla (EZLN) and a newspaper column by the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe

European forests are a resource that is targeted by several EU environmental and land use policies as forests can be of critical importance to mitigate climate change. At the same time, they are central to the EU's biodiversity policy, and particular the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. Yet, the interlinkage between climate change and biodiversity policy is complex and discursively contested. In this paper, we assess how the debate on climate change adaptation affects forest conservation and management under Natura 2000. Drawing on the concept of argumentative discourse analysis, we present evidence from 213 qualitative interviews with policy stakeholders and practitioners that were conducted at both the European policy level and the local country level in 6 EU member states. Our results demonstrate that the nexus between climate change adaptation and forest conservation policy is conceptualised differently by different stakeholders and practioners at different levels. Three major discourses can be made out (pragmatic discourse, dynamics discourse, threat discourse), which are characterised by a set of partially overlapping story lines. These discourses are employed by four discourse coalitions (environmental, forest users’, expert, and grass root coalition). As a general rule, debates at the European level are more polarised and politicised, while the local debates on climate change and Natura 2000 remain rather vague and are less polarised. This seems to indicate that the link between climate change adaptation and forest conservation is mostly an issue for an abstract high-level policy debate. At this level, climate change is used to influence well-known policies, and to legitimise distinct interests that were already present before the climate change debate has emerged.

Dialogues of the deaf in Dutch eel management policy. Explaining controversy and deadlock with argumentative discourse analysis

Scientists claim the European eel stock is in a state of crisis. Although stakeholders in the Netherlands agree, also upon the need for action, for a long time no concrete measures were decided upon. Drastic protection measures were only taken 70 years after the first warning signs and 11 years after explicit advice by ICES. Our argumentative discourse analysis shows that ‘dialogue of the deaf’ among discourse coalitions explains the deadlocked policy process. Argumentative discourse analysis not only contributes to a better understanding of knowledge utilisation in controversial fish stock management, but also to conflict resolution in this field.

Copyright reform and business model innovation: Regulatory propaganda at German music industry conferences

Inspired by new digital technologies, diverse actors in cultural and creative industries propagate conflicting visions of how to adequately innovate – or rather preserve and strictly enforce – copyright-related business models, which has resulted in substantial amounts of regulatory uncertainty. Looking at a decade of regulatory discourse at industry events in the popular music industry in Germany, we investigate how these actors make sense of and strategically shape this uncertainty in the process of industry transformation. Our longitudinal argumentative discourse analysis reveals cycles of regulatory propaganda of two discourse coalitions that do not engage in debate, but aim to find support for competing business models among regulators and the public. Organizing, canceling, and participating in industry events are discursive strategies used effectively to transport their claims by both industry lobbyists and challenging actors, but industry incumbents are failing to use these sites for testing out and introducing new business models. We conclude that regulatory struggles, not least at industry events, mediate between disruptive technologies and business model innovation. ► Analysis of regulatory discourse at industry events in the German music industry from 2001 to 2010 ► Regulatory uncertainty returns as actors (fail to) innovate in existing regulatory settings. ► Industry events as discursive spaces for regulatory propaganda targeting allies, legislatures and publics ► Address regulatory uncertainty not only attending but also by canceling or founding new industry events ► Importance of national regulatory discourse even in globalized industries with strong international law

Understanding the Social Dynamics of Energy Regions—The Importance of Discourse Analysis

Regional initiatives pursuing self-sufficiency through the use of renewable energy sources (RESS-initiatives) aim at contributing to broader transitions towards more sustainable energy systems. As such, they have raised high expectations among local activists and are increasingly supported by diverse funding schemes such as national programs. How can the social dynamics entangled in these initiatives be understood and assessed? A discourse analytical perspective, such as the Argumentative Discourse Analysis developed by Hajer, can bring valuable insights in this regard. This approach highlights the formation of discourse coalitions and processes of discourse structuration and institutionalization. In order to illustrate my conceptual and methodological considerations, I present an analysis of discursive dynamics observed in the alpine district of Murau, Austria, where the vision of reaching ‘energy autarky’ by the year 2015 has influenced regional development plans since 2003. The chosen discourse analytical approach has been very helpful in guiding the analysis of this case. Specific local conditions can explain why certain visions gained discursive hegemony.

The sustainably managed forest heats up: discursive struggles over forest management and climate change in Germany

In this article, we introduce an empirical case study of the German forest policy subsystem in order to understand how the concept of sustainable forest management has been discursively constructed, challenged, and changed over time. As a theoretical basis, we use an idea-based coalition approach, drawing on both the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Hajer's Argumentative Discourse Analysis. We show that rival coalitions that share a certain idea of forest management have dominated German forest policy for decades by employing different rhetorical and institutional strategies in order to incorporate their ideas into public policy institutions. Analyzing how the issue of climate change is discursively ‘digested’ by the actor coalitions, we find that climate change has been incorporated into the political argumentation of both coalitions in a manner consistent with their existing main policy ideas. Moreover, the membership of the coalitions has remained stable. These findings allow for conclusions regarding both our theoretical approaches and the policy subsystem's ability to adapt forests to cope with climate change.