Abstract
This study investigates how dispute-mediators handle impasse in the re-negotiation of divorce decrees by divorced couples. Three sources of impasse and three strategies for handling impasse are identified based on analysis of mediation transcripts. The concern here lies not so much in the disputant's arguments but in the discussion procedures dispute-mediators use to craft the disputant's argumentation into a tool to solve conflict. Their moves are understood here as a practice of reconstructing argumentative discourse that is neither naïve nor critical but reconstruction as design. Mediator's reconstruction reveals a type of communication work in contemporary societies involved in the crafting of forums and formats that mediate argumentative communication. This work is often invisible and strategic which makes its interpretation, judgment, and development a challenge for pragma-dialectical theory. How reconstruction as design can be understood is discussed by building on prior pragma-dialectical theory and research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aakhus, M.: 2001, ‘Technocratic and Design Stances Toward Communication Expertise: How GDSS Facilitators Understand Their Work’, Journal of Applied Communication Research 29(4), 341-371.
Aakhus, M.: 2000, ‘Constituting Deliberation as “Buy-in” Through GDSS Design and Implemetation’, The Electronic Journal of Communication/La revue electronique de communication 10. Available: http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v10n1200.htm.
Aakhus, M.: 1999a, ‘Science Court: A Case Study in Designing Discourse to Manage Policy Controversy’, Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 2(3),20-37.
Aakhus, M.: 1999b, ‘Reconstruction Games: Assessing the Resources for Managing Collective Argumentation in Groupware Technology’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Argumenation, Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, SIC SAT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1-7.
Bazerman, M. and Neale, M.: 1992, Negotiating Rationally, Free Press, New York.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S.: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, Univeristy of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, R: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, R: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussion Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris/Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, Dordecht, Cinnaminson, PDA1.
Eemeren, F. H. van and Houtlosser, P.: 2001, ‘Managing Disagreement: Rhetorical Analysis within a Dialectical Framework’, Argumentation and Advocacy 37, 150-157.
Goldman, A.: 1994, ‘Argumentation and Social Epistemology’, Journal of Philosophy 91, 27-49.
Goodwin, J.: 1999, ‘Good Argumentation without Resolution’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Goortendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, SIC SAT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gulliver, P.: 1979, Disputes and Negotiations, Academic Press, London
Jackson, S.: 1992, ‘“Virtual Standpoints” and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, SIC SAT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 260-269.
Jacobs, S.: 1994, ‘Language and Interpersonal Communication’, in M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 199-228.
Jacobs, S.: 1992, ‘Argumentation without Advocacy: Strategies for Case-building by Dispute Mediators’, in F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, 270-280.
Jacobs, S.: 1989a, ‘Speech Acts and Arguments’, Argumentation 3, 345-365.
Jacobs, S.: 1989b, ‘Some Problems of Communication for Argumentation Theory’, ISSA Newsletter 5, 2-10.
Jacobs, S. and Aakhus, M.: in press, ‘What Mediators Do with Words: Implementing Three Models of Rational Discussion in Dispute Mediation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly.
Jacobs, S. and Jackson, S.: 1992, ‘Relevance and Digression in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach’,Argumentation 6, 161-176.
Jacobs, S.: 1987, ‘Ideal Argument in the Real World: Making do in Mediation’, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the 5th SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, 291-298.
Jacobs, S., Aakhus, M., Aldrich, A., and Schultz, N.: 1993, November, The Functions of Argumentation in Models of Conflict Resolution, paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association of America annual convention, Miami, FL.
Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., Stearns, S., and Hall, B.: 1991, ‘Digressions in Argumentative Discourse: Multiple Goals, Standing Concerns, and Implicatures’, inK. Tracey (ed.), Understanding Face-to-face Interaction: Issues Linking Goals and Discourse, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Kolb, D. and Kressel, K.: 1994, ‘The Realities of Making Talk Work’, in D. Kolb (ed.), When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 459-494.
Kyburg, H.: 1991, ‘Normative and Descriptive Ideals’, in R. Cummins and J. Pollock (eds.), Philosophy and AI: Essays at the Interface, 129-139.
Mansell, R.: 1996, ‘Communication by Design?’, in R. Mansell and R. Silverstone (ed.), Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 15-43.
Pearson, J. and Thoennes, N.: 1984, ‘A Preliminary Portrait of Client Reactions to Three Court Mediation Programs’, in J. A. Lemmon (ed.), Reaching Effective Agreements, Mediation Quarterly 3, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 21-40.
Schön, D.: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.
Schön, D. and Rein, M.: 1994, Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, Basic Books, New York.
Thompson, L.: 1990, ‘Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues’, Psychological Bulletin 108, 515-532.
Walton, D.: 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Walton, D.: 1989, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wildau, S.: 1987, ‘Transitions: Moving Parties between Stages’, Mediation Quarterly 16, 3-13.
Woods, J.: 1988, ‘Ideals of Rationality in Dialogic’, Argumentation 2, 395-408.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aakhus, M. Neither Naïve nor Critical Reconstruction: Dispute Mediators, Impasse, and the Design of Argumentation. Argumentation 17, 265–290 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112227381