Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.

• Author: Lewinski, Marcin
• Position: Essay

One of the relatively uncontroversial claims regarding the internet is that it is changing the way we engage in public deliberation. Indeed, many communication technologies for which the internet is a vehicle have been used as venues for novel forms of deliberation. Argumentation analysts examine how these technologies function on a continuum from highly specialized tools (such as Group Decision Support Systems) for formal decision-making within various types of organizations (Aakhus, 2002a; Brashers, Adkins, Meyers, & Mittleman, 1995; de Moor & Aakhus, 2006; Rehg, McBurney, & Parsons, 2005), to tools for e-governance (Edwards, 2002; Ferguson, 2008; Wright, 2006; Wright & Street, 2007), to widely accessible technologies used in the computer-mediated public sphere for informal deliberations among ordinary citizens: online chats, Usenet discussions, Web forums, wikis, blogs, social networking sites, Twitter, and so on (Aakhus, 2002b; Benson, 1996; Jackson, 1998; Weger & Aakhus, 2003). Despite significant differences in function, design, management, and domain of use of such online technologies, all of them allow for large-scale deliberation, characterized by many-to-many, interactive communication to an extent hitherto unknown in public discourse.

However, controversy does arise over whether the change the internet has introduced to the ways people deliberate improves or deteriorates the quality of public discussions. Unsurprisingly, this question has been answered in various, often contradictory, ways. Enthusiasts of the new technologies for online deliberation argue the internet has the capacity to revive the very idea of democracy by providing deliberative venues where the voice of citizens can be heard and does matter (Blumler & Gurevitch, 2001; Hauben & Hauben, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). Such an optimistic position assumes that more active participation in public discussion leads to more extensive and intensive deliberation in which people can openly and actively scrutinize public arguments. Pessimists, however, maintain that the apparent freedom of internet discussions results in chaos punctuated by truncated exchanges full of unwarranted claims, irrelevant arguments, and unexamined objections (Davis, 1999; Sunstein, 2007; Wilhelm, 2000).

Primarily at stake in such normative assessments of online deliberation is the quality of argumentation given that "argument always has to be central to deliberative democracy" (Dryzek, 2000, p. 71). Scholars from distinct disciplines studying public deliberation (whether online or offline) largely agree on the centrality of argument in deliberative discourse, and share a basic understanding of argumentation as a verbal activity involving giving reasons for one's claims with the aim of convincing those who disagree. (1) Still, their respective theoretical frameworks accentuate different elements of the process, procedure, and product of argumentation (Wenzel, 1990), and thus engender distinctive accounts of the shape and quality of argument in deliberation. Notably, the bulk of attention in "deliberative theory" was initially devoted to conceptualizing broad, normative conditions of rationality in public discourse (see, e.g., Benhabib, 1994), rather than delving into the quality of actual arguments.

In order to strengthen the empirical adequacy of such normative theorizing, the proponents of deliberative theory increasingly turn towards "research that focuses on the actual happenings of deliberations" (Steffensmeier & Schenck-Hamlin, 2008, p. 22; see Bachtiger et al., 2010; Mansbridge et al., 2010). In such research, investigation of the quality of argumentative exchanges becomes a focal area of inquiry, as is evident in a growing body of studies analyzing actual deliberations, and online deliberations in particular (Dahlberg, 2001; Davies & Gangadharan, 2009; Davis, 1999; Graham & Witschge, 2003; Hill & Hughes, 1998; Janssen & Kies, 2005; Linaa Jensen, 2003; Papacharissi, 2004; Wilhelm, 2000; Wright & Street, 2007).

The dominant methodology employed in such studies is quantitative content analysis. Researchers operationalize the quality of discourse as a set of pre-defined categories that serve as a template against which a sample of discourse is coded. However, even sophisticated coding schemes, such as the Discourse Quality Index and its use of "level of justification" or "counterargument" (Steenbergen, Bachtiger, Sporndli, & Steiner, 2003; Steffensmeier & Schenck-Hamlin, 2008), rely on a decontextualized counting of manifest occurrences of properties of argument that correspond to the coding categories. These categories often are applicable to analysis of large samples of text, but are not subfle enough for those interested in the argumentative specifics of discourse. (2) Many quantitative studies of online deliberation, while useful in describing some general characteristics of deliberative discourse, gloss over details pertinent to argumentation scholars, such as the level of fallacious appeals, or the detailed functioning of distinct patterns of argumentation. As a solution, some improvements have been proposed to the methods of content analysis of online disputes (see, e.g., Graham & Witschge, 2003; Janssen & Kies, 2005). These proposals call for a broader use of qualitative methodologies in the study of online discourse. Unfortunately, they do not embrace the methods developed within argumentation theory.

Close analysis of argumentative patterns can assist theories of public deliberation by revealing the inner workings of argumentative interactions that constitute deliberative discourse. Researchers working within the framework of group argument studies have examined patterns of argumentation in collective decision-making (Seibold & Meyers, 2007). Although belonging to a research tradition that is different from deliberative theory, Seibold and colleagues, whose research is largely based on content analysis, aim at analyzing the quality of argumentation in deliberative encounters. Because they focus their attention on scrutinizing the actual dynamics of communication, their qualitative studies identify some patterns of argumentation in group interactions, including what they call a "tag-team argument" (Brashers & Meyers, 1989; Canary, Brossmann, & Seibold, 1987, pp. 30-31; Seibold et al., 1981, pp. 683-684; see Bruxelles & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2004). In a tag-team argument, two or more members of a deliberating group jointly construct in their conversational turns a consistent set of arguments supporting the position they advocate as a sub-group. Canary and colleagues (1987) observe tag-team arguments are significant because they "may be peculiar to collective deliberations, as in group argument, and because the perception of subgroup articulation of and support for a position may enhance the persuasiveness of the argument to other group members" (p. 31).

The goal of my exploratory study is to characterize and evaluate one pattern of argumentation--"collective criticism"-identifiable in discussions held in online political discussion forums available through Google Groups. My goal is similar to the one pursued in Seibold and colleagues' qualitative analyses, yet both the object of investigation and the theoretical framework I employ differ considerably. Informal online discussions of the type analyzed here do involve group deliberation, but otherwise are a context for argumentation quite dissimilar to small face-to-face groups studied by Seibold et al., debating constructed dilemmas in a laboratory setting. Possible differences in patterning of argumentation are likely to occur and interesting to explore. My work's focus on patterns of argumentation also is distinct from studies of argument in computer-mediated decision-making undertaken from the group argument research perspective that focuses on the role of facilitators (e.g., Brashers, Adkins, Meyers, & Mittleman, 1995) and decision outcomes (e.g., Lemus, Seibold, Flanagin, & Metzger, 2004).

The theoretical and methodological framework I use is the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (van Eemeren, 2010; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, 2004; van Eemeten, Grootendorst, Jackson, & Jacobs, 1993). An advantage of pragma-dialectics is that it smoothly reconciles the normative, dialectical approach with the descriptive, pragmatic perspective in what can be seen as a "systematic theory of argumentation" (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). This is evident in the usefulness of the ideal dialectical model of a critical discussion in both normative and descriptive functions. In the normative sense, a critical discussion stipulates a set of rules, or a code of conduct, that actual arguers should follow to remain reasonable in their discussions (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, Ch. 19; 2004, Ch. 8). In the descriptive sense, a critical discussion serves as a heuristic tool that provides a comprehensive overview of argumentatively relevant moves that can be taken in actual discourse (van Eemeren et al., 1993). In particular, the model allows scholars to specify various types of critical reactions that can be performed in argumentative discussions (Lewinski, 2010, Ch. 7).

Moreover, in a development similar to the one in deliberative theory, pragma-dialectics increasingly has focused on examining actual argumentation in various ordinary contexts of discussion, or "argumentative activity types" (van Eemeren & Houflosser, 2005). In studying activity types, pragma-dialectics shares with deliberative theory an important research objective characterized by deliberative researchers as laying "emphasis on how the product [of argumentation] is affected by procedure" (Steffensmeier & Schenck-Hamlin, 2008, p. 23). From a pragma-dialectical perspective, the first step in obtaining a fuller picture of public argument in an activity type, such as asynchronous online discussions, is a detailed analysis of the...