Scholarlink

<p>Deliberative context matters in producing deliberative reasoning, but it is not destiny in adversarial reasoning exchanges. The motivational effects of positionally dominant arguers can undermine even the well-structured context regarding the epistemic diversity of evidence sources and low disagreement costs. Giving an example of government-led reasoning over the Site C Clean Energy Project, the paper employs a sequential conversation analysis to unveil the patterns underlying the adversarial exchanges between the project proponent, officials, and Indigenous communities. Under the “deliberative” reasoning context as represented by the Site C Deliberative Rules Configuration Matrix, the state-affiliated Joint Review Panel alternated between rebutting and reflective responses in its conclusions across 63 topics of disagreement between the project’s proponent and Indigenous communities adversely affected by the dam. The Panel’s responses are consultative outcomes, representing the culmination of Panel-led deliberations between the Site C proponent and Indigenous communities. The split of these outcomes without a clear majority trend suggests a lack of prescriptive, normative relationships between rules and the rhetorical choices of dominant arguers. The deliberative reasoning context has no deterministic effect on the likelihood of the Panel’s officials engaging in deliberative dialogue with Indigenous arguers. Although reflective responses were plentiful, they were insufficient to achieve meaningful responsiveness to Indigenous concerns. These findings align with Ostrom’s perspective on rules as a contextual structure that does not guarantee particular reasoning outcomes but influences the reasoning dynamics (practices) of participants whose <i>response choices</i> are shaped by the motivational effects of a specific reasoning situation. The findings also promote the practice-based approach to argumentation (Goodwin 2007), illustrating how response patterns in disagreement illuminate the actual (one-sided and two-sided) nature of reasoning interactivity between positionally unequal opponents without diverting attention to external structures or assigning normative weight to the “deliberative” reasoning context.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Deliberative Context” Is not the Whole Story of Deliberative Reasoning: the Site C Case of Disagreement Management in Indigenous Consultations

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月1日

查看全文
  • Oxana Pimenova

摘要

Deliberative context matters in producing deliberative reasoning, but it is not destiny in adversarial reasoning exchanges. The motivational effects of positionally dominant arguers can undermine even the well-structured context regarding the epistemic diversity of evidence sources and low disagreement costs. Giving an example of government-led reasoning over the Site C Clean Energy Project, the paper employs a sequential conversation analysis to unveil the patterns underlying the adversarial exchanges between the project proponent, officials, and Indigenous communities. Under the “deliberative” reasoning context as represented by the Site C Deliberative Rules Configuration Matrix, the state-affiliated Joint Review Panel alternated between rebutting and reflective responses in its conclusions across 63 topics of disagreement between the project’s proponent and Indigenous communities adversely affected by the dam. The Panel’s responses are consultative outcomes, representing the culmination of Panel-led deliberations between the Site C proponent and Indigenous communities. The split of these outcomes without a clear majority trend suggests a lack of prescriptive, normative relationships between rules and the rhetorical choices of dominant arguers. The deliberative reasoning context has no deterministic effect on the likelihood of the Panel’s officials engaging in deliberative dialogue with Indigenous arguers. Although reflective responses were plentiful, they were insufficient to achieve meaningful responsiveness to Indigenous concerns. These findings align with Ostrom’s perspective on rules as a contextual structure that does not guarantee particular reasoning outcomes but influences the reasoning dynamics (practices) of participants whose response choices are shaped by the motivational effects of a specific reasoning situation. The findings also promote the practice-based approach to argumentation (Goodwin 2007), illustrating how response patterns in disagreement illuminate the actual (one-sided and two-sided) nature of reasoning interactivity between positionally unequal opponents without diverting attention to external structures or assigning normative weight to the “deliberative” reasoning context.