Abstract

Abstract Argumentation occurring in public controversies (large, long-lasting, and complex disagreements) deserve more attention from argumentation theorists than they have yet received, primarily because they offer plentiful opportunity to discover new facts about the contemporary practice of argumentation. Drawing on the polylogue framework (Lewiński and Aakhus 2023) and the cartography of controversy (Venturini and Munk 2022), nine suggestions are offered for how to build new theoretical knowledge through observational research that combines classic techniques in qualitative social science with emerging computational techniques: (1) aim for observationally grounded theory; (2) anchor analysis in argumentative texts; (3) practice constant comparison; (4) build outward from individual texts to networks; (5) investigate the places where texts are produced; (6) pay attention to the literatures where texts accumulate; (7) leverage computational techniques for natural language processing of large bodies of text; (8) reserve judgment on matters of disagreement within the controversy; and (9) try team science. Recent argument-centered studies of controversies demonstrate aspects of this approach and show its promise for discovering interesting and novel phenomena.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-025-09671-2
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (6)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Show all 6 →
  1. Argumentation
Also cites 39 works outside this index ↓
  1. Aakhus, M. 1999. Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy. Knowledge T…
    Knowledge Technology and Policy  
  2. Aakhus, M., and M. Bzdak. 2015. Stakeholder engagement as communication design practice. Journal of Public Af…
    Journal of Public Affairs  
  3. Bendix, A. F., A. B. Trentin, and M. W. Vasconcelos et al. 2024. From chaos to clarity: The scientometric bre…
  4. Blumer, H. 1954. What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org…
  5. Ceccarelli, L. M. 2005. Let Us (not) theorize the spaces of contention. Argumentation and Advocacy 42(1):30–3…
    Argumentation and Advocacy  
  6. Craig, R. T., and K. Tracy. 1995. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communicati…
    Communication Theory  
  7. De Cock, B., L. Aulit, S. Cigada, S. Greco, E. Modrzejewska, and R. Palmieri. 2024. The discourse of digital …
    Applied Linguistics  
  8. Argumentation in actual practice
  9. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes
  10. Finnemann, N. O. 2011. Mediatization theory and digital media. Communications: the European Journal of Commun…
    Communications: the European Journal of Communication Research  
  11. Gidengil, C., C. Chen, A. M. Parker, S. Nowak, and L. Matthews. 2019. Beliefs around childhood vaccines in th…
    Vaccine  
  12. Goodnight, G. T. 2005. Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry. Argumentation and Advocac…
    Argumentation and Advocacy  
  13. Goodwin, J. 2020. Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level. Informal Logi…
    Informal Logic  
  14. Goodwin, J., and B. Innocenti. 2019. The pragmatic force of making an argument. Topoi 38(4):669–680. https://…
    Topoi  
  15. Greco, S., and B. De Cock. 2021. Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainab…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  16. Gross, A. G. 2005. Scientific and technical controversy: Three frameworks for analysis. Argumentation and Adv…
    Argumentation and Advocacy  
  17. Jackson, S. 2019. Reason-giving and the natural normativity of argumentation. TOPOI 38:631–643. https://doi.o…
    TOPOI  
  18. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Qu…
    Quarterly Journal of Speech  
  19. Jackson, S. 2023. Online health communities in controversy over ME/CFS and Long Covid. European Journal of He…
    European Journal of Health Communication  
  20. Jackson, S. 2024. Health controversies: Long-term disagreement management challenges. Journal of Health Commu…
    Journal of Health Communication  
  21. Jacobs, S. 1988. Evidence and inference in conversation analysis. Communication Yearbook 11:433–443. https://…
    Communication Yearbook  
  22. Jacobs, S., S. Jackson, and X. Zhang. 2022. What was the President’s standpoint and when did he take it? A no…
  23. Latour, B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inqu…
    Critical Inquiry  
  24. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar, S. 1986. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton …
  25. Lewiński, M., and M. Aakhus. 2023. Argumentation in complex communication: Managing disagreement in a polylog…
  26. Lyne, J. 2005. Science controversy, common sense, and the third culture. Argumentation and Advocacy 42(1):38–…
    Argumentation and Advocacy  
  27. Miller, C. R. 2005. Risk, controversy, and rhetoric: Response to goodnight. Argumentation and Advocacy 42(1):…
    Argumentation and Advocacy  
  28. Mingers, J., and L. Leydesdorff. 2015. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of…
    European Journal of Operational Research  
  29. Miyake, E., and S. Martin. 2021. Long covid: Online patient narratives, public health communication and vacci…
    Digital Health  
  30. Pan, S., G. T. Goodnight, X. Zhao, Y. Wang, L. Xie, and J. Zhang. 2024. Game changer: The AI advocacy discour…
  31. Pollock, J. L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4):481–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-021…
    Cognitive Science  
  32. Reed, C., K. Budzynska, and R. Duthie et al. 2017. The argument web: An online ecosystem of tools, systems an…
    Philosophy and Technology  
  33. Rogers, R. 2013. Digital methods. MIT Press.
  34. Schiappa, E. 2012. Defining marriage in California: An analysis of public and technical argument. Argumentati…
    Argumentation and Advocacy  
  35. Stede, M., and J. Schneider. 2019. Argumentation mining. Morgan and Claypool Publ. https://doi.org/10.2200/S0…
  36. Tracy, K. 2012. Public hearings about same-sex marriage: How the context makes an argument. Qualitative Commu…
    Qualitative Communication Research  
  37. Venturini, T. 2010. Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understan…
    Public Understanding of Science  
  38. Venturini, T. 2012. Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understan…
    Public Understanding of Science  
  39. Yoshimi, J. 2004. Mapping the structure of debate. Informal Logic 24(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v24…
    Informal Logic