Jean Goodwin
North Carolina State University, Communication, Faculty Member
- See jeangoodwin.net for my real homepage, including copies of all papers.edit
Debates over scientists’ appropriate contributions to policy-making are prominent in a variety of natural resources fields. The issue is often presented as one of “responsible advocacy.” But this framing locks us into a paradox:... more
Debates over scientists’ appropriate contributions to policy-making are prominent in a variety of natural resources fields. The issue is often presented as one of “responsible advocacy.” But this framing locks us into a paradox: Scientists who advocate aim to be effective in the policy arena, but by advocating lose their credibility. In this preliminary review of the issue, I argue that we can avoid the paradox by acknowledging a wider range of speech acts structuring scientists’ obligations in the policy process. Scientists can advocate–but they can also report, give their assessments, make recommendations, and especially, offer good advice.
Science is communicated in many contexts. It is explained in formal and informal educational settings. It is offered to policymakers in blueribbon reports and personal testimony. But there is an additional context of particular interest... more
Science is communicated in many contexts. It is explained in formal and informal educational settings. It is offered to policymakers in blueribbon reports and personal testimony. But there is an additional context of particular interest to climate scientists: the communication of findings, theories and predictions in the context of the oftenheated policy controversies characteristic of American democracy.
Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists. In response, climate scientists can... more
Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists. In response, climate scientists can undertake one of two general communication strategies for enhancing trust, each appealing to one of two broad types of cognitive processing mechanisms. In the first, the communicator displays traits like humor, attractiveness, vigorous delivery, and likeability that audiences use as heuristics in determining whom to trust. But this strategy is unlikely to be successful with the very audiences who are its main targets, since those audiences will be primed to employ a more analytic and critical approach to assessing trustworthiness. In the second communicative strategy, the communicator earns trust by undertaking burdens and commitments and making herself vulnerable in ways her audience can enforce. This vulnerability signals her trustworthiness, since the audience can reason that she would not undertake such risks unless she was confident in what she was saying. Climate scientists have a variety of ways of making themselves vulnerable, including committing themselves to engaging with doubtful and dismissive audiences, undertaking burdens of proof to argue with them, empowering audiences to assess the science themselves, admitting error, and focusing on small issues. Overall, when adopting the second strategy, climate scientists must extend trust in order to earn trust, committing themselves to an on-going relationship within which their true trustworthiness.
Research Interests:
As modern societies place greater demand on natural resources, professionals working in areas impacting natural resources will increasingly have to work with others to address contentious issues. Students studying agriculture and natural... more
As modern societies place greater demand on natural resources, professionals working in areas impacting natural resources will increasingly have to work with others to address contentious issues. Students studying agriculture and natural resource related fields would benefit from improved professional skills in debate and discussion of complex issues.
This study investigates how sustainability and its inherent values figure into farmers' discourse, i.e., how farmers and members of farming communities talk about sustainability. We conducted qualitative interviews of various individuals... more
This study investigates how sustainability and its inherent values figure into farmers' discourse, i.e., how farmers and members of farming communities talk about sustainability. We conducted qualitative interviews of various individuals in a single Iowa community to determine whether the visions guiding their land management choices resembled at all the ideals of a sustainable agriculture. Using Kenneth Burke's concepts of identification and division, we rhetorically analyzed the interview transcripts. We found animosity towards much green terminology but widespread commitment to environmental preservation, especially when aligned with economic interests. We highlight rhetorical strategies for promoting sustainable practices.
Research Interests: Economics, Rhetoric, Qualitative methodology, Sustainable agriculture, Land management, and 10 moreEnvironmental Rhetoric, Community, Language, Environmental Sustainability, Rhetorical Theory and Criticism, Identification, Incommensurability, Sustainability, Environment, and Rhetoric and Ethnography
This study investigates how sustainability and its inherent values figure into farmers' discourse, ie, how farmers and members of farming communities talk about sustainability. We conducted qualitative interviews of various individuals in... more
This study investigates how sustainability and its inherent values figure into farmers' discourse, ie, how farmers and members of farming communities talk about sustainability. We conducted qualitative interviews of various individuals in a single Iowa community to determine whether the visions guiding their land management choices resembled at all the ideals of a sustainable agriculture. Using Kenneth Burke's concepts of identification and division, we rhetorically analyzed the interview transcripts.
It is widely perceived that" manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or even derail, much-needed policies by creating an... more
It is widely perceived that" manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are in fact none." Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed" doubt is our product"(Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske).
This paper provides a typology of appeals to authority, identifying three distinct types: that which is based on a command; that which is based on expertise; and that which is based on dignity. Each type is distinguished with respect to... more
This paper provides a typology of appeals to authority, identifying three distinct types: that which is based on a command; that which is based on expertise; and that which is based on dignity. Each type is distinguished with respect to the reaction that a failure to follow it ordinarily evokes. The rhetorical roots of Locke's ad verecundiam are traced to the rhetorical practices of ancient Rome.
Research Interests:
This paper provides a typology of appeals to authority, identifying three distinct types: that which is based on a command; that which is based on expertise; and that which is based on dignity. Each type is distinguished with respect to... more
This paper provides a typology of appeals to authority, identifying three distinct types: that which is based on a command; that which is based on expertise; and that which is based on dignity. Each type is distinguished with respect to the reaction that a failure to follow it ordinarily evokes. The rhetorical roots of Locke's ad verecundiam are traced to the rhetorical practices of ancient Rome.
On a stray planet in an out-of-the-way corner of the universe live odd beings with patterns of behavior odder still. It can be frequently observed that one of them stands before another, moving its limbs or producing some sounds, and the... more
On a stray planet in an out-of-the-way corner of the universe live odd beings with patterns of behavior odder still. It can be frequently observed that one of them stands before another, moving its limbs or producing some sounds, and the other responds—apparently quite as the first expected. But why? Why should these feeble motions have such force? This puzzle or wonder is presented to us conspicuously in the phenomenon we know as authority. Authority is exercised most starkly in transactions similar to the following:
Work in Argumentation Studies (AS) and Studies in Expertise and Experience (SEE) has been proceeding on converging trajectories, moving from resistance to expert authority to a cautious acceptance of its legitimacy. The two projects are... more
Work in Argumentation Studies (AS) and Studies in Expertise and Experience (SEE) has been proceeding on converging trajectories, moving from resistance to expert authority to a cautious acceptance of its legitimacy. The two projects are therefore also converging on the need to account for how, in the course of complex and confused civic deliberations, nonexpert citizens can figure out which statements from purported experts deserve their trust. Both projects recognize that nonexperts cannot assess expertise directly; instead, the nonexpert must judge whether to trust the expert. But how is this social judgment accomplished? A normative pragmatic approach from AS can complement and extend the work from SEE on this question, showing that the expert’s putting forward of his view and ‘‘bonding’’ it with his reputation for expertise works to force or ‘‘blackmail’’ his audience of citizens into heeding what he says. Appeals to authority thus produce the visibility and accountability we want for expert views in civic deliberations.
The “critical questions” for testing appeals to authority proposed by Walton and many textbooks are all right. But why? That seems a good question for argumentation theorists to ask. I propose a general account of the appeal to epistemic... more
The “critical questions” for testing appeals to authority proposed by Walton and many textbooks are all right. But why? That seems a good question for argumentation theorists to ask. I propose a general account of the appeal to epistemic authority drawn from principal-agent theory, from which the critical questions can be derived.
Recent calls for increased public participation in technical decision-making have brought to the fore argumentation between scientists and citizens. In this paper, we examine what happens as arguments travel from the technical to the... more
Recent calls for increased public participation in technical decision-making have brought to the fore argumentation between scientists and citizens. In this paper, we examine what happens as arguments travel from the technical to the public sphere. Based on a case study of a U.S. debate over the net energy balance of corn-based ethanol, we show how the evidence-based technical arguments are transformed into appeals to expert authority.
ABSTRACT: Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors... more
ABSTRACT: Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. I propose instead that Wikipedia can have pragmatic merits, in that the contributors' passion for the project, and the emerging communicative design through which that passion is made manifest, provide a reason for trust.
Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. I... more
Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. I propose instead that Wikipedia can have pragmatic merits, in that the contributors’ passion for the project, and the emerging communicative design through which that passion is made manifest, provide a reason for trust.
Abstract Douglas Walton has been right in calling us to attend to the pragmatics of argument. He has, however, also insisted that arguments should be understood and assessed by considering the functions they perform; and from this, I... more
Abstract Douglas Walton has been right in calling us to attend to the pragmatics of argument. He has, however, also insisted that arguments should be understood and assessed by considering the functions they perform; and from this, I dissent. Argument has no determinable function in the sense Walton needs, and even if it did, that function would not ground norms for argumentative practice.
Resumo: Douglas Walton tem tido razão em chamar-nos a atenção para os aspectos pragmáticos da argumentação. Contudo, insistiu também que as argumentações devem ser compreendidas e avaliadas considerando a função que desempenham; e, disto,... more
Resumo: Douglas Walton tem tido razão em chamar-nos a atenção para os aspectos pragmáticos da argumentação. Contudo, insistiu também que as argumentações devem ser compreendidas e avaliadas considerando a função que desempenham; e, disto, discordo. As argumentações não têm uma função determinável no sentido proposto por Walton e, mesmo que tivessem, não poderíamos fundar as normas da prática argumentativa nessa função.
When faced with a topic like 'dialectic and rhetoric,'the student of rhetoric is, I suppose, by trained incapacity disposed to view it as 'dialectic versus rhetoric'and to take up arms in defense of her much-maligned Dame. The pleasures... more
When faced with a topic like 'dialectic and rhetoric,'the student of rhetoric is, I suppose, by trained incapacity disposed to view it as 'dialectic versus rhetoric'and to take up arms in defense of her much-maligned Dame. The pleasures and payoffs of zealous advocacy, after all, have not waned even through 2,500 years. Unfortunately, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with my adversary's proposal for union, or at least detente, between the dialectical and rhetorical inquiries into argumentation.
Scholarship on the practical art of arguing has the good luck of inheriting from its subject a rich native vocabulary for capturing what is going on. Still, this very richness can distract the scholars—natives themselves—from giving the... more
Scholarship on the practical art of arguing has the good luck of inheriting from its subject a rich native vocabulary for capturing what is going on. Still, this very richness can distract the scholars—natives themselves—from giving the vocabulary a closer look. And that is unfortunate.
To argue together, people need to share starting-points (premises) which both are willing to say are adequate. Otherwise, their argument might encounter an infinite regress: they would find that they had to debate W in order to debate... more
To argue together, people need to share starting-points (premises) which both are willing to say are adequate. Otherwise, their argument might encounter an infinite regress: they would find that they had to debate W in order to debate X, and debate V in order to debate W, and so on. But how do people who disagree–often deeply–manage to locate such premises? In this paper, I lay out a normative pragmatic (a/k/a design) approach to this problem. I outline the general problem and identify some practical means arguers have to force their opponents to recognize the adequacy of premises.
At the last meeting of this Society, I pointed out that much recent work in informal logic has acknowledged the importance of taking contextual factors into account when assessing an argument (Goodwin, forthcoming b). In other words, the... more
At the last meeting of this Society, I pointed out that much recent work in informal logic has acknowledged the importance of taking contextual factors into account when assessing an argument (Goodwin, forthcoming b). In other words, the assessment of a unit of argument depends in part on features of the activity of arguing in which it is deployed.
This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law and public relations show that advocates are not just out to persuade. Instead, they... more
This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law and public relations show that advocates are not just out to persuade. Instead, they undertake obligations to make the best case for their positions while also maintaining the integrity of the communication systems within which they operate. While not offering full justifications, advocates nevertheless help auditors by making conspicuous the outer bounds of the arguable.
Some contemporary theories of argumentation derive normative rules for the argumentative process from the assumption that it is a cooperative one. Based on this case study of the principles invoked by advocates in the closing arguments of... more
Some contemporary theories of argumentation derive normative rules for the argumentative process from the assumption that it is a cooperative one. Based on this case study of the principles invoked by advocates in the closing arguments of the OJ Simpson criminal trial, I show that arguing can be both noncooperative and normatively regulated. I close by suggesting a modified approach to Grice’s so-called “cooperative” principle.
Making arguments makes reasons apparent. Sometimes those reasons may affect audiences. But over-emphasis on effects distracts from other things that making arguments accomplishes and thus fails to account for its pragmatic force. We... more
Making arguments makes reasons apparent. Sometimes those reasons may affect audiences. But over-emphasis on effects distracts from other things that making arguments accomplishes and thus fails to account for its pragmatic force. We advance the normative pragmatic program on argumentation through case studies of how early advocates for women's suffrage in the US made arguments to demonstrate that they were persons capable of making reasons apparent and that their actions were reasonable.
Research Interests:
Making arguments makes reasons apparent. Sometimes those reasons may affect audiences. But over-emphasis on effects distracts from other things that making arguments accomplishes and thus fails to account for its pragmatic force. We... more
Making arguments makes reasons apparent. Sometimes those reasons may affect audiences. But over-emphasis on effects distracts from other things that making arguments accomplishes and thus fails to account for its pragmatic force. We advance the normative pragmatic program on argumentation through case studies of how early advocates for women's suffrage in the US made arguments to demonstrate that they were persons capable of making reasons apparent and that their actions were reasonable.
Far from being of interest only to argumentation theorists, conceptions of speech acts play an important role in practitioners’ self-reflection on their own activities. After a brief review of work by Houtlosser, Jackson and Kauffeld on... more
Far from being of interest only to argumentation theorists, conceptions of speech acts play an important role in practitioners’ self-reflection on their own activities. After a brief review of work by Houtlosser, Jackson and Kauffeld on the ways that speech acts provide normative frameworks for argumentative interactions, this essay examines an ongoing debate among scientists in natural resource fields as to the appropriateness of the speech act of advocating in policy settings. Scientists’ reflections on advocacy align well with current scholarship, and the scholarship in turn can provide a deeper understanding of how to manage the communication challenges scientists face.
Goodwin, Jean. (2014). Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation: A case study of a debate about advocating. Studies in Logic, Grammar & Rhetoric, 36, 79-98.
Goodwin, Jean. (2014). Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation: A case study of a debate about advocating. Studies in Logic, Grammar & Rhetoric, 36, 79-98.
Three lines of inquiry have converged on a single conception of the function, end or aim of argumentation: that argumentation is the rational method for resolving differences of opinion. This conception has of course received its clearest... more
Three lines of inquiry have converged on a single conception of the function, end or aim of argumentation: that argumentation is the rational method for resolving differences of opinion. This conception has of course received its clearest expression in the works of our conference hosts, the Amsterdam school of pragma-dialectics.“Inspired by Karl Popper's critical rationalism” for scientific inquiry (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Henkemans et al.
Closing arguments in the highly regulated context of criminal trials should be governed by rules, right? They aren’t. This suggests that arguing is an “unruly” activity, and that we shouldn’t be trying to model it by theorizing sets of... more
Closing arguments in the highly regulated context of criminal trials should be governed by rules, right? They aren’t. This suggests that arguing is an “unruly” activity, and that we shouldn’t be trying to model it by theorizing sets of rules.
Closing arguments in the highly regulated context of criminal trials should be governed by rules, right? They aren’t. This suggests that arguing is an “unruly” activity, and that we shouldn’t be trying to model it by theorizing sets of... more
Closing arguments in the highly regulated context of criminal trials should be governed by rules, right? They aren’t. This suggests that arguing is an “unruly” activity, and that we shouldn’t be trying to model it by theorizing sets of rules.
Goodwin, Jean. (2009). Actually existing rules for closing arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garrsen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 287-298). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Goodwin, Jean. (2009). Actually existing rules for closing arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garrsen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 287-298). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Abstract Given the pragmatic tum recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product. In particular, Johnstone's decidedly non-cooperative model is a... more
Abstract Given the pragmatic tum recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product. In particular, Johnstone's decidedly non-cooperative model is a refreshing alternative to the current dialogic theories of arguing, one which opens the way for specifically rhetorical lines of inquiry.
In part, the influence has been bad. Docile students have (it seems) offered little resistance to their teachers' theoretical hobbyhorses, being willing to cram for the exam, or the speech, fantastical systems of staseis, topoi, figurae... more
In part, the influence has been bad. Docile students have (it seems) offered little resistance to their teachers' theoretical hobbyhorses, being willing to cram for the exam, or the speech, fantastical systems of staseis, topoi, figurae and five or seven part formulae for developing arguments. Even the more realistic bits of lore have proved so eminently learnable that as Sperber and Wilson (1990) have pointed out, students have not pressed us, teachers and theorists, to elaborate them further over eighty generations of basic courses.
Lippmann and Dewey both confronted the problem of how to get the nation’s highly successful science to have impact in the public sphere. Dewey’s solution to the problem is well known: an underspecified form of communication which would... more
Lippmann and Dewey both confronted the problem of how to get the nation’s highly successful science to have impact in the public sphere. Dewey’s solution to the problem is well known: an underspecified form of communication which would transform the Great Society beyond the understanding of any individual into the Great Community where policies could be wisely chosen. Lippmann was more uncompromisingly pessimistic, doubting the ability of anyone–including himself–to master the range of knowledge necessary to make fully informed decisions. Nevertheless, there is a legitimate role for even uninformed publics to participate in civic deliberations: they act as adjudicators of debates in which the contending experts demonstrate their reasonability. n Brian Jackson & Gregory Clark (Eds.), Trained capacities: John Dewey, rhetoric, and democratic practice (pp. 142-158). Columbia, SC: University of South Caroline Press.
Perelman’s theory of argumentation is based on a one-dimensional psychology of adherence: people stick to propositions, with various degrees of strength. This is inadequate to account for the rhetorical force of the convictions people... more
Perelman’s theory of argumentation is based on a one-dimensional psychology of adherence: people stick to propositions, with various degrees of strength. This is inadequate to account for the rhetorical force of the convictions people commit themselves to–which become an aspect of their identities.
In this study, we aim to contribute to three growing bodies of literature within argumentation theory: those placing practitioners' ordinary conceptualizations of argumentation into dialogue with the expert views of academic theorists;... more
In this study, we aim to contribute to three growing bodies of literature within argumentation theory: those placing practitioners' ordinary conceptualizations of argumentation into dialogue with the expert views of academic theorists; those using conceptual metaphors as a point of entry into argumentation theory; and those adopting empirical, corpus-based methods for exploring concepts. Let us consider each of these literatures in turn.
Research Interests:
The recent movement to promote debate across the curriculum presumes that debate-like activities in content-area classes can enhance disciplinary learning as well as core skills. Yet students in such classes may resist debate activities... more
The recent movement to promote debate across the curriculum presumes that debate-like activities in content-area classes can enhance disciplinary learning as well as core skills. Yet students in such classes may resist debate activities if they believe (1) debate promotes hostility;(2) debate disadvantages demographic groups preferring noncompetitive communication styles; or (3) debate is too unfamiliar.
Teachers may photocopy or otherwise reproduce or make copes of the material in this Teaching Supplement for classroom use. The rights to all the articles belong to their authors, and the use of any of this material for any other purpose... more
Teachers may photocopy or otherwise reproduce or make copes of the material in this Teaching Supplement for classroom use. The rights to all the articles belong to their authors, and the use of any of this material for any other purpose without its author's written permission is strictly prohibited.
The long future lacks appeal, so rhetors in practice give it a face. Nowadays, we see the future in the faces of our children. In the early 19th century, audiences faced the heirs who would inherit the political structure they would... more
The long future lacks appeal, so rhetors in practice give it a face. Nowadays, we see the future in the faces of our children. In the early 19th century, audiences faced the heirs who would inherit the political structure they would preserve. But the great achievements of the American Revolution were achieved by men looking forward to posterity: the audience which would recognize and celebrate those achievements.
Abstract An outsider to argument theory, should she look through the rich outpouring of our recent work, might be amused to find us theorists not following our own prescriptions. We propound our ideas, but we don't always interact with... more
Abstract An outsider to argument theory, should she look through the rich outpouring of our recent work, might be amused to find us theorists not following our own prescriptions. We propound our ideas, but we don't always interact with each other--we don't argue. The essays by William Rehg and Robert Asen make promising start on rectifying this difficulty.
Abstract A generation before Beardsley, legal scholar John Henry Wigmore invented a scheme for representing arguments in a tree diagram, aimed to help advocates analyze the proof of facts at trial. In this essay, I describe Wigmore's"... more
Abstract A generation before Beardsley, legal scholar John Henry Wigmore invented a scheme for representing arguments in a tree diagram, aimed to help advocates analyze the proof of facts at trial. In this essay, I describe Wigmore's" Chart Method" and trace its origin and influence. Wigmore, I argue, contributes to contemporary theory in two ways. His rhetorical approach to diagramming provides a novel perspective on problems about the theory of reasoning, premise adequacy, and dialectical obligations.
Where to begin a review of 22 essays from a philosopher who had read, absorbed, and reordered everything? Luckily my task is made more determinate and therefore more possible by the circumstance that this review is addressed to a specific... more
Where to begin a review of 22 essays from a philosopher who had read, absorbed, and reordered everything? Luckily my task is made more determinate and therefore more possible by the circumstance that this review is addressed to a specific audience: those presumably interested in rhetoric and public affairs. So, what has Richard McKeon to say to us? By the late sixties, McKeon was conspicuously working on communication, even throwing around the word" rhetoric." Thus, as the communication disciplines were trying to ...
Research Interests:
Abstract: Lincoln persistently and effectively uses a number of" dialectical" or" dialogical" figures such as prolepsis, prosopopoeia, and correctio. These figures help to frame his rhetorical texts within a universe... more
Abstract: Lincoln persistently and effectively uses a number of" dialectical" or" dialogical" figures such as prolepsis, prosopopoeia, and correctio. These figures help to frame his rhetorical texts within a universe of argument and give him the opportunity to voice and transcend positions that differ from his own. Attention to this aspect of Lincoln's rhetoric helps to explain the power of his speeches and also offers a ground for connecting rhetorical practice with contemporary scholarship in informal logic, where there is an especially ...
Research Interests:
This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law and public relations show that advocates are not just out to persuade. Instead, they... more
This essay advances an account of the ordinary speech activity of advocating. The ethical principles developed within advocacy professions such as law and public relations show that advocates are not just out to persuade. Instead, they undertake obligations to make the best case for their positions while also maintaining the integrity of the communication systems within which they operate. While not offering full justifications, advocates nevertheless help auditors by making conspicuous the outer bounds of the arguable.