Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis

Abstract

Studies of the function and process of interactive argument in group contexts have become increasingly prevalent in the last decade. A prominent program of research in this domain is work associated with the structurational perspective on group decision‐making. To date, much of this research has been theoretical and qualitative in nature. This investigation extends prior work in pursuing two objectives: (a) refinement of the structurational argument coding scheme, and (b) preliminary quantitative analysis of argument in decision‐making groups. Following a review of past structurational argument research, the coding scheme is evaluated and revised. Forty‐five decision‐making discussions were coded using the revised coding scheme and these results were evaluated via descriptive statistics. Findings revealed that (a) the groups’ arguments consisted mainly of Assertions, Elaborations, and Agreement, and (b) the revisions to the coding scheme provided increased conceptual clarity. Implications of each finding are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.