What counts as relevant criticism? Longino's critical contextual empiricism and the feminist criticism of mainstream economics

I identify and resolve an internal tension in Critical Contextual Empiricism (CCE) - the normative account of science developed by Helen Longino. CCE includes two seemingly conflicting principles: on one hand, the cognitive goals of epistemic communities should be open to critical discussion (the openness of goals to criticism principle, OGC); on the other hand, criticism must be aligned with the cognitive goals of that community to count as "relevant" and thus require a response (the goal-relativity of response-requiring criticism principle, GRC). The co-existence of OGC and GRC enables one to draw both approving and condemning judgments about a situation in which an epistemic community ignores criticism against its goals. This tension results from conflating two contexts of argumentation that require different regulative standards. In the first-level scientific discussion, GRC is a reasonable principle but OGC is not; in the meta-level discussion about science, the reverse holds. In meta-level discussion, the relevance of criticism can be established by appealing to goals of science that are more general than the goals of a specific epistemic community. To illustrate my revision of CCE, I discuss why feminist economists' criticism of the narrowness of the goals pursued in mainstream economics is relevant criticism.

Enriching Thinking Through Discourse

Great effort is invested in identifying ways to change people's minds on an issue. A first priority should perhaps be enriching their thinking about the issue. With a goal of enriching their thinking, we studied the views of community adults on the DACA issue-young adults who entered the United States illegally as children. A dialogic method was employed, offering dual benefits in providing participants the opportunity to further develop their own ideas and to consider differing ideas. Yet, participants engaged in dialog only vicariously by observing the talk of a pair of actors who held opposing positions on DACA. The effect on participants' thinking was greatest in the condition in which they viewed a dialog between the two actors, rather than a comparison condition in which the actors individually expressed their positions. In control conditions, no presentation was observed. Probing questions included in all conditions encouraged a participant to examine and clarify for themselves their own position, potentially enriching it. This condition proved unsuccessful in enriching thinking; participants' justifications for their own positions in fact became simpler and less qualified. In contrast, observing a video of a like-minded and opposing other did enrich observers' thinking, yet to a greater degree in the dialogic than nondialogic condition. The findings thus suggest observed dialog as a promising practical approach in promoting deeper thinking.

Teachers' perspectives on teaching science through an argumentation-driven inquiry model: A mixed-methods study

This study aimed to better grasp science instructors' perspectives on the argumentation-driven inquiry (ADI) teaching model through a sequential exploratory mixed-methods approach. A random sample of 184 Saudi Arabian science teachers (96 males and 88 females) completed a questionnaire. In addition, seven science teachers volunteered to participate in semi-structured interviews. The results indicated that ADI was used by science teachers less frequently than expected. This is because of the widespread belief that inquiry-based instruction, when combined with argumentation, necessitates greater classroom time and effort. Additionally, respondents reported engaging in some form of ADI on a monthly basis, once a month. Consequently, it was suggested that science teachers' professional preparation and continuous development programs be re-evaluated to ensure that they are in line with the most recent science education standards and new approaches such as STEM, STEAM, and NGSS.

Norm conflicts and epistemic modals

Statements containing epistemic modals (e.g., "by spring 2023 most European countries may have the Covid-19 pandemic under control") are common expressions of epistemic uncertainty. In this paper, previous published findings (Knobe & Yalcin, 2014; Khoo & Phillips, 2018) on the opposition between Contextualism and Relativism for epistemic modals are re-examined. It is found that these findings contain a substantial degree of individual variation. To investigate whether participants differ in their interpretations of epistemic modals, an experiment with multiple phases and sessions is conducted to classify participants according to the three semantic theories of Relativism, Contextualism, and Objectivism. Through this study, some of the first empirical evidence for the kind of truth-value shifts postulated by semantic Relativism is presented. It is furthermore found that participants' disagreement judgments match their truth evaluations and that participants are capable of distinguishing between truth and justification. In a second experimental session, it is investigated whether participants thus classified follow the norm of retraction which Relativism uses to account for argumentation with epistemic modals. Here the results are less favorable for Relativism. In a second experiment, these results are replicated and the normative beliefs of participants concerning the norm of retraction are investigated following work on measuring norms by Bicchieri (2017). Again, it is found that on average participants show no strong preferences concerning the norm of retraction for epistemic modals. Yet, it was found that participants who had committed to Objectivism and had training in logic applied the norm of retraction to might-statements. These results present a substantial challenge to the account of argumentation with epistemic modals presented in MacFarlane (2014), as discussed.

Using expert opinion rounds to develop valid and realistic manipulations for experimental video-vignette research: Results from a study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care

OBJECTIVE

To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians' (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care.

METHODS

In three rounds, N = 37 participants (parents/clinicians/researchers) provided feedback on four video-vignette scripts and completed listing, ranking, and rating exercises to determine which (un)reasonable arguments clinicians may provide to support treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Round 1: participants deemed the scripts realistic. They judged that, on average, clinicians should provide two arguments for a treatment decision. They listed 13-20 reasonable arguments, depending on the script. Round 2: participants ranked the two most salient, reasonable arguments per script. Round 3: participants rated the most plausible, unreasonable arguments from a predefined list. These results guided the design of 12 experimental conditions.

CONCLUSION

Expert opinion rounds are an effective method to develop video-vignettes that are theoretically sound and ecologically realistic and offer a powerful means to include stakeholders in experimental research design. Our study yielded some preliminary insights into what are considered prevalent (un)reasonable arguments for clinicians' treatment plans.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We provide hands-on guidelines on involving stakeholders in the design of video-vignette experiments and the development of video-based health communication interventions - both for research and practice.

A method for assessing students' interpretations of contextualized data

Learning to interpret data in context is an important educational outcome. To assess students' attainment of this outcome, it is necessary to examine the interplay between their contextual and statistical reasoning. We describe a research method designed to do so. The method draws upon Toulmin's (1958, 2003) model of argumentation for the first stage of qualitative data analysis and the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) (Biggs & Collis, 1991) model for the second stage. Toulmin analyses help identify the justifications and expressions of uncertainty students provide in their interpretive arguments. Subsequent analyses based on the multi-modal conceptualization of SOLO help characterize the quality of student arguments relative to one another. Existing literature and an empirical example are drawn upon to explain how the Toulmin and SOLO models can be used in tandem to analyze students' interpretations of contextualized data. We also explain how pairing Toulmin and SOLO can address theoretical and practical limitations that arise when using just one of the two models on its own.

Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study

PURPOSE

In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations.

METHOD

A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families.

RESULTS

Seventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor's line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together.

CONCLUSION

This study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation.

Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students' argumentative essay quality

We know little to what extent peer feedback strategies can be applied on a large scale in higher education for complex tasks. This study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate an online-supported peer feedback module for large-scale use to enhance higher education students' argumentative essay writing performance. To do this, 330 students from five different courses at bachelor and master levels followed the online supported peer feedback module. In this module, students were asked to write an argumentative essay about a controversial issue, provide peer feedback for two peers, and revise their original essays based on the received feedback. Three types of data including original essay (pre-test) data, peer feedback data, and revised essay (post-test) data collected. Students also filled out the learning satisfaction questionnaire at the end of the module. The findings showed that the suggested online-supported peer feedback module was effective in improving students' argumentative essay quality in all courses at the bachelor and master levels. The findings also showed there is a difference in the level of students' satisfaction with the module among the courses and between the education levels. The findings of this study provide insights into and add value to the scalability of online peer feedback tools for argumentative essay writing in different contexts. Based on the findings, recommendations for future studies and educational practice are provided.

"We All Sort of Jump to That Relationship Piece": Science Teachers' Collaborative Professional Learning About the Role of Relationships in Argumentation

This study investigates how a professional learning approach that draws on elements from collaborative autoethnography (CAE) can support science teachers' learning about argumentation. It provides an account of how six secondary science teachers collectively explored their views and understandings of the importance of relationships for fostering argumentative sensemaking in classrooms. The educators partnered across four sessions to identify themes that emerged from their autoethnographic writings and discussions. The construct of "diffraction" later helped provide a situated, entangled analysis of how ideas traveled within the group over time. Findings highlight how teachers surfaced the importance of cultivating trusting classroom relationships (between teachers and students as well as between students with one another) to foster the social dialogic elements of argumentation and collective sensemaking. This insight is one not generally emphasized in teacher professional development related to argumentation and has only recently been examined in the research literature. Teachers also reclaimed the idea of "rigor" to encompass discourse that is connected to students' lives and engages them in knowledge-building with others. This study demonstrates how a CAE-inspired teacher professional development model that emphasizes teacher agency and professional knowledge can help educators develop nuanced understandings of argumentation. As more classrooms focus on engaging students in argumentative practices, this study suggests the need for the field of science education to shift its focus to attend more fully to the role of classroom relationships, vulnerability, and trust. This study also suggests promising strategies for helping teachers increase their commitment to enacting productive and expansive classroom argumentation practices that center students' experiences, value diverse sensemaking, and increase equitable opportunities for learning.

What we learned from Covid-19 about discourse-based learning

Now is an auspicious time to make student-centered discourse a centerpiece of social and civic education, as well as across the curriculum more broadly. We describe here the features of the middle-school program we have developed and implemented for this purpose, emphasizing its concentration on direct student-to-student communication, in contrast to the more common whole-class teacher-led discussion. The Covid-19 epidemic forced us to modify the way in which we implemented the program, eliminating face-to-face contact. What had been an in-person interactive discourse-based workshop we transformed into a remotely-experienced, technology-supported interaction between rotating student pairs. Each participant debated individually with a sequence of individual peers who held an opposing view on a series of social issues. This modified distance-learning approach revealed some unanticipated benefits that we share here. Most notable among them were the enhanced comfort in sharing their views that participants reported they experienced, due to the remote, text-only connection that concealed their personal identities.

Evolution of logic as an information processing mechanism in advanced biological systems

Logic plays an important role in biological evolution. Some researchers even assume that evolution can be seen as a process of discovering the logic that works well in a particular environment. At the same time, logic can be treated as a biological system, or a superorganism, evolution of which goes in the social environment with its societal space and time. In this paper, syntactic aspects of the evolution of logic are studied demonstrating how logic evolves from the simplest logical species to the higher and higher logical species.

Public engagement and argumentation in science

Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem.

Examining the usability and viability of using a simulated classroom environment to prepare preservice science teachers during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

Educator preparation programs experienced extreme challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many universities and K-12 schools moved to fully online or hybrid instructional models. These abrupt changes significantly limited preservice teachers' opportunities to engage in classroom-based practice teaching experiences, which are a bedrock of educator preparation programs to support preservice teachers in learning how to teach effectively. In this study, we examined the usability and viability of integrating simulated teaching experiences, which occur in an online, virtual classroom environment consisting of five student avatars, into elementary science method courses during the COVID-19 pandemic to prepare preservice science teachers to engage in one critical science teaching practice: facilitating discussions that engage students in scientific argumentation. This study uses qualitative content analysis of survey data and a focus group interview to identify patterns and themes in how four elementary science teacher educators and 49 of their preservice teachers perceived the use of this tool within elementary science teacher education, particularly the opportunities and challenges this tool afforded during the pandemic and possibilities for use in the post-COVID era. Study findings suggest that these elementary science teacher educators and preservice teachers perceived the simulated teaching experience as valuable for supporting teacher learning, addressing COVID-related challenges, and tackling perennial challenges in science teacher education. They also noted challenges related to implementation and concerns with future access. A discussion of key factors that may support and hinder the use of such tools within elementary science teacher education and implications for leveraging lessons learned post-COVID are included.

The Irish Public Discourse on Covid-19 at the Intersection of Legislation, Fake News and Judicial Argumentation

This paper aims to perform a multi-level analysis of the Irish public discourse on Covid-19. Despite widespread agreement that Ireland's response was rapid and effective, the country's journey through the pandemic has been no easy ride. In order to contain the virus, the Government's emergency legislation imposed draconian measures including the detention and isolation of people deemed to be even "a potential source of infection" and a significant extension of An Garda Síochána's power of arrest. In April 2020, journalists John Waters and Gemma O'Doherty initiated judicial review proceedings before the High Court to challenge such legislation, which they defined as unconstitutional, "disproportionate" and based on "fraudulent science". The proceedings attracted widespread media coverage in what soon became a debate on the legitimacy of emergency legislation and the notion of 'fake news' itself. After a brief survey of the legislative background to Ireland's Covid response, the argumentative strategy is analysed through which the High Court eventually dismissed Mr Waters and Ms O'Doherty's challenge. Focusing on the process of justification of the judicial decision, the paper provides a descriptive account of the argument structure of the Court's decision. This sheds light on the pattern of multiple argumentation through which the Court interpreted relevant norms in the Constitution and at once re-established the primacy of "facts" informing political decision-making at a time of national emergency.

Argumentation Analysis of Risk Assessments: The Case of Perfluorooctanoic Acid

Risk assessment of chemicals can be based on toxicology and/or epidemiology. The choice of toxicological or epidemiological data can result in different health-based guidance values (HBGVs). Communicating the underlying argumentation is important to explain these differences to the public and policymakers. In this article, we explore the argumentation used to justify the use of toxicological or epidemiological data in the derivation of HBGVs in four different risk assessments for the chemical Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT) is hereby applied. The argumentations to select relevant health endpoints or certain studies to infer causality appeared mainly based on "symptomatic relations," that is, study results are used as characteristic of what was claimed to be a causal relation without delving into the actual causal argumentation that preceded it. Starting points that are at the basis of the chain of arguments remained implicit. Argumentation to use epidemiological and/or toxicological data was only briefly mentioned and the underlying argumentative foundation that led to the conclusion was seldom found or not addressed at all. The decision to include/exclude information was made based on the availability of data, or the motives for the choice remained largely unclear. We conclude that more depth in argumentation and a subordinative chain of arguments is needed to better disclose the underlying reasoning leading to a certain health-based guidance value (HBGV). More explicit identification and discussion of starting points could be a valuable addition to general risk assessment frameworks for maximum use of toxicological and epidemiological data and shared conclusions of the assessment.

The Impact of Collaboration Between Science and Religious Education Teachers on Their Understanding and Views of Argumentation

Teachers' understanding and teaching of argumentation is gaining more attention in science education research. However, little is known about how science teachers engage in argumentation with teachers of different subject taking an interdisciplinary perspective that may inspire new pedagogical ideas or strategies. In particular, the positioning of argumentation at the juncture of science and religion is rare. This paper reports an empirical study involving science and religious education (RE) teachers who collaborated on teaching argumentation in three secondary schools in England. Their interdisciplinary collaboration was sustained by a series of professional development sessions over 18 months. Analysis of the interview data unfolds how the teachers' collaboration impacted their understanding of argumentation and views of teaching their subject. Through working relationally in exploring and teaching argumentation, the science teachers reflected more notable changes than their RE counterparts. Science teachers came to appreciate student voice in the learning process and the role of argumentation in fostering students' scientific reasoning. The paper is a salient step to researching argumentation in a cross-curricular terrain, particularly in relation to RE. It also sheds light on how collaborating with teachers of another subject bolstered science teachers' professional development and broke subject barriers.

Online interventions to help college students to improve the degree of integration of their argumentative synthesis

Writing an argumentative synthesis is a common but demanding task, consequently undergraduates require some instruction. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of two interventions on integrative argumentation: one of them was focused on the product features of argumentative texts; and the other one on the processes involved in the written argumentation. Sixty-six undergraduate students participated voluntarily. As an academic task, they were asked to write a pre-test synthesis after reading two sources which presented contradictory positions about an educational issue, then to read two new texts about a different but equivalent issue, and write a post-test synthesis following one of two types of instructional virtual environments. The instructions, implemented in Moodle, presented similar tools, employing videos, graphic organizers, and exercises. The first condition (n = 33) focused on the linguistic features while the second (n = 33), focused on the process, including explicit instruction and a script with critical questions to guide the reading and writing processes. In this study we have also analyzed how the students in the process condition answered some of the critical questions. The results show that the level of integration of the written products improved in both conditions, although this improvement was more pronounced in the process intervention. Nonetheless, the products that achieved medium and maximum integration were still limited. Despite the lack of a relationship between how students answered the critical questions and the level of integration in their post-test, the case analysis highlights certain educational implications and further research.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11145-021-10248-0.

[»I have been home in quarantine since Monday«: Relating Storytelling and Argumentation in Social Media Comments on Political Speeches]

This article examines narrative practices in the context of political speeches on the corona crisis. The qualitative analysis is based on a corpus of 650 social media comments posted in response to the so-called lockdown speeches by Sebastian Kurz and Angela Merkel in March 2020. The comments feature forms of fragmentary narration that are used by the participants both as resources of credibility and descriptiveness and as a means of positioning themselves in the context of the lockdown measures being announced.

[Narrative Argumentation in Political Letters to the Editor]

How and why are narratives used for argumentation in contemporary political letters to the editor? In order to find answers to this question, I examine about 50 letters to the editor from Swiss and German daily newspapers, all of which are related to COVID-19. In all letters, the writer presents an argument by telling a story. It turns out that the story usually serves as a premise for an argument from example in an argumentation with an evaluative standpoint. For the writers, unfolding such a premise as a narrative has the advantage that they can successively convey an evaluation together with the exemplary event. A socio-cultural benefit of such narrative arguments from example might be that they can easily connect the social micro-level with the societal macro-level in political debates.

[Argumentation and Narration in Conspiracist Youtube Videos]

In this contribution, the relationship between argumentation and narration is examined in more detail. Following on from the function of narration in a court speech as described in classical rhetoric, the question is examined as to how narrative elements are used in conspiracy theory arguments and what functions they assume in the process. Using the example of selected YouTube videos by the conspiracist Heiko Schrang, we will illustrate how narrative elements can support an argumentation and ensure that the recipient is connected to his or her own body of knowledge.

[Sound Bites in TV News Between Narration and Argumentation]

Against the background of the re-constructive character of media reporting (section 1), this article explains the concept of ›news narratives‹ (2). Then the role and previous research of sound bites and their narrative integration are discussed (3). Explanations of the research question, corpus and method (4) are followed by quantitative and then more detailed exemplary qualitative analyses (5). Here, contributions from the Swiss »Tagesschau« and the American »CBS Evening News« since the 1960s are analyzed. It becomes apparent that the coverage is increasingly narrative in a narrower sense, that this development took place earlier in the USA, and that the argumentative functionalization of original sound clips can be reconstructed but remains implicit.

Learning analytics dashboards for adaptive support in face-to-face collaborative argumentation

Despite the potential of learning analytics for personalized learning, it is seldom used to support collaborative learning particularly in face-to-face (F2F) learning contexts. This study uses learning analytics to develop a dashboard system that provides adaptive support for F2F collaborative argumentation (FCA). This study developed two dashboards for students and instructors, which enabled students to monitor their FCA process through adaptive feedback and helped the instructor provide adaptive support at the right time. The effectiveness of the dashboards was examined in a university class with 88 students (56 females, 32 males) for 4 weeks. The dashboards significantly improved the FCA process and outcomes, encouraging students to actively participate in FCA and create high-quality arguments. Students had a positive attitude toward the dashboard and perceived it as useful and easy to use. These findings indicate the usefulness of learning analytics dashboards in improving collaborative learning through adaptive feedback and support. Suggestions are provided on how to design dashboards for adaptive support in F2F learning contexts using learning analytics.

Who's Afraid of Adversariality? Conflict and Cooperation in Argumentation

Since at least the 1980s, the role of adversariality in argumentation has been extensively discussed within different domains. Prima facie, there seem to be two extreme positions on this issue: argumentation should (ideally at least) never be adversarial, as we should always aim for cooperative argumentative engagement; argumentation should be and in fact is always adversarial, given that adversariality (when suitably conceptualized) is an intrinsic property of argumentation. I here defend the view that specific instances of argumentation are (and should be) adversarial or cooperative to different degrees. What determines whether an argumentative situation should be primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative are contextual features and background conditions external to the argumentative situation itself, in particular the extent to which the parties involved have prior conflicting or else convergent interests. To further develop this claim, I consider three teloi that are frequently associated with argumentation: the epistemic telos, the consensus-building telos, and the conflict management telos. I start with a brief discussion of the concepts of adversariality, cooperation, and conflict in general. I then sketch the main lines of the debates in the recent literature on adversariality in argumentation. Next, I discuss the three teloi of argumentation listed above in turn, emphasizing the roles of adversariality and cooperation for each of them.

The neural bases of argumentative reasoning

Most reasoning tasks used in behavioral and neuroimaging studies are abstract, triggering slow, effortful processes. By contrast, most of everyday life reasoning is fast and effortless, as when we exchange arguments in conversation. Recent behavioral studies have shown that reasoning tasks with the same underlying logic can be solved much more easily if they are embedded in an argumentative context. In the present article, we study the neural bases of this type of everyday, argumentative reasoning. Such reasoning is both a social and a metarepresentational process, suggesting it should share some mechanisms, and thus some neural bases, with other social, metarepresentational process such as pragmatics, metacognition, or theory of mind. To isolate the neural bases of argumentative reasoning, we measured fMRI activity of participants who read the same statement presented either as the conclusion of an argument, or as an assertion. We found that conclusions of arguments, compared to assertions, were associated with greater activity in a region of the medial prefrontal cortex that was identified in quantitative meta-analyses of studies on theory of mind. This study shows that it is possible to use more ecologically valid tasks to study the neural bases of reasoning, and that using such tasks might point to different neural bases than those observed with the more abstract and artificial tasks typically used in the neuroscience of reasoning. Specifically, we speculate that reasoning in an argumentative context might rely on mechanisms supporting metarepresentational processes in the medial prefrontal cortex.

Argumentation, Eureka and emotion: An analysis of group projects in creative design training

Creativity training has been generally based on avoiding critique during idea generation, although benefits of argumentation have been shown during idea selection and elaboration. The research reported here aims to understand how argumentative interactions involving role-play, with subsequent group reflection on them, contribute to collaborative creative design projects. The study was carried within a specialised Masters course at the Royal College of Art (London), organised jointly with Imperial College London, and focuses on analysing group reflection sessions of two groups of students whose on-going project was initially defined as "communication by touch". Results showed that although students reported difficulties in playing argumentative roles that were not aligned with their personal views, their debates enabled them to arrive at "Eureka!" moments with respect to better grounded and precise definitions of their project concepts. We highlight the complex ways in which emotions circulate with respect to "Eureka!" moments, role-play and grounding. Given differences in ways that groups played out their assigned argumentative roles, we conclude that role play debate and group reflection on it need to be applied and considered as a whole in creative design training.

Using Historical Scientific Controversies to Promote Undergraduates' Argumentation

The Covid-19 pandemic is the reason why humanity is paying more attention to the importance of regular and rigorous handwashing. Interestingly, in the nineteenth century, regular and rigorous handwashing was a key (and controversial) solution proposed by the Hungarian obstetrician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis to cut drastically cases of puerperal fever. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence that the case of Semmelweis and puerperal fever-a crucial historical scientific controversy-can be used as a springboard to promote university student argumentation. Our study was inspired by the fact that the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) stressed that more efforts and resources should be invested in promoting argumentation as an essential component for scientifically literate citizens in twenty-first century societies. However, nowadays, argument and debate are virtually absent from university science education. The data was derived from 124 undergraduates' (64 females and 60 males, 15-30 years old) written responses and audio and video recordings in a university biology course in Colombia. The findings show that the articulation of this historical controversy with decision-making, small-group debate, and whole-class debate activities can be useful for promoting undergraduates' argumentation. This study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of an argumentation curriculum for higher education.

Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland

This article analyses the use of evidence, such as policy evaluation studies, in arguments in direct-democratic campaigns. Set in the context of 16 Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on smoking bans, the article compares evidence-based arguments with arguments that do not refer to evidence. The study adds to the argumentative direction in evaluation and program planning by showing that in direct-democratic campaigns, the political use of evaluation results to substantiate policy preferences is rare. The study shows that around 6% of the arguments refer to evidence and that evaluation results are mostly cited in support of causal arguments referring to the effects of policy interventions. Above all, the results show that policy information is available, at least for causal arguments, and apparently known in the public discourse but only cited explicitly when the speaker wants to raise credibility. This applies especially to researchers, such as evaluators. The results further indicate that the political use of evaluation results fosters an informed discourse and the evidence may eventually become common public knowledge. The credentials of evaluators make them suitable not only for bringing more evaluation results into the direct-democratic discourse but also for acting as teachers in this discourse.

From facts to arguments: A study of the 2014 Swiss controversy over systematic mammography screening

OBJECTIVE

The Swiss Medical Board (SMB) has recently revived the controversy over mammography screening by recommending to stop the introduction of new systematic mammography screening programs. This study aimed to examine the Swiss media coverage of the release of the SMB report.

METHODS

The dataset consisted of 25 newspaper and "medical magazine" articles, and TV/radio interviews. The analytic approach was based on argumentation theory.

RESULTS

Authority and community arguments were the most frequent types of arguments. With respect to authority arguments, stakeholders for instance challenged or supported the expertise of the SMB by referring to the competence of external figures of authority. Community arguments were based on common values such as life (saved thanks to systematic mammography screening) and money (costs associated with unnecessary care induced by systematic mammography screening).

CONCLUSION

The efficiency of mammography screening which was the key issue of the debate appeared to be largely eluded, and the question of what women should do endures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

While interpersonal and interprofessional communication has become a major topic of interest in the medical community, it appears that media communication on mammography screening is still rather ineffective. We call in particular for a more fact-based discussion.

Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions

Background

The ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative strategies in political and layperson debates regarding induced abortion.

Methods

The content of Finnish and Irish texts (n = 493), consisting of transcripts of parliamentary debates and online texts, such as blogs, was analyzed systematically. The texts were investigated for the aspects of experiential thinking, for selected argumentative moves and for any differences in the prevalence of these features between countries or between political vs. layperson debates.

Results

The Finnish and Irish discussions about induced abortion relied heavily on experiential thinking patterns and emotionally laden arguments instead of objective research data. This was evident in the very high prevalence of testimonials, narratives, loaded language and appeals to emotion in both political and layperson debates regardless of the country or the debater's position on abortion issue. Research data that did not support the position of the debater were relatively often omitted by confirmation bias. The Irish debaters appealed to popularity more often than the Finnish ones, while magical/religious thinking was mainly observed in the Finnish layperson discussion. The national history and the prevailing cultural and religious atmosphere of the two countries could explain these differences.

Conclusions

The abortion debate mostly reinforces the opinions of one's peer group rather than convinces the opposite party to change their position. The stalemate and continuation of the same arguments being repeated could be associated with experiential thinking and emotional argumentative strategies in both political and layperson debates.

Brains, language and the argumentative mind in Western and Eastern societies. The fertile differences between Western-Eastern argumentative traditions

The philosophical differences between Western and Eastern philosophy not only derive from general cultural ideas about reality, but as Nisbet writes (2003), are also methodological, ontological, and cognitively driven. Thus, we can see that strategies of thought and theory-generation are constrained and enabled by conceptual levels, and that the existence of differences and within these levels may be pragmatically combined in fruitful ways. At this point, I remark that there is not a single way to connect biology and culture, but at least we need to admit that brains allow the existence of minds and that these create languages, which also organize the world symbolically following a long set of (sometimes interconnected) heuristics. Throughout the paper we will see how fundamental, geographically located cultural perspectives have affected reasoning strategies and discourses, determining the main Western and Eastern Traditions. At the same time, we can conclude that different traditional perspectives allow more diversity for knowledge acquisition.

Exemplars, ethics, and illness narratives

Many people report that reading first-person narratives of the experience of illness can be morally instructive or educative. But although they are ubiquitous and typically sincere, the precise nature of such educative experiences is puzzling, for those narratives typically lack the features that modern philosophers regard as constitutive of moral reason. I argue that such puzzlement should disappear, and the morally educative power of illness narratives explained, if one distinguishes two different styles of moral reasoning: an inferentialist style that generates the puzzlement and an alternative exemplarist style that offers a compelling explanation of the morally educative power of pathographic literature.

Do medical students generate sound arguments during small group discussions in problem-based learning?: an analysis of preclinical medical students' argumentation according to a framework of hypothetico-deductive reasoning

PURPOSE

Hypothetico-deductive reasoning (HDR) is an essential learning activity and a learning outcome in problem-based learning (PBL). It is important for medical students to engage in the HDR process through argumentation during their small group discussions in PBL. This study aimed to analyze the quality of preclinical medical students' argumentation according to each phase of HDR in PBL.

METHODS

Participants were 15 first-year preclinical students divided into two small groups. A set of three 2-hour discussion sessions from each of the two groups during a 1-week-long PBL unit on the cardiovascular system was audio-recorded. The arguments constructed by the students were analyzed using a coding scheme, which included four types of argumentation (Type 0: incomplete, Type 1: claim only, Type 2: claim with data, and Type 3: claim with data and warrant). The mean frequency of each type of argumentation according to each HDR phase across the two small groups was calculated.

RESULTS

During small group discussions, Type 1 arguments were generated most often (frequency=120.5, 43%), whereas the least common were Type 3 arguments (frequency=24.5, 8.7%) among the four types of arguments.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study revealed that the students predominantly made claims without proper justifications; they often omitted data for supporting their claims or did not provide warrants to connect the claims and data. The findings suggest instructional interventions to enhance the quality of medical students' arguments in PBL, including promoting students' comprehension of the structure of argumentation for HDR processes and questioning.

Learning to argue via apprenticeship

We examined apprenticeship, in the form of interaction with a more capable other, as a mechanism of development of higher-order reasoning skills, specifically argumentation. Over a 1-year period, middle school students engaged in twice-weekly electronic dialogs with a sequence of different peers on a series of social issues. In one group, unbeknownst to participants, a highly capable adult substituted for peers in half of their dialogs. Beginning immediately, increasing with time, and extending to peer-only dialogs on a new topic, the quality of argumentation shown by the experimental group exceeded that of a comparison peer-only group, highlighting the power of apprenticeship as a mechanism in the development of reasoning, a demonstration of both theoretical and applied significance.

The Argument Web: an Online Ecosystem of Tools, Systems and Services for Argumentation

The Argument Web is maturing as both a platform built upon a synthesis of many contemporary theories of argumentation in philosophy and also as an ecosystem in which various applications and application components are contributed by different research groups around the world. It already hosts the largest publicly accessible corpora of argumentation and has the largest number of interoperable and cross compatible tools for the analysis, navigation and evaluation of arguments across a broad range of domains, languages and activity types. Such interoperability is key in allowing innovative combinations of tool and data reuse that can further catalyse the development of the field of computational argumentation. The aim of this paper is to summarise the key foundations, the recent advances and the goals of the Argument Web, with a particular focus on demonstrating the relevance to, and roots in, philosophical argumentation theory.

The Influence of Social Interaction on Intuitions of Objectivity and Subjectivity

We present experimental evidence that people's modes of social interaction influence their construal of truth. Participants who engaged in cooperative interactions were less inclined to agree that there was an objective truth about that topic than were those who engaged in a competitive interaction. Follow-up experiments ruled out alternative explanations and indicated that the changes in objectivity are explained by argumentative mindsets: When people are in cooperative arguments, they see the truth as more subjective. These findings can help inform research on moral objectivism and, more broadly, on the distinctive cognitive consequences of different types of social interaction.

Preadolescents Solve Natural Syllogisms Proficiently

"Natural syllogisms" are arguments formally identifiable with categorical syllogisms that have an implicit universal affirmative premise retrieved from semantic memory rather than explicitly stated. Previous studies with adult participants (Politzer, 2011) have shown that the rate of success is remarkably high. Because their resolution requires only the use of a simple strategy (known as ecthesis in classic logic) and an operational use of the concept of inclusion (the recognition that an element that belongs to a subset must belong to the set but not vice versa), it was hypothesized that these syllogisms would be within the grasp of non-adult participants, provided they have acquired the notion of deductive validity. Here, 11-year-old children were presented with natural syllogisms embedded in short dialogs. The first experiment showed that their performance was equivalent to adults' highest level of performance in standard experiments on syllogisms. The second experiment, while confirming children's proficiency in solving natural syllogisms, showed that they outperformed children who solved non-natural matched syllogisms in the same experimental setting. The results are also in agreement with the argumentation theory of reasoning.

Slippery slope arguments imply opposition to change

Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) of the form if A, then C describe an initial proposal (A) and a predicted, undesirable consequence of this proposal (C) (e.g., "If cannabis is ever legalized, then eventually cocaine will be legalized, too"). Despite SSAs being a common rhetorical device, there has been surprisingly little empirical research into their subjective evaluation and perception. Here, we present evidence that SSAs are interpreted as a form of consequentialist argument, inviting inferences about the speaker's (or writer's) attitudes. Study 1 confirmed the common intuition that a SSA is perceived to be an argument against the initial proposal (A), whereas Study 2 showed that the subjective strength of this inference relates to the subjective undesirability of the predicted consequences (C). Because arguments are rarely made out of context, in Studies 3 and 4 we examined how one important contextual factor, the speaker's known beliefs, influences the perceived coherence, strength, and persuasiveness of a SSA. Using an unobtrusive dependent variable (eye movements during reading), in Study 3 we showed that readers are sensitive to the internal coherence between a speaker's beliefs and the implied meaning of the argument. Finally, Study 4 revealed that this degree of internal coherence influences the perceived strength and persuasiveness of the argument. Together, these data indicate that SSAs are treated as a form of negative consequentialist argument. People infer that the speaker of a SSA opposes the initial proposal; therefore, SSAs are only perceived to be persuasive and conversationally relevant when the speaker's attitudes match this inference.

The effectiveness of argumentation in tutorial dialogues with an Intelligent Tutoring System for genetic risk of breast cancer

BRCA Gist is an Intelligent Tutoring System that helps women understand issues related to genetic testing and breast cancer risk. In two laboratory experiments and a field experiment with community and web-based samples, an avatar asked 120 participants to produce arguments for and against genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Two raters assessed the number of argumentation elements (claim, reason, backing, etc.) found in response to prompts soliciting arguments for and against genetic testing for breast cancer risk (IRR=.85). When asked to argue for genetic testing, 53.3 % failed to meet the minimum operational definition of making an argument, a claim supported by one or more reasons. When asked to argue against genetic testing, 59.3 % failed to do so. Of those who failed to generate arguments most simply listed disconnected reasons. However, participants who provided arguments against testing (40.7 %) performed significantly higher on a posttest of declarative knowledge. In each study we found positive correlations between the quality of arguments against genetic testing (i.e., number of argumentation elements) and genetic risk categorization scores. Although most interactions did not contain two or more argument elements, when more elements of arguments were included in the argument against genetic testing interaction, participants had greater learning outcomes. Apparently, many participants lack skills in making coherent arguments. These results suggest an association between argumentation ability (knowing how to make complex arguments) and subsequent learning. Better education in developing arguments may be necessary for people to learn from generating arguments within Intelligent Tutoring Systems and other settings.

The Selective Laziness of Reasoning

Reasoning research suggests that people use more stringent criteria when they evaluate others' arguments than when they produce arguments themselves. To demonstrate this "selective laziness," we used a choice blindness manipulation. In two experiments, participants had to produce a series of arguments in response to reasoning problems, and they were then asked to evaluate other people's arguments about the same problems. Unknown to the participants, in one of the trials, they were presented with their own argument as if it was someone else's. Among those participants who accepted the manipulation and thus thought they were evaluating someone else's argument, more than half (56% and 58%) rejected the arguments that were in fact their own. Moreover, participants were more likely to reject their own arguments for invalid than for valid answers. This demonstrates that people are more critical of other people's arguments than of their own, without being overly critical: They are better able to tell valid from invalid arguments when the arguments are someone else's rather than their own.

Evaluation of a question generation approach using semantic web for supporting argumentation

Discourse and argumentation are effective techniques for education not only in social domains but also in science domains. However, it is difficult for some teachers to stimulate an active discussion between students because several students might not be able to develop their arguments. This paper proposes to use WordNet as a semantic source in order to generate questions that are intended to stimulate students' brainstorming and to help them develop arguments in a discussion session. In a study including 141 questions generated by human experts and 44 questions generated by a computer system, the following research questions have been investigated: Are system-generated questions understandable? Are they relevant to given discussion topics? Would they be useful for supporting students in developing new arguments? Are understandable and relevant system-generated questions predicted to be useful for students in order to develop new arguments? The evaluation showed that system-generated questions could not be distinguished from human-generated questions in the context of two discussion topics while the difference between system-generated and human-generated questions was noticed in the context of one discussion topic. In addition, the evaluation study showed that system-generated questions that are relevant to a discussion topic correlate moderately with questions that are predicted as useful for students in developing new arguments in the context of two discussion topics and understandable system-generated questions are rated as useful in the context of one specific discussion topic.

Combining conceptual graphs and argumentation for aiding in the teleexpertise

Current medical information systems are too complex to be meaningfully exploited. Hence there is a need to develop new strategies for maximising the exploitation of medical data to the benefit of medical professionals. It is against this backdrop that we want to propose a tangible contribution by providing a tool which combines conceptual graphs and Dung׳s argumentation system in order to assist medical professionals in their decision making process. The proposed tool allows medical professionals to easily manipulate and visualise queries and answers for making decisions during the practice of teleexpertise. The knowledge modelling is made using an open application programming interface (API) called CoGui, which offers the means for building structured knowledge bases with the dedicated functionalities of graph-based reasoning via retrieved data from different institutions (hospitals, national security centre, and nursing homes). The tool that we have described in this study supports a formal traceable structure of the reasoning with acceptable arguments to elucidate some ethical problems that occur very often in the telemedicine domain.

Exploring the relationships between participatory decision-making, visit duration, and general practitioners' provision of argumentation to support their medical advice: results from a content analysis

OBJECTIVE

General practitioners' medical recommendations are not always accepted by their patients. As patients bring their own beliefs, knowledge, and preferences to the medical encounter, their opinions concerning diagnosis and treatment may deviate from their doctors'. Aiming to convince their patients of the acceptability of their advice, doctors can advance arguments. Few quantitative studies have been conducted focusing on general practitioners' provision of argumentation and little is known about the relationship between the use of argumentation and characteristics of the medical visit, such as (participatory) decision-making and visit duration. This study seeks to explore these relationships.

METHODS

An observational study of seventy, randomly drawn videos of general practice consultations was conducted. A theory-based codebook was developed. Two independent coders analyzed doctors' provision of argumentation, their decision-making style, and the duration of each visit.

RESULTS

General practitioners' provision of argumentation was found to be associated with lengthier visits and a more participatory decision-making style. In addition, visit duration and participatory decision-making appeared associated.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the use of argumentation may contribute toward achieving patient-centered care through communication.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

As a result, the findings underscore the potential relevance of developing courses focusing on doctors' argumentation skills.

Micropublications: a semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications

Background

Scientific publications are documentary representations of defeasible arguments, supported by data and repeatable methods. They are the essential mediating artifacts in the ecosystem of scientific communications. The institutional “goal” of science is publishing results. The linear document publication format, dating from 1665, has survived transition to the Web.

Intractable publication volumes; the difficulty of verifying evidence; and observed problems in evidence and citation chains suggest a need for a web-friendly and machine-tractable model of scientific publications. This model should support: digital summarization, evidence examination, challenge, verification and remix, and incremental adoption. Such a model must be capable of expressing a broad spectrum of representational complexity, ranging from minimal to maximal forms.

Results

The micropublications semantic model of scientific argument and evidence provides these features. Micropublications support natural language statements; data; methods and materials specifications; discussion and commentary; challenge and disagreement; as well as allowing many kinds of statement formalization.

The minimal form of a micropublication is a statement with its attribution. The maximal form is a statement with its complete supporting argument, consisting of all relevant evidence, interpretations, discussion and challenges brought forward in support of or opposition to it. Micropublications may be formalized and serialized in multiple ways, including in RDF. They may be added to publications as stand-off metadata.

An OWL 2 vocabulary for micropublications is available at http://purl.org/mp. A discussion of this vocabulary along with RDF examples from the case studies, appears as OWL Vocabulary and RDF Examples in Additional file 1.

Conclusion

Micropublications, because they model evidence and allow qualified, nuanced assertions, can play essential roles in the scientific communications ecosystem in places where simpler, formalized and purely statement-based models, such as the nanopublications model, will not be sufficient. At the same time they will add significant value to, and are intentionally compatible with, statement-based formalizations.

We suggest that micropublications, generated by useful software tools supporting such activities as writing, editing, reviewing, and discussion, will be of great value in improving the quality and tractability of biomedical communications.

Controversy over antibacterial silver: implications for environmental and sustainability assessments

The potential risks and benefits of using silver, especially nanosilver, as an antibacterial agent in consumer and healthcare products are under debate globally. Using content analysis of texts from newspaper and TV, government agencies, municipalities, government and parliament, non-governmental organizations, and companies, we analyze the argumentation in the Swedish public controversy over antibacterial silver and relate the findings to environmental and sustainability assessments. We conclude that silver is regarded as either beneficial or harmful in relation to four main values: the environment, health, sewage treatment, and product effectiveness. Various arguments are used to support positive and negative evaluations of silver, revealing several contradictory reasons for considering silver beneficial or harmful. Current environmental and sustainability assessments (i.e. substance flow analysis, risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and lifecycle assessment) cover many of the concerns raised in the public controversy over antibacterial silver and can therefore inform the debate regarding its toxicity, emissions, and environmental impact. However, not all concerns raised in the public controversy are covered by current environmental and sustainability assessments, most notably, concerns over public health and bacterial resistance issues are not paid full attention. For future environmental and sustainability assessments to make an even more significant societal contribution and to inform consumers and decision-makers about concerns articulated in the public debate, a wider range of issues concerning antibacterial silver needs to be considered through a unified framework.

Rational hypocrisy: a Bayesian analysis based on informal argumentation and slippery slopes

Moral hypocrisy is typically viewed as an ethical accusation: Someone is applying different moral standards to essentially identical cases, dishonestly claiming that one action is acceptable while otherwise equivalent actions are not. We suggest that in some instances the apparent logical inconsistency stems from different evaluations of a weak argument, rather than dishonesty per se. Extending Corner, Hahn, and Oaksford's (2006) analysis of slippery slope arguments, we develop a Bayesian framework in which accusations of hypocrisy depend on inferences of shared category membership between proposed actions and previous standards, based on prior probabilities that inform the strength of competing hypotheses. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that inferences of hypocrisy increase as perceptions of the likelihood of shared category membership between precedent cases and current cases increase, that these inferences follow established principles of category induction, and that the presence of self-serving motives increases inferences of hypocrisy independent of changes in the actions themselves. Taken together, these results demonstrate that Bayesian analyses of weak arguments may have implications for assessing moral reasoning.

On the causal efficacy of natural selection: A response to Richards' critique of the standard interpretation

Given the amount of literature devoted to the reasoning used in Darwin's Origin of Species, an interpretation seeking to revise the standard take on Darwin's methodology is unexpected. Yet, Richards (1997, 1998, 2005) challenges the view that Darwin drew an analogy in the Origin on the grounds that such a strategy could not support the possibility of a new species emerging. I suggest, however, that how one interprets causal efficacy is intimately connected with Darwin's use of analogy. A more robust conception of natural selection, as found in the Origin, supports the standard interpretation, significantly weakening Richards' charge of a paradox.

"You must eat the salad because it is nutritious". Argumentative strategies adopted by parents and children in food-related discussions at mealtimes

At mealtimes, the evaluation of the appropriate (or not appropriate) behavior concerning the food is often assumed as a topic of discourse. The aim of this study is to single out the argumentative strategies used by parents with their children and by children with their parents in order to convince the other party to eat or not to eat a certain food. Within a data corpus constituted by 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families, we selected a corpus of 77 argumentative discussions between parents and children arisen around a food-related issue. Data are presented through discursive excerpts of argumentative discussions that were found within the data corpus and analyzed through the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion. The results of this study show that the feeding practices in families with young children during mealtimes are argumentatively co-constructed by participants. In most cases parents put forward arguments based on the quality (e.g., very good, nutritious, salty, or not good) and quantity (e.g., too little, quite enough, or too much) of food to convince their children to eat. Similarly, children put forward arguments based on the quality and quantity of food to convince their parents to change their standpoint, although their view on the issue is the opposite of that of their parents.

Rational versus unreasonable persuasion in doctor-patient communication: a normative account

OBJECTIVE

Persuasion plays a critical role in doctor-patient communication. The relevant literature tends to equate persuasion to manipulation as a suboptimal form of interaction. The objective of this paper is to distinguish among different types of persuasion processes and to highlight when their use can be beneficial or risky from the perspective of the patient's autonomy.

METHODS

This paper presents a conceptual analysis of persuasion based on the analytical and normative frameworks of argumentation theory.

RESULTS

Persuasion is a generic term that refers to at least four main forms of persuasion: rational persuasion, unintentional unreasonable persuasion, intentional (without deception) unreasonable persuasion and intentional (with deception) unreasonable persuasion (i.e., manipulation).

CONCLUSION

Rational persuasion can be a process of value for the medical encounter. The other forms of persuasion can negatively impact patients' decision making. They are suboptimal for different reasons that are partly due to the quality of communication, and partly due to ethics of the medical conduct.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This paper offers a basis for developing training opportunities that foster deeper understanding of different forms and uses of persuasion. Also, it can inspire the development of educational material for patients targeted to the enhancement of their critical health literacy.

Adding coping-related strategies to biomedical argumentation in computer-generated genetic counseling patient letters

OBJECTIVE

Previously an experimental computer system was developed to automatically produce first drafts of genetic counseling patient letters containing biomedical evidence-based arguments. However, letters written by genetic counselors also employ strategies to help clients cope. The objectives of this research were to discover methods for addition of coping-related strategies to the drafts and to explore their efficacy.

METHODS

Using an argumentation-based approach, the system design was modified to add coping-related strategies used by actual genetic counselors. An evaluation of computer-produced drafts was performed comparing those containing only biomedical arguments to those with coping strategies added to biomedical arguments.

RESULTS

The evaluation mainly found no significant impact of adding coping strategies.

CONCLUSION

The main contribution of this work was to show how coping-related strategies can be produced by an artificial intelligence approach within an argumentation-based theoretical framework. A possible future application would be to improve computer-drafted genetic counseling patient letters.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Computer-assisted drafting of letters has potential to aid in the practice of genetic counseling. Further research is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of adding coping strategies to computer-produced drafts.

'What matters to Andrew'. The problem of premissary relevance in automated health advisors. Insights from pragma-dialectics

OBJECTIVE

To influence health behavior, communication has to be relevant on an individual level and, thus, fulfill the requirement of premissary relevance. This paper attempts to enrich the design of automated health advisors by, first, reviewing main solutions to the challenge of premissary relevance found in the literature and, second, highlighting the value in this field of the theory of argumentation known as pragma-dialectics.

METHODS

A conceptual paper grounded in persuasion research and argumentation theory.

RESULTS

Automated health advisors enable argumentative exchanges with users. But there is a need to design these systems as to make them work in an audience-centered perspective. The theory of pragma-dialectics can be used to analyze the factors that favor or hinder the agreement of users to engage in certain health behaviors, and to identify argumentation strategies targeted to behavior change.

CONCLUSION

Pragma-dialectics can be used to enhance the design of automated health advisors as it operationalizes the dialogical nature of the reasoning process that can influence health behavior.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Premissary relevance is a challenge of communication for health promotion at large that can be promisingly addressed through synergies among persuasion research, argumentation theory and Artificial Intelligence.