Abstract
This chapter provides a detailed exposé of the research methodology on which the investigation of parent–child argumentation during mealtime is based. In the first part, the conceptual tools adopted for the analysis of argumentative discussions between parents and children, i.e., the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion and the Argumentum Model of Topics, are presented. Subsequently, the process of data gathering and the procedures for the transcription of oral data are discussed. Finally, in the last part of the chapter, ethical issues and practical problems in collecting parent–child mealtime conversations present throughout the study are considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
For a detailed description of the taxonomy of loci, see Rigotti (2009, pp. 166–168).
- 3.
- 4.
I want to thank Clotilde Pontecorvo and her colleagues at the University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy, for allowing that a part of the broad corpus of video-recordings of family mealtime conversations in Italian families could be used as part of the data corpus of the present study.
- 5.
Lugano is the largest city in the southernmost canton of Switzerland, the canton of Ticino. Switzerland has four national languages: French, German, Italian, and Romansh. The canton of Ticino is the only canton in Switzerland where the sole official language is Italian.
References
APA. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bigi, S. (2012). Contextual constraints on argumentation: The case of the medical encounter. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts (pp. 289–303). Amsterdam: Wiley.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bova, A. (2015a). “This is the cheese bought by Grandpa”: A study of the arguments from authority used by parents with their children during mealtimes. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(2), 133–157.
Bova, A. (2015b). Adult as a source of expert opinion in child’s argumentation during family mealtime conversations. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(1), 4–20.
Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. (2013). Invoking the authority of feelings as a strategic maneuver in family mealtime conversations. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23(3), 206–224.
Garssen, B. J. (2001). Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–100). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Garssen, B. J. (2002). Understanding argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 93–104). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148–170.
Greco Morasso, S. (2012). Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: A case-study in media argumentation. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 197–216.
Heckathorn, D. D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 44(2), 174–199.
Heckathorn, D. D. (2002). Respondent-driven sampling II: Deriving valid estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems, 49(1), 11–34.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the preservation of fundamental features for analysis. In H. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H. G. Soeffner, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Video analysis (pp. 51–68). Bern: Lang.
Pan, B. A., Perlmann, R. Y., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Food for thought: Dinner table as a context for observing parent–child discourse. In L. Menn & N. B. Ratner (Eds.), Methods for studying language production (pp. 205–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rigotti, E. (2009). Whether and how classical topics can be revived within contemporary argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 157–178). Dordrecht: Springer.
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2009). Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 1–61). New York, NY: Springer.
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512.
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2019). Inference in argumentation: A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Cham: Springer.
Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2011). In context: Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. Argumentation, 25(2), 141–161.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bova, A. (2019). A Qualitative Methodology for Studying Parent–Child Argumentation. In: The Functions of Parent-Child Argumentation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20457-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20457-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20456-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20457-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)