Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy

Marcin Lewinski, Mark Aakhus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

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).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)179-207
Number of pages29
JournalArgumentation
Volume31
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2017

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Controversy
  • Deliberation
  • Design
  • Disagreement space
  • Fracking
  • Infrastructural inversion
  • Infrastructure
  • Polylogue
  • Venues

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this