Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining

A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective (e.g., group, online community) manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope’s design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices.     

Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry

In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation literature, we scrutinize the advantages and pitfalls of applying a dialectical framework to polylogue analysis and evaluation. We recognize two basic dialectical methods: interpreting polylogues as exchanges between two main camps and splitting polylogues into a multitude of dual encounters. On the basis of this critical inquiry, we lay out an argument expressing the need for an improved polylogical model and propose its basic elements.     

From Information‐Seeking Behavior to Meaning Engagement Practice.

We invite readers of this colloquy on information‐seeking behavior to reconsider the worldview that structures scholarly and practical thinking about information‐seeking behavior as a mode of human activity. We propose an alternative formulation–meaning engagement practice–to draw into relief the assumptions that tacitly underpin the investigation of information‐seeking behavior. We develop this alternative by contrasting information with meaning, seeking with engagement, and behavior with practice. By rethinking information‐seeking behavior through the lens of meaning engagement practice, avenues for theoretical development and systematic investigation of communication more generally are recovered. We ground our case for meaning engagement practice in four research contexts: modeling the user in information mediation, information access and browsing as relevant processes for understanding information‐seeking behavior, the products and by‐products of an information‐seeking behavior worldview in psychiatric evaluation, and approaches to the design of mediation practices that encourage reflection.