Collective Argumentative Criticism in Informal Online Discussion Forums

Lewiński, Marcin

doi:10.1080/00028533.2010.11821740

Cited by 43 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3 Diairesis: When More than Two Equals Two Multi-party and open-ended online discussions are, quite expectedly, not the prime venues for rigidly controlled dialectical exchanges (see Lewiński 2010). In this sense they stand out from more familiar contexts for argumentation such as legal cross-examination or US presidential debates.…”

Section: When the Third Party Speaksmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

Lewiński

2015

Topoi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most dialectical models view argumentation as a process of critically testing a standpoint. Further, they assume that what we critically test can be analytically reduced to (1) individual and (2) bi-polar standpoints. I argue that these two assumptions lead to the dominant view of dialectics as a bi-partisan argumentative discussion in which the yes-side (proponent) argues against the doubter or the no-side (opponent). I scrutinise this binary orientation in understanding argumentation by drawing on the main tenets of normative pragmatic and pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. I develop my argument by showing how argumentative practice challenges these assumptions. I then lay out theoretical reasons for this challenge. This paves the way for an enhanced conceptualisation of dialectical models and their standards of rationality in terms of multi-party discussions, or argumentative polylogues.

show abstract

Section: When the Third Party Speaksmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The discussion opens with Republican opponents of Barack Obama's presidential bid (mark, Travis) criticising his ''socialist'' tax plans, as revealed during Obama's meeting with ''Joe the Plumber'' (see Lewiński 2010 for further analysis). Obama's supporters (jenuis) are quick to rebut these criticisms.…”

Section: When the Third Party Speaksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

Lewiński

2015

Topoi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Marcoccia concluded that these online interactions are best conceived of as polylogues-many-to-many communication-where participation frameworks become organized in forms adapted to the interactional affordances of the new media forum. Lewinski (2010) advances this point in an analysis of the practice of Bcollective criticism^in online forums where parties position themselves as ratified participants in an encounter relative to a focal contribution. Under the conditions of polylogue, Lewinski identified a Bhorizontal form^of collective criticism, where participants contest particular elements of a contribution with many lines of criticism, and a Bvertical form,^where participants mutually engage in developing a particular line of criticism about one element of a contribution.…”

Section: Reception Roles and Conversation In Interorganizational Commmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Communicative Work of Organizations in Shaping Argumentative Realities

Aakhus

2016

Philos. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is argued here that large-scale organization and networked computing enable new divisions of communicative work aimed at shaping the content, direction, and outcomes of societal conversations. The challenge for argumentation theory and practice lies in attending to these new divisions of communicative work in constituting contemporary argumentative realities. Goffman's conceptualization of participation frameworks and production formats are applied to articulate the communicative work of organizations afforded by networked computing that invents and innovates argument in all of its senses-as product, process, and procedure. Communicative work, however, may be scaffolding argumentative contexts and practices that are quite different than what has constituted past argumentative realities. The computerization of argument happens as organizations invent and innovate argument practice relative to the demands and opportunities of interorganizational communication. The cases and examples examined here suggest that argument practice is evolving around the logic of conversation and the principle of personalization. The analysis challenges argumentation theory to seriously engage with the construction of communicative contexts and the realization of ideas about disagreement management in organizational practice and information infrastructures. Directions for integrating insights from a design perspective on argument with insights from organizational and information systems theory are proposed for coming to terms with an era of large-scale organization and computerization, in particular the evolution of argument practice, the inscription of argument in the built environment, and the absorption of socio-cultural argument practices by organizations and computation.

show abstract

“…Even mental practices can also improve performance. However, because of the wrong behavior of practicing a very disturbing, employees should get criticism specifically about his mistakes (Lewiński, 2017) to ensure that they only practice the proper behavior.…”

Section: Enhance Learning During Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educational Model Study to Train and Develop Competitive Workers, Based on Learning Objectives

Darmawi

2019

ASSRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although training techniques are just right, learning cannot happen if the experience is not arranged properly. So, when drawing up a program of training and development, a very important set of learning stages during a training program or development and to provide the conditions that will sustain the performance in time. The descriptive method is used to search the fact with proper interpretation prior to implementing training programs, responsibility for learning and support the transfer of new behaviors. The content of the training program should be the same as the purpose of the lesson. Some types of learning objectives are the cognitive knowledge, technical skills or interpersonal, effective results, and ethical behavior.

show abstract

Collective Argumentative Criticism in Informal Online Discussion Forums

Cited by 43 publications

References 34 publications

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?

The Communicative Work of Organizations in Shaping Argumentative Realities

Educational Model Study to Train and Develop Competitive Workers, Based on Learning Objectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About