| I claim that argumentation theories which seek to precisely define argument/argumentation a priori attenuate these concepts and undermine the rhetorical and sociohistoric turns in argumentation studies that would otherwise challenge such a goal (Chapter One). As a result, these theories do not adequately explain how certain criteria for argument come to be foregrounded and sustained in a knowledge ecology, or how these foregrounded criteria are situated within broader, backgrounded contexts. Drawing on work in argumentation studies, situated writing studies, knowledge/information studies, and sociohistoric theory, Chapter Two proposes the concept of distributed argumentative activity to better theorize how negotiations (often implicit) among people, media, practices, and institutions co-construct both arguments and their contexts.; I elaborate on this dialogic view of argumentation through two qualitative, interpretive case studies that offer thick descriptions of different knowledge ecologies. The first case study (Chapter Three), based on participant-observation, analyzes the complexly distributed activity within a composition class as students and teachers interpreted Toulmin's model of argument in light of specific assignments, texts, and instruction (present and past). The second case study (Chapter Four), based on interviews with scientists, explores the re-mediation (Bolter & Grusin, 1999) of scientific publication and instruments, and examines how the scientists changed their argumentation practices to accommodate these online venues. Investigating distributed argumentative activity in these different knowledge ecologies makes visible the broad range of practices involved in argument.; In Chapter Five, I apply the findings of these case studies to writing studies pedagogy, claiming that to prepare students to argue in diverse settings and to employ evolving media, writing courses must call attention to tacit and explicit negotiations over expectations, knowledge, tools, and so on. I consider the potential for the collaboratory—a distributed, shared suite of resources—to provide opportunities to engage in complex, reflective rhetorical practices. In sum, I argue that the notion of distributed argumentative activity offers a pedagogically as well as theoretically rich account of how people continually redefine argument/argumentation and alter the conditions under which their arguments may be deemed successful in school, disciplinary, and workplace contexts. |
