TY - JOUR
T1 - The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer
AU - Akkermans, A.
AU - Snoeck Henkemans, F.
AU - Labrie, N.
AU - Henselmans, I.
AU - van Laarhoven, H.
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - argumentative pattern
KW - doctor-patient communication
KW - palliative care
KW - pragmatic argumentation
KW - prototypical types of argumentation
KW - stereotypical types of argumentation
KW - symptomatic argumentation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054985833&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054985833&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85054985833&origin=inward
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
DO - https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18029.akk
M3 - Article
SN - 2211-4742
VL - 7
SP - 181
EP - 203
JO - Journal of Argumentation in Context
JF - Journal of Argumentation in Context
IS - 2
ER -