Intergroup Argumentation in City Government Decision Making

Abstract

Intergroup argumentation is an important aspect of civic activism, but it has yet to be studied from an interaction perspective. Using group argumentation research as a foundation, this study analyzed intergroup argumentation complexity and strategy by applying the Conversational Argument Coding Scheme (Canary, Ratledge, & Seibold, 1982) to a Lawrence, KS, USA, city commission meeting. Analysis found that Wal-Mart officials spent the majority of their speaking time framing their positions (i.e., delimitors), whereas city commissioners spent most of their time seeking convergence, and the public spent more time than the other groups using generative mechanisms. Findings suggest the need to distinguish between argument effectiveness and argument complexity, an important theoretical implication for argumentation research.