Extending the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme: Argument Categories, Units, and Coding Procedures

The Conversational Argument Scheme (CAS) has been shaped by a host of researcher colleagues. Each revision has attempted to improve the scheme, apply it in a different context, or submit its data to unique analyses. All of these combined efforts have increased the scheme's utility, reliability, and validity. As part of this series of articles that trace the history of the CAS and speculate on its future, three revisions to the scheme are discussed: (a) adding categories, (b) establishing unitizing rules, and (c) creating a multistage coding process. The benefits and limits of these extensions are discussed and directions for future work involving the CAS suggested.

[1]  Robert D. McPhee,et al.  Group decision‐making as a structurational process , 1985 .

[2]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis , 1991 .

[3]  D. Seibold,et al.  Group Argument , 2007 .

[4]  Daniel J. Canary,et al.  An observational analysis of argument structures: The case of Nightline , 1990 .

[5]  Benjamin I. Page.  Who Deliberates?: Mass Media in Modern Democracy , 1996 .

[6]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[7]  Renee A. Meyers,et al.  Persuasive arguments theory: a test of assumptions , 1989 .

[8]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[9]  James Price Dillard,et al.  The aims, methods, and effects of deliberative civic education through the national issues forums , 1999 .

[10]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  8 Rethinking Traditional Approaches to Argument in Groups , 2002 .

[11]  John Gastil,et al.  A Conceptual Definition and Theoretical Model of Public Deliberation in Small Face—to—Face Groups , 2002 .

[12]  Richard W. Davis.  The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System , 1999 .

[13]  Harry Weger,et al.  Couples' argument sequences and their associations with relational characteristics , 1991 .

[14]  Edward J. Murray,et al.  A content-analysis method for studying psychotherapy. , 1956 .

[15]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley.  Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme , 2007, Regular Issue.

[16]  F. Auld,et al.  Rules for Dividing Interviews Into Sentences , 1956 .

[17]  Graham Smith,et al.  The theory and practice of citizens' juries , 1999 .

[18]  Sandra Stanley Holton,et al.  Feminism and democracy , 1986 .

[19]  Todd Graham,et al.  In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions , 2003 .

[20]  Renee Ann Meyers.  Argument and Group Decision-Making: An Interactional Test of Persuasive Arguments Theory and an Alternative Structurational Perspective , 1987 .

[21]  L. Smircich,et al.  Leadership: The Management of Meaning , 1982, The Journal of applied behavioral science.

[22]  D. Ryfe.  DOES DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY WORK , 2005 .

[23]  John Gastil,et al.  Identifying Obstacles to Small Group Democracy , 1993 .

[24]  John Gastil,et al.  By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy Through Deliberative Elections , 2000 .

[25]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[26]  James S. Fishkin,et al.  Bringing Deliberation to the Democratic Dialogue , 1999 .

[27]  Daniel J. Canary,et al.  Argument in satisfied and dissatisfied married couples , 1992 .

[28]  Jane Sell,et al.  Conflict, power, and status in groups , 2005 .

[29]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument structures in decision‐making groups , 1987 .

[30]  Joshua Cohen,et al.  DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY , 2005, Philosophy, Politics, Democracy.

[31]  S. Jackson,et al.  Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme , 1980 .

[32]  J. Barge,et al.  9 Enlarging the Meaning of Group Deliberation: From Discussion to Dialogue , 2002 .

[33]  John D. Hatfield,et al.  The Comparative Utility of Three Types of Behavioral Units for Interaction Analysis. , 1978 .

[34]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  Majority‐minority influence: identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument‐outcome links , 2000 .

[35]  Jane Mansbridge,et al.  Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study , 2006 .

[36]  R. Meyers,et al.  Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions , 2009 .

[37]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Argument and Decision Making in Computer‐Mediated Groups , 2004 .

[38]  John Gastil,et al.  A Definition of Small Group Democracy , 1992 .