Poetic Possibilities in Conversations About Suffering

Suffering is presented as an experience affected by the meanings, stories, and conversations held by sufferers and caregivers. Seen this way, therapy offers many opportunities to join sufferers and caregivers in a search for meanings, stories, and ways of talking that best serve them. By bringing a poetic sensitivity to how therapists listen and intervene it is possible to engage these clients in reflecting upon, trying on, and engaging in new, relief-promoting forms of meaning. Further, this way of intervening can heuristically prompt sufferers and caregivers to engage in poetic meaning-making when they feel stuck on the sameness of meanings they associate with suffering.     

The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation in a Legal Context

In this article the author develops a framework for a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Ideas taken from legal theory are integrated in a pragma-dialectical model for analyzing and evaluating argumentation, thus providing a more systematic and elaborate framework for assessing the quality of teleological arguments in a legal context. Teleological argumentation in a legal context is approached as a specific form of pragmatic argumentation. The legal criteria that are relevant for the evaluation of teleological argumentation are discussed and translated in terms of critical questions that are relevant for the evaluation of the various forms of teleological argumentation.

‘The experiencing of experience’: a Pragmatic reassessment of Rogerian Phenomenology

This paper draws on a study that asked twenty family users about their first session of family therapy. Analyses of the interviews indicated that families entered therapy with a pre-existent knowledge about therapy, which did not always chime with those of professionals and which positioned speakers in ways which governed their expectations and perceptions of therapy. This paper, therefore, is concerned with the acquisition and deployment of knowledge: specifically, the knowledge involved in being a user of family therapy. Three key discourses were identified through this analysis: medical, counselling and consumerist. We aim to illustrate how these discourses served as a resource for members of the family in constructing therapists, therapy and themselves in relation to their experience. The examination of the rhetorical, ideological and practical effects of the positions chosen and the objects constructed, in terms of how speakers wanted to present themselves, with what enhanced or diminished status as patients, shows users actively engaging with the power of therapeutic institutions. Users’ accounts suggest that while most speakers felt anxious about the prospect of therapy, there were clear differences in overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the experience according to the synchrony between speakers’ construction of the therapist, and themselves as client/patients. Those who seemed to take a traditional view of therapy within a medical discourse valued therapists who offered diagnosis and a cure; those who sought and experienced a counselling relationship with the therapist found their experience to be constructive in terms of enhanced self-knowledge. We believe that the research findings discussed in this paper have implications for family therapists in accommodating to parental and child positions to maximise the effectiveness of therapy and so minimise drop-out.     

Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures

Many public information documents attempt to persuade the recipients that they should engage in or refrain from specific behaviour. This is based on the assumption that the recipient will decide about his or her behaviour on the basis of the information given and a rational evaluation of the pros and cons. An analysis of 20 public information brochures shows that the argumentation in persuasive brochures is often not marked as such. Argumentation is presented as factual information, and in many instances the task of making argumentational links and drawing conclusions is left to the reader. However, since the information offered does follow familiar argumentational schemes, readers can, in principle, reconstruct the argument. All the brochures make use of pragmatic argumentation (argumentation from consequences),i. e.,they formulate at least certain benefits of the desirable behaviour or disadvantages of the undesirable behaviour. In addition, they make regular use of argumentation from cause to effect and argumentation from example. Argumentation from rules and argumentation from authority are less frequently used. This empirical analysis of the use of argumentation schemes is a solid base for interesting and rich hypotheses about the cognitive processing of persuasive brochures. Central processing requires the reader to be able to reconstruct argumentation from informational texts and to identify and evaluate various types of argumentation.     

Is Modernism Really Modern? Uncovering a Fallacy in Postmodernism

Some postmodernists criticize the view that the logics of Western thought can be employed universally. In doing so, they assume without adequate proof that different human societies have greatly different rationalities and employ completely different logics. This essay argues that, on the contrary, widely different cultures often share noteworthy similarities in rationality.     

Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Empirical research in the field of legal interpretation shows that, in many cases, analogy argumentation is complex rather than simple. Traditional analytical approaches to analogy argumentation do not explore that complexity. In most cases analogy argumentation is reconstructed as a simple form of argumentation that consists of two premises and a conclusion. This article focuses on the question of how to analyze and evaluate complex analogy argumentation. It is shown how the pragma-dialectical approach provides clues for analyzing complex analogy argumentation and how the criteria for evaluating analogy argumentation can be used to reconstruct these types of complex analogy argumentation in Dutch case law. The critical questions in the argumentation scheme do not only serve as a tool for analyzing arguments justifying analogy argumentation, but are also helpful in analyzing arguments against a specific analogy argumentation.     

Using Toulmin's Framework for the Analysis of Everyday Argumentation: Some Methodological Considerations

This study used Toulmin's analytical framework of argumentative structure in order to examine employees' argumentative discourse on the way they handle conflict situations in their workplace. The way in which this analytical tool has been applied here challenges critics on the usefulness of the particular analytical tool for the analysis of real-life argumentation. The definition of argumentative elements according to their function in the context of a particular argument, together with the analysis beyond the level of what has been stated explicitly enabled a comprehensive understanding of how specific information, statements or assumptions are interpreted and utilized in arguments examined. Finally, the acknowledgment of the importance of `field-dependency' of argumentative discourse, through the consideration of the social context within which this discourse is embedded, elicited the way in which this context made employees' argumentation a meaningful and acceptable discourse in this particular setting.     

A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context

This paper answers the question how pragmatic argumentation which occurs in a legal context, can be analyzed and evaluated adequately. First, the author surveys various ideas taken from argumentation theory and legal theory on the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation. Then, on the basis of these ideas, she develops a pragma-dialectical instrument for analyzing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Finally she demonstrates how this instrument can be used by giving an exemplary analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court.     

流动群体家庭抗逆力特征的质性研究*

从家庭系统的视角看待流动群体的困境经历与抗逆经验是社会心理服务体系构建中需要关注的重要议题。采取方便抽样和强度抽样的方式,从家庭变迁状况、日常生活样态、困境经历与抗逆经验三个层面对江浙两省家庭抗逆力整体水平较高的13户流动家庭儿童及其父母进行深度访谈,使用共识性质性研究方法提取和分析流动家庭的家庭抗逆力特征。结果显示:1. 流动家庭的生命历程中主要经历着生存性压力、养育性负担、关系性挑战与丧失性危机四种性质的困境。2. 流动家庭的家庭抗逆力具有坚定的信念、共情的互动、灵活的调节、榜样的支持、多重的经验五个特征。     

The disputation — a special type of cooperative argumentative dialogue

This article consists of three parts, two introductory, in which the limits and the methods of analysis of dialogues are expounded, and the major part, in which the main features of a philosophical theory of disputation are outlined.

Aristotle's Endoxa and Plausible Argumentation

Aristotle's conception and use of ta endoxa are key points to our understanding of Aristotelian dialectic. But, nowadays, they are not of historical or hermeneutic importance alone, as, in Aristotle's treatment of endoxa, we still see a relevant contribution to the modern study of argumentation. I propose here an interpretation of endoxa to that effect: namely, as plausible propositions. This version is not only defensible in the Aristotelian context, it may also shed new light on some of his assumptions and methodological shortcomings – e.g. concerning the 'plausible/implausible' pair –; finally, it will even enable us to show certain basic hints and guidelines, advanced by Aristotle's study of endoxa, which still serve nowadays to orientate our studies of argumentation from the angle of a theory of plausible argument currently under construction. These hints and guidelines suggest a pragmatic, gradual and comparative discursive concept of plausibility, and point, in particular, towards the reasonable dealing with, and weighing up of, differences of opinion within this frame of reference.     

Ways of coping with excessive drug use in the family: A provisional typology based on the accounts of 50 close relatives

This paper outlines an eight-fold typology of coping actions based upon a qualitative analysis of the accounts provided by 50 close relatives of people with drug problems. In a number of different ways relatives draw attention to the contrasts between these distinguishable ways of coping. Emphasis is placed upon the provisional nature of this typology and upon the compromises between, and combinations of, ways of coping that are often used by relatives in practice. Different ways of coping represent alternative choices for relatives, often explicitly expressed by them as difficult dilemmas. Links are suggested between the ways of coping identified here and those discussed in the literature on coping with other disorders and disabilities in the family, with ways of coping described in the general literature on coping with stress, and with types of social action appearing in general models of interpersonal behaviour. Implications for counselling close relatives of people with drug problems are also outlined.     

医学家的博物学关怀与情怀

针对当下医学人文教育的缺失提出“博物情怀”应该成为医学家职业素养的基调。传统的博物情怀是一种人文情愫的熏陶教化,既有百科知识的杂合贯通,也有“亲近自然”、“师法自然”、“博物-格物-析物-惜物”等一系列观念养成。现代意识的博物观念是自然科学重归自然,与自然和解的精神路径,以便建立“人的科学”与“自然的科学”的必然联系,作为职业境界升华的共识,博物学情怀有助于发现医学的美学意义、社会责任,改造当下刻板的技术人格,重新获得技术与人性的平衡与张力。     

Argumentation as Rule-Justified Claims: Elements of a Conceptual Framework for the Critical Analysis of Argument

The paper outlines a conceptual framework for the critical assessment of argumentation which differs in some of its core characteristics from conventional approaches: it is resolutely semantic rather than formal in its method; it centers on obligations rather than beliefs; and its analytical focus is on the contingent necessity of conclusions, rather than on their persuasiveness or formal validity. The paper briefly illustrates the applications of this conceptual framework by reanalyzing a couple of examples taken from the argumentation analysis literature.     

From Complexity Concepts to Creative Applications

A complexity cosmography is introduced as construing a world that is self-organizing, dynamic, and emergent, and that comprises organic entities that too are self-organizing, dynamic, and emergent. Following critical reflection into the nature of utilising complexity in social inquiry, specific images, vocabularies and complexity-based methods and techniques as developed by the authors are introduced.     

Relationships in Families after a Family Member’s Death: A Qualitative Metasynthesis

The aim of this article is to understand the bereavement of a family as a unit from multiple perspectives. Using qualitative metasynthesis, we described family members’ bereavement experiences from multiple perspectives. The most common perspectives reported were those of parents who had lost their children. No studies reported the perspectives of husbands. Every article explicitly or implicitly referred to a continued connection with the deceased and the effect of this connection on family relationships. This article addresses the importance of focusing on more than one relationship within a family, which should be investigated further in future research.     

对颌骨骨折坚固内固定术患者心身感受的质性研究

了解颌骨骨折坚固内固定术患者不同阶段的心理和躯体感受,以便为其提供人性化的人文护理服务,使患者满意,使优质护理服务得到落实。采用立意取样法选取研究对象,对选取的31例颌骨骨折坚固内固定术患者采用质性研究中的现象学方法进行深度访谈,并对资料进行整理和分析。结果发现患者在三个阶段中的护理问题如下：（1）手术前;自我形象紊乱、功能障碍和焦虑。（2）手术后：舒适受到影响和愧疚感等。（3）出院时：渴求信息。本研究能规范颌骨骨折坚固内固定术患者人文护理的具体内容,改善其护理问题。     

人情的心理学探析

人情是一个"通俗化了的流行观念"。在中国,有关人情的研究主要集中在两个方面,一是关于人情涵义的探讨,二是有关人情法则的界定。本文采用文献综述的方法阐述了"人情"内涵的衍变,并指出了它对当代中国人际关系的重大意义。