Argumentation Between Doctors And Patients

Argumentation between Doctors and Patients discusses the use of argumentation in clinical settings. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, it aims at providing an understanding of argumentative discourse in the context of doctor-patient interaction. It explains when and how interactions between doctors and patients can be reconstructed as argumentative, what it means for doctors and patients to reasonably resolve a difference of opinion, what it implies to strive simultaneously for reasonableness and effectiveness in clinical discourse, and when such efforts derail into fallaciousness. Argumentation between Doctors and Patients is of interest to all those who seek to improve their understanding of argumentation in a medical context – whether they are students, scholars of argumentation, or medical practitioners. Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Nanon Labrie are prominent argumentation theorists. In writing Argumentation between Doctors and Patients, they have benefited from the advice of an Advisory Board consisting of both medical practitioners and argumentation scholars.

At the start of studies on health communication, scholars were primarily concerned with showing the ethical implications of a new approach to care and with collecting evidence to demonstrate its greater effectiveness as opposed to the paternalistic and mechanistic paradigms. Well into the second decade of the 21st century, different issues need to be addressed. Aging populations and the spread of chronic diseases are challenging the sustainability of health care systems worldwide; increased awareness of health issues among the population and greater citizen participation seem to threaten clinicians’ authority. In this new scenario, it is acknowledged that the quality of verbal communication plays a crucial role, but it is still not clear how it impacts on the outcomes of care, which are its constitutive components and how it interacts with the institutional, cultural and social context of interactions. This book suggests that the time is ripe for a fresh start in health communication studies. As Debra Roter points out in her foreword, this proposal “is ambitious in attempting to integrate perspectives derived from pragmatics and argumentation theory with those derived from quantitative methods of medical interaction analysis and its prediction of outcomes”. On the other hand, as Giovanni Gobber explains in his foreword, “health communication can profit from an application of a performance-oriented linguistic analysis that pays attention to the role of the various relevant context factors in speech events related to specific activity types”. In this way, the open questions regarding communication in medical encounters are considered under a new light. The answers provided open up novel lines of research and provide an original perspective to face the new challenges in medical care.

"Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics" is written to honor Frans van Eemeren and his work in the field of argumentation theory on the occasion of his retirement. The volume contains 17 contributions from teams of authors consisting of a combination of a pragma-dialectician and one or two researchers with a different background in the field of argumentation. In this volume, comparisons between the pragma-dialectical approach and other approaches are made, aspects of strategic maneuvering such as the use of presentational techniques, adaptation to the audience and the selection of topics are dealt with and the influence of specific institutional contexts such as politics, medicine and internet forums on strategic maneuvering are discussed.

"Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering "contains a selection of papers on strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Starting point of all of these contributions is that a satisfactory analysis and evaluation of strategic maneuvering is possible only if the argumentative discourse is first situated in the communicative and interactional context in which it occurs. While some of the contributions present general views with regard to strategic maneuvering, other contributions report on the results of empirical studies, examine strategic maneuvering in a particular legal or political context, or highlight the presentational design of strategic maneuvering. "Examining Argumentation in Context" therefore provides an insightful" "view of recent developments in the research on strategic maneuvering, which is currently prominent in the study of argumentation.

Argumentation in Actual Practice contains a collection of topical studies about argumentative discourse in context written by argumentation scholars from a diversity of academic backgrounds. Some contributions provide general perspectives, other contributions deal with specific issues, particular types of argumentative discourse or individual argumentative speech events. The contexts in which argumentation is examined vary from politics and the media to medical, juridical, educational, commercial or military contexts, a specific academic discipline, a special issue or pertain to all kinds of contextualised argumentative discourse. The issues discussed include the interpretation and analysis of argumentation, strategic manoeuvring, argument schemes, the stock issues, the fallacies, the principle of charity and the persuasiveness of argumentative discourse. A common feature is that they are all empirically-oriented and that virtually all of them are strongly concerned with an adequate understanding of contextualised argumentative discourse and the factors that may increase or decrease its reasonableness and effectiveness.

In Exploring Argumentative Contexts Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen bring together a broad variety of essays examining argumentation as it occurs in seven communicative domains: the political context, the historical context, the legal context, the academic context, the medical context, the media context, and the financial context. These essays are written by an international group of argumentation scholars, consisting of Corina Andone, Sarah Bigi, Robert T. Craig, Justin Eckstein, Frans H. van Eemeren, Norman Fairclough, Eveline Feteris, Gerd Fritz, Bart Garssen, Kara Gilbert, Thomas Gloning, G. Thomas Goodnight, Dale A. Herbeck, Darrin Hicks, Thomas Hollihan, Jos Hornikx, Isabela Ieţcu-Fairclough, Gábor Kutrovátz, Maurizio Manzin, Davide Mazzi, Dima Mohammed, Rudi Palmieri, Angela G. Ray, Patricia Riley, Robert C. Rowland, Peter Schulz, Karen Tracy, and Gergana Zlatkova.

Argumentative Style discusses the various ways in which the defence of a standpoint is given shape in argumentative discourse. In this innovative study the new notion – ‘argumentative style’ – introduced for this purpose is situated in the theoretical framework of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. This means that the choices involved in utilising a particular argumentative style do not only concern the presentational dimension, but also the topical selection and the audience adaptation of the strategic manoeuvring taking place in the discourse. In identifying the functional variety of the argumentative styles utilised in the political, the diplomatic, the legal, the facilitatory, the academic, and the medical domain, the point of departure is that these argumentative styles manifest themselves in the discourse in the argumentative moves that are made, the dialectical routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the role of argumentation in the health care domain. Argumentation and Health is a collection of essays by argumentation theorists reflecting on the way in which the institutional context of health care shapes the argumentative interaction. The volume provides for the first time an overview of the most important recent developments and achievements of the study of argumentation in medical and public oriented health communication. In Argumentation and Health , attention is paid to argumentation in different forms of health communication, such as the medical consultation, direct-to-consumer drug advertising, health brochures and health risk communication. This book is of interest to argumentation theorists, (health) communication scholars, healthcare practitioners, students of medicine and health-related fields, and all other researchers and practitioners interested in the function and characteristics of argumentation in health communication. Originally published in Journal of Argumentation in Context, Vol. 1:1 (2012).