for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help

Publisher: Springer-Verlag   (Total: 2335 journals)

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Showing 1 - 200 of 2335 Journals sorted alphabetically
3D Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.214, h-index: 10)
4OR: A Quarterly J. of Operations Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.073, h-index: 25)
AAPS J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.192, h-index: 74)
AAPS PharmSciTech     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.718, h-index: 54)
Abdominal Imaging     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.723, h-index: 60)
Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universitat Hamburg     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.447, h-index: 12)
Academic Psychiatry     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22, SJR: 0.492, h-index: 32)
Academic Questions     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.135, h-index: 6)
Accreditation and Quality Assurance: J. for Quality, Comparability and Reliability in Chemical Measurement     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.378, h-index: 30)
Acoustical Physics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.355, h-index: 20)
Acta Analytica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.387, h-index: 6)
Acta Applicandae Mathematicae     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.624, h-index: 34)
Acta Biotheoretica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.419, h-index: 25)
Acta Diabetologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.318, h-index: 46)
Acta Endoscopica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.113, h-index: 8)
acta ethologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.465, h-index: 23)
Acta Geochimica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.294, h-index: 13)
Acta Geotechnica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 1.818, h-index: 22)
Acta Informatica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.524, h-index: 32)
Acta Mathematica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 8.021, h-index: 47)
Acta Mathematica Hungarica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.53, h-index: 29)
Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.406, h-index: 30)
Acta Mathematica Vietnamica     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.451, h-index: 5)
Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica, English Series     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.22, h-index: 20)
Acta Mechanica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.898, h-index: 52)
Acta Mechanica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.426, h-index: 29)
Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters)     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.525, h-index: 18)
Acta Meteorologica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.524, h-index: 14)
Acta Neurochirurgica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.833, h-index: 73)
Acta Neurologica Belgica     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.348, h-index: 27)
Acta Neuropathologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 6.61, h-index: 117)
Acta Oceanologica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.295, h-index: 17)
Acta Parasitologica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.581, h-index: 28)
Acta Physiologiae Plantarum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.551, h-index: 39)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 0.658, h-index: 20)
adhäsion KLEBEN & DICHTEN     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.103, h-index: 4)
ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.871, h-index: 15)
Adhesion Adhesives & Sealants     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research     Partially Free   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.795, h-index: 40)
Adsorption     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.774, h-index: 52)
Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.319, h-index: 15)
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34, SJR: 0.959, h-index: 44)
Advances in Computational Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 1.255, h-index: 44)
Advances in Contraception     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Advances in Data Analysis and Classification     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 48, SJR: 1.113, h-index: 14)
Advances in Gerontology     Partially Free   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.141, h-index: 3)
Advances in Health Sciences Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 1.397, h-index: 42)
Advances in Manufacturing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.2, h-index: 4)
Advances in Polymer Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40, SJR: 0.637, h-index: 89)
Advances in Therapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.79, h-index: 44)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Aequationes Mathematicae     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.882, h-index: 23)
Aerobiologia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.511, h-index: 36)
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.821, h-index: 49)
African Archaeological Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.612, h-index: 24)
Afrika Matematika     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.248, h-index: 6)
AGE     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 1.358, h-index: 33)
Ageing Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.337, h-index: 10)
Aggiornamenti CIO     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.529, h-index: 55)
Agricultural Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Agriculture and Human Values     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.197, h-index: 49)
Agroforestry Systems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.64, h-index: 56)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.732, h-index: 59)
AI & Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.171, h-index: 19)
AIDS and Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 2.006, h-index: 71)
Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.706, h-index: 19)
Akupunktur & Aurikulomedizin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Algebra and Logic     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.566, h-index: 18)
Algebra Universalis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.388, h-index: 22)
Algebras and Representation Theory     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.868, h-index: 20)
Algorithmica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.898, h-index: 56)
Allergo J.     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.183, h-index: 20)
Allergo J. Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Alpine Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.729, h-index: 20)
ALTEX : Alternatives to Animal Experimentation     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.392, h-index: 32)
AMBIO     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.094, h-index: 87)
American J. of Cardiovascular Drugs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.864, h-index: 39)
American J. of Community Psychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 1.237, h-index: 83)
American J. of Criminal Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.634, h-index: 13)
American J. of Cultural Sociology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.283, h-index: 3)
American J. of Dance Therapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.175, h-index: 13)
American J. of Potato Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.558, h-index: 35)
American J. of Psychoanalysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.293, h-index: 13)
American Sociologist     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.18, h-index: 13)
Amino Acids     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.362, h-index: 83)
AMS Review     Partially Free   (Followers: 4)
Analog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.21, h-index: 37)
Analysis and Mathematical Physics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.665, h-index: 7)
Analysis in Theory and Applications     Hybrid Journal  
Analysis of Verbal Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32, SJR: 1.096, h-index: 123)
Anatomical Science Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.301, h-index: 26)
Angewandte Schmerztherapie und Palliativmedizin     Hybrid Journal  
Angiogenesis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 2.212, h-index: 69)
Animal Cognition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.122, h-index: 55)
Annales françaises de médecine d'urgence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.156, h-index: 4)
Annales Henri Poincaré     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.377, h-index: 32)
Annales mathématiques du Québec     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Annali dell'Universita di Ferrara     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.504, h-index: 14)
Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.167, h-index: 26)
Annals of Behavioral Medicine     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 2.112, h-index: 98)
Annals of Biomedical Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 1.182, h-index: 94)
Annals of Combinatorics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.849, h-index: 15)
Annals of Data Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Annals of Dyslexia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.857, h-index: 40)
Annals of Finance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.686, h-index: 14)
Annals of Forest Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.929, h-index: 57)
Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.136, h-index: 23)
Annals of Hematology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.117, h-index: 62)
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.593, h-index: 42)
Annals of Microbiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.402, h-index: 26)
Annals of Nuclear Medicine     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.68, h-index: 45)
Annals of Operations Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.186, h-index: 78)
Annals of Regional Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.405, h-index: 42)
Annals of Software Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Annals of Solid and Structural Mechanics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.553, h-index: 8)
Annals of Surgical Oncology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.902, h-index: 127)
Annals of Telecommunications     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.315, h-index: 25)
Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.931, h-index: 31)
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.992, h-index: 87)
Apidologie     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.14, h-index: 57)
APOPTOSIS     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 1.554, h-index: 87)
Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.354, h-index: 27)
Applications of Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.274, h-index: 20)
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 45, SJR: 0.575, h-index: 80)
Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.267, h-index: 26)
Applied Categorical Structures     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.361, h-index: 21)
Applied Composite Materials     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 45, SJR: 0.705, h-index: 35)
Applied Entomology and Zoology     Partially Free   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.554, h-index: 34)
Applied Geomatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.323, h-index: 9)
Applied Geophysics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.541, h-index: 13)
Applied Intelligence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 0.777, h-index: 43)
Applied Magnetic Resonance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.358, h-index: 34)
Applied Mathematics & Optimization     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.955, h-index: 33)
Applied Mathematics - A J. of Chinese Universities     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.275, h-index: 8)
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.37, h-index: 26)
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 61, SJR: 1.262, h-index: 161)
Applied Physics A     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.535, h-index: 121)
Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 0.983, h-index: 104)
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.677, h-index: 47)
Applied Research in Quality of Life     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.288, h-index: 15)
Applied Solar Energy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.251, h-index: 6)
Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.351, h-index: 9)
Aquaculture Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 0.613, h-index: 40)
Aquarium Sciences and Conservation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Aquatic Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31, SJR: 0.646, h-index: 44)
Aquatic Geochemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.764, h-index: 39)
Aquatic Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.172, h-index: 53)
Arabian J. for Science and Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.345, h-index: 20)
Arabian J. of Geosciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.417, h-index: 16)
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 1.056, h-index: 15)
Archaeologies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.397, h-index: 13)
Archiv der Mathematik     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.597, h-index: 29)
Archival Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 51, SJR: 0.804, h-index: 22)
Archive for History of Exact Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.28, h-index: 15)
Archive for Mathematical Logic     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.946, h-index: 23)
Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 4.091, h-index: 66)
Archive of Applied Mechanics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.865, h-index: 40)
Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 2.841, h-index: 40)
Archives of Dermatological Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.9, h-index: 65)
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.846, h-index: 84)
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.695, h-index: 47)
Archives of Microbiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.702, h-index: 85)
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.039, h-index: 56)
Archives of Osteoporosis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.092, h-index: 13)
Archives of Sexual Behavior     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.198, h-index: 74)
Archives of Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.595, h-index: 76)
Archives of Virology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.086, h-index: 90)
Archives of Women's Mental Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.264, h-index: 50)
Archivio di Ortopedia e Reumatologia     Hybrid Journal  
Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.2, h-index: 42)
ArgoSpine News & J.     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.102, h-index: 3)
Argumentation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.295, h-index: 18)
Arid Ecosystems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Arkiv för Matematik     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.948, h-index: 22)
Arnold Mathematical J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Arthropod-Plant Interactions     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.797, h-index: 17)
Arthroskopie     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.145, h-index: 8)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.288, h-index: 25)
Artificial Intelligence Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.948, h-index: 48)
Artificial Life and Robotics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.231, h-index: 14)
Asia Europe J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.247, h-index: 9)
Asia Pacific Education Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.371, h-index: 17)
Asia Pacific J. of Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.676, h-index: 50)
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.353, h-index: 13)
Asia-Pacific Financial Markets     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.19, h-index: 15)
Asia-Pacific J. of Atmospheric Sciences     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 1.006, h-index: 14)
Asian Business & Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.41, h-index: 10)
Asian J. of Business Ethics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Asian J. of Criminology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.263, h-index: 8)
AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.681, h-index: 15)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.195, h-index: 5)
ästhetische dermatologie & kosmetologie     Full-text available via subscription  
Astronomy and Astrophysics Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 4.511, h-index: 44)
Astronomy Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.58, h-index: 30)
Astronomy Reports     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.473, h-index: 23)
Astrophysical Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.469, h-index: 11)
Astrophysics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 0.243, h-index: 11)

        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Journal Cover Argumentation
  [SJR: 0.295]   [H-I: 18]   [4 followers]  Follow
    
   Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
   ISSN (Print) 1572-8374 - ISSN (Online) 0920-427X
   Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2335 journals]
  • Institutional Argumentation and Institutional Rules: Effects of
           Interactive Asymmetry on Argumentation in Institutional Contexts
    • Authors: Mark Andrew Thompson
      Pages: 1 - 21
      Abstract: Recent approaches to studying argumentation in institutions have pointed out the role of institutional rules in constraining argumentation that takes place in institutional contexts. However, few studies explain how these rules concretely affect actual argumentation. In particular, little work has been done as to the consequences of interactional asymmetry which often exists between participants in institutional contexts. While previous studies have suggested that this asymmetry exists as an aberration in the deliberative process, this paper argues that asymmetry is built into day-to-day institutional practices as a means of achieving institutional agendas. This article draws upon findings from workplace and discourse studies to explicate particular dimensions of asymmetry that commonly occur within institutional settings, and establishes a methodological framework to account for how this asymmetry can be operationalized for arguments that favor institutional interests regardless of the underlying strength of the arguments being made. Drawing on a controversial case of institutional argumentation during a hearing of the US House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in the mid-1950s, this article demonstrates how in using these advantages, HUAC is able to overcome legitimate witness counterarguments to its claims and achieve its institutional goals for the hearing. Though the testimony is admittedly 60-years old, HUAC is a useful case study: the asymmetry in the exchange is clear and we have a historical record to verify the factual accuracy of the claims being made. Additionally, we can see how the subsequent legal reforms that reduced conditions of asymmetry for witnesses were responsible for HUAC’s eventual demise as an institutional force. Though this paper analyzes one particular interaction, these findings are applicable to analysis of argumentation in many institutional settings.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9395-5
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination
    • Authors: Stephen M. Croucher; Alfred DeMaris; Audra R. Diers-Lawson; Shannon Roper
      Pages: 23 - 43
      Abstract: This study has two purposes. First, the study evaluates the reliability of self-reports of argumentativeness by comparing self-reported argumentativeness with two other reports of the same target: evaluations by friends and evaluations by intimates. Second, the study examines whether particular characteristics (e.g. gender, relational distance, years known, etc.) presage a larger or smaller disparity in different reporters’ reports. We found (a) the reliability of both the approach and avoidance subscales to be acceptable for the intimate partner’s responses, but only marginally acceptable when the scale was answered by a friend; (b) on a basic level, we did not find individuals over or under-estimating their level of argumentativeness, (c) self-over and under estimating has limited impact on the self-reporting of argumentativeness, though males are more likely to over-report argumentativeness; and (d) while relational history had little effect on other-reports, there were effects for same-sex couples that should be further explored.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9385-z
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse
    • Authors: Mathilde Janier; Chris Reed
      Pages: 45 - 82
      Abstract: Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited from technological advances and little research has been carried out to make this increasingly widespread practice more efficient. The study of argumentation in dispute mediation hitherto has largely been concerned with theoretical insights. The development of argumentation theories linked to computational applications opens promising new horizons since computational tools could support mediators, making sessions quicker and more efficient. For this, we need tools for close analysis of mediation discourse in order to explore the argumentative activity in depth, and ultimately get an accurate image of how dialogues unfold in this particular context. This paper therefore aims at laying the foundations of a theory of close analysis for discourse in dispute mediation. Theories provided by the literature serve as a basis for argumentative analyses of transcripts of mediation sessions in order to deliver a clear image of the argumentative structure. Analyses of the argumentative strategies in mediation discourse will allow for the development of a dialogue protocol that can be used to develop operational models which can be embodied in software to help make the mediation process easier and more effective.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9386-y
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence
    • Authors: Christian Dahlman
      Pages: 83 - 99
      Abstract: Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. A biastriggering generalization is unacceptable because decision makers are inclined to overestimate the evidentiary value of membership in the reference class. A discriminating generalization is unacceptable because it puts members in the reference class in an unfair disadvantage. Research funded by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet).
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9399-1
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • The Formalization of Critical Discussion
    • Authors: Erik C. W. Krabbe
      Pages: 101 - 119
      Abstract: This paper makes an independent start with formalizing the rules for the argumentation stage of critical discussions (van Eemeren and Grootendorst A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, Ch. 6). It does not deal with the well-known code of conduct consisting of ten rules (the “ten commandments”) but with the system consisting of fifteen (or seventeen) rules on which the code of conduct is based. The rules of this system are scrutinized and problems they raise are discussed. Then a formal dialectical system is defined that reflects most of the contents of these rules. The aim is to elucidate the way the rules work and to show how a formal approach can be useful to achieve this. It is also shown how the present method can be used to study the nature of circular argumentation. While, generally, the formalization follows closely the original rules for the argumentation stage of critical discussions, there will also be proposed some modifications of the original protocol.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9401-y
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Factors Predicting the Intent to Engage in Arguments in Close
           Relationships: A Revised Model
    • Authors: Ioana A. Cionea; Adam S. Richards; Sara K. Straub
      Pages: 121 - 163
      Abstract: This manuscript examines argument engagement in close relationships (friendships and romantic relationships). Two pilot studies were conducted to identify what factors naïve actors report matter to them when considering whether to engage in an interpersonal argument, and to develop and pre-test measurement scales for these factors. The main study examined which of these factors predicted participants’ behavioral intent to engage in an argument about different topics (personal or public) and with different partners (friend or romantic partner). Results indicated intent to engage was predicted by five factors: one’s orientation to the topic, one’s preparedness for an argument, the costs of arguing, the effort involved in arguing, and one’s right to speak one’s mind. Several of these factors are new contributions to argument engagement research. A discussion of these results and their implications are presented.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9400-z
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience?
    • Authors: Xingming Hu
      Pages: 165 - 177
      Abstract: Peter van Inwagen defines a successful argument in philosophy as one that can be used to convert an audience of ideal agnostics in an ideal debate. Sarah McGrath and Thomas Kelly recently argue that van Inwagen’s definition cannot be correct since the idea of ideal agnostics is incoherent with regard to an absolute paradigm of a successful philosophical argument. This paper defends van Inwagen’s definition against McGrath and Kelly’s objection.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9402-x
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement
           Management in the Fracking Controversy
    • Authors: Mark Aakhus; Marcin Lewiński
      Pages: 179 - 207
      Abstract: This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places (venues) in addition to players (parties) and positions (standpoints) into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the broader controversy over producing oil and gas via hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice
    • Authors: Harry Weger
      Pages: 209 - 211
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9396-4
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen (eds): Reflections on Theoretical Issues in
           Argumentation Theory
    • Authors: Sara Greco
      Pages: 213 - 220
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9397-3
      Issue No: Vol. 31, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Argumentative Patterns in Chinese Medical Consultations
    • Authors: Dawei Pan; Yanjin Chen; Shier Ju
      Abstract: Medical argumentation in non-Western societies has attracted little attention. In line with the pragma-dialectical approach to the study of argumentation, this article identifies a prototypical argumentative pattern in Chinese medical consultations. In addition to institutional preconditions, whose relevance to the argumentative pattern has been well cited, a factor that may be equally important has remained unnoticed: the preference for certain drugs, treatments or therapeutic measurements on the basis of folk interpretations of medical phenomena in individual ethnic groups. These preferences may be seen as cultural preferences in the medical domain. In this paper, a prototypical argumentative pattern of Chinese medical consultations is provided. Two levels of the pattern are distinguished and discussed: a basic argumentative pattern as presented in the pragmatic-dialectical approach and its extensions due to cultural preferences as well as institutional constraints. Illustrated by an exemplary analysis on the basis of empirical data collected from Chinese consulting rooms, the impact of cultural preferences on physicians’ strategic maneuvering in argumentation is identified and recognized. It is argued that the existence and impact of cultural preferences require attention in medical argumentation.
      PubDate: 2017-03-13
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9428-8
       
  • Virtuous Norms for Visual Arguers
    • Authors: Andrew Aberdein
      Abstract: This paper proposes that virtue theories of argumentation and theories of visual argumentation can be of mutual assistance. An argument that adoption of a virtue approach provides a basis for rejecting the normative independence of visual argumentation is presented and its premisses analysed. This entails an independently valuable clarification of the contrasting normative presuppositions of the various virtue theories of argumentation. A range of different kinds of visual argument are examined, and it is argued that they may all be successfully evaluated within a virtue framework, without invoking any novel virtues.
      PubDate: 2017-03-06
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9424-z
       
  • M. A. Gilbert: Arguing with People
    • Authors: Corina Andone
      PubDate: 2017-03-02
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9427-9
       
  • Presumptions in Speech Acts
    • Authors: Cristina Corredor
      Abstract: The aim of this paper is to explore the viability of accounting for presumptions as a subtype of verdictives, within the framework of the Austinian approach to speech acts. The available set of felicity conditions is examined and worked out, in order to try and account in particular for a main feature of presumptions, namely, their function in shifting the burden of proof. In order to extend the Austinian framework as required, the notion of pragmatic presupposition accommodation is shown to be a useful device.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9425-y
       
  • Breaking Out of the Circle
    • Authors: John Caravello
      Abstract: What’s wrong with begging the question? Some philosophers believe that question-begging arguments are inevitably fallacious and that their fallaciousness stems from a shared “formal” deficiency. In contrast, some philosophers, like Robinson (Analysis 31:113–117, 1971) deny that begging the question is fallacious at all. And others characterize begging the question as an “informal” fallacy of reasoning that can only be understood with the aid of epistemic (as opposed to syntactic and semantic) notions. Sorensen (Analysis 56:51–55, 1996) joins this last camp by offering a powerful argument against both Robinson’s skepticism and fully formal approaches to the phenomenon. According to Sorensen’s view, question-begging is fallacious because it compromises the rationality of the question-beggar’s position. Though his argument forces Robinson into a peculiar dialectical position, it does little to elucidate the reasons why Robinson’s position is unstable and it fails to embody Sorensen’s own conception of rationally persuasive argumentation. I utilize this conception to show how Robinson is left with no easily identifiable grounds on which to deny the fallaciousness of begging the question. By advancing the dialectic between Sorensen and Robinson, I aim to show that our argumentative practices must take the perspectives of others seriously, whether or not those perspectives are rational.
      PubDate: 2017-02-28
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9426-x
       
  • Argumentative Writing Behavior of Graduate EFL Learners
    • Authors: Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh; Mohammad Amini Farsani; Maryam Beikmohammadi
      Abstract: This study analyzed the argumentative writing behavior of Iranian graduate learners of English as Foreign Language in their English essays. Further, the correlations between the use of argument elements and overall writing quality as well as soundness of produced arguments were investigated. To this end, 150 essays were analyzed. The sample essays were found to be predominantly deductive in terms of rhetorical pattern. Moreover, they mainly utilized ‘data’ and ‘claim’ most frequently with secondary elements of argument (i.e., counterargument claim, counterargument data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data) as the least produced elements. Overall writing quality co-varied significantly positively with the uses of claims, data, counterargument claims, counterargument data, rebuttal claims, and rebuttal data. Essays rated high in terms of overall writing quality were further rated for soundness and relevance of the arguments. The results demonstrate that even for advanced language learners good surface structure cannot necessarily guarantee well thought-out logical structure. The pedagogical implications for writing instruction and research are discussed.
      PubDate: 2017-02-14
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9415-5
       
  • Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing
           Epistemic Risk
    • Authors: David Godden
      Abstract: Standards and norms for reasoning function, in part, to manage epistemic risk. Properly used, modal qualifiers like presumably have a role in systematically managing epistemic risk by flagging and tracking type-specific epistemic merits and risks of the claims they modify. Yet, argumentation-theoretic accounts of presumption often define it in terms of modalities of other kinds, thereby failing to recognize the unique risk profile of each. This paper offers a stipulative account of presumption, inspired by Ullmann-Margalit (J Philos 80:143–163, 1983), as an inferentially generated modal qualifier, “presumably, p,” distinguishing it from other, particularly epistemic modalities, e.g., standing commitments, assumptions, assertions, suppositions, hypotheses, and defeasible claims. By avoiding the tranching of inferential instruments of qualitatively different bona fides and risk profiles, this account provides a more accurate risk-rating system that better manages epistemic risk in inference, as well as contributing to the normative theory of the operation of presumption in reasoning and argument.
      PubDate: 2017-02-13
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9422-1
       
  • Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument
           Quality Scheme-Specific?
    • Authors: Peter Jan Schellens; Ester Šorm; Rian Timmers; Hans Hoeken
      Abstract: Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of arguments and asked to rank these arguments from strongest to weakest, upon which they were asked to motivate their judgments in an interview. In order to assess whether lay people apply argument scheme specific criteria when performing these tasks, five different argumentation schemes were included in this study: argumentation from authority, from example, from analogy, from cause to effect, and from consequences. Laypeople’s use of criteria for argument quality was inferred from interview protocols. The results revealed that participants combined general criteria from informal logic (such as relevance and acceptability) and scheme-specific criteria (such as expertise for argumentation from authority, similarity for argumentation from analogy, effectiveness for argumentation from consequences). The results supported the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical argument scheme rule in a strong sense and provided a more fine-grained view of central processing in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.
      PubDate: 2017-02-13
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-016-9418-2
       
  • Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics
    • Authors: José Ángel Gascón
      Abstract: Virtue argumentation theory focuses on the arguers’ character, whereas pragma-dialectics focuses on argumentation as a procedure. In this paper I attempt to explain that both theories are not opposite approaches to argumentation. I argue that, with the help of some non-fundamental changes in pragma-dialectics and some restrictions in virtue argumentation theory, it is possible to regard these theories as complementary approaches to the argumentative practice.
      PubDate: 2017-02-13
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9423-0
       
  • Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions
    • Authors: Marcin Lewiński
      Abstract: In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise “the heterogeneous picture of presumptions that exists in argumentation theory today” (Godden and Walton in Pragmat Cogn 15:333, 2007). I argue that this heterogeneity results from an epiphenomenal character of the notion of presumption. To this end, I first distinguish between three main classes of presumptions. Framework presumptions define the basic conditions of linguistic understanding and meaningful conversation. The “presumption of veracity” (Kauffeld) is their paradigm case. I argue that such presumptions are satisfactorily covered by the Principle of Charity (Davidson, Quine), or else Gricean maxims or satisfaction conditions for speech acts (Austin, Searle). Formal presumptions are general presumptive rules of argument, theorised as topoi or acceptable inference warrants, including institutional warrants (“If not proven guilty, then innocent”). Material presumptions are acceptable outcomes of nested or outsourced arguments, which entitles arguers to use them as acceptable premises or opinions (endoxa) in further arguments without the typical burden of proof. If this is correct, then the study of presumption always collapses into the study of other, likely more fundamental, concepts. Does it render presumptions, by Occam’s Razor, altogether redundant in argumentation theory? I tentatively answer this question from a consistently conversational perspective on argumentation; I argue that the pragmatic grounds for presumptions are to be found in the conditions for speech act performance in the institutional social world, as developed by Searle.
      PubDate: 2017-02-10
      DOI: 10.1007/s10503-017-9421-2
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.204.249.55
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016