A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns – patterns that can
be theoretically expected in view of the type of standpoint defended, the institutional aim, and the conventions and constraints
of the context (Van Eemeren 2016: 13–15). This paper aims to add a new dimension to
both this line of research and research on health communication by determining whether the prototypical types of argumentation in
consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer are stereotypical as well, that is, whether they are
dominant in a quantitative sense (van Eemeren 2016: 16). For this purpose, a valid and
reliable measurement instrument is developed and used in a content analysis of the transcripts of 49 consultations. On the basis
of the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that the use of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation is stereotypical in
this type of consultations.
1997 “Shared Decision-Making in the Medical Encounter: What Does it Mean (or It Takes At Least Two to Tango).” Social Science and Medicine 44 (5): 681–692.
Eemeren, Frans H. van
2016 “Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics.” Argumentation 30 (1): 1–23.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans
2005Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands. Een pragma-dialectische studie. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans
2011Argumentatie. Inleiding in het identificeren van meningsverschillen en het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers.
Feteris, Eveline T.
2017Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
Geest, Ingeborg M. van der
2015Argumentatie voor een keuze. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van gemotiveerde keuzes in overheidsbesluiten over m.e.r.-plichtige projecten. Ablasserdam: Haveka
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K.
2007Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 11, 77–89.
Henselmans, Inge, Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven, Jane van der Vloodt, Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes, and Ellen M. A. Smets
2017 “Shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: A qualitative observation of talk about patients’ preferences.” Palliative Medicine 31 (7): 625–633.
Huth, Edward J.
1994 ““in the Balance”: Weighing the Evidence.” Annals of Internal Medicine 120 (10): 889.
Labrie, Nanon H. M., and Peter J. Schulz
2015 “Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.” Argumentation 291: 33–55.
Labrie, Nanon H. M., and Peter J. Schulz
2013 “Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor-patient communication.” Health Communication 29 (10): 996–1008.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A.
2002The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pilgram, Roosmaryn
2015A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.
Pilgram, Roosmaryn
2009 “Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: Medical consultation as a pragmadialectical communicative activity type.” Studies in Communication Sciences 921: 153–169.
Prigerson, Holly G., Yuhua Bao, Manish A. Shah, M. Elizabeth Paulk, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Bryan J. Schneider, Melissa M. Garrido, M. Carrington Reid, David A. Berlin, Kerin B. Adelson, Alfred I. Neugut, and Paul K. Maciejewski
2015Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA Oncology 11: 778–784.
Schellens, Peter J., and Gerard Verhoeven
1988Argument en tegenargument. Een inleading in de analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A., and Jean H. M. Wagemans
2012 “The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making.” In Between scientists & citizens: proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. by Jean Goodwin, 345–354. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Wierda, Renske M.
2015Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements: An analytical and empirical study concerning the strategic anticipation of critical questions. Ridderkerk: Ridderprint.
Cited by
Cited by 5 other publications
Akkermans, Aranka, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon Labrie, Inge Henselmans & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven
2019. “Doctor, I disagree”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:3 ► pp. 336 ff.
Labrie, Nanon, Marleen Kunneman, Nicole van Veenendaal, Anne van Kempen & Liesbeth van Vliet
2023. 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. Patient Education and Counseling 112 ► pp. 107715 ff.
Wackers, Dunja Y.M., H. José Plug & Gerard J. Steen
2021. “For crying out loud, don't call me a warrior”: Standpoints of resistance against violence metaphors for cancer. Journal of Pragmatics 174 ► pp. 68 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.