Francesco Arcidiacono

'You Must Eat the Salad Because it is Nutritious'. Argumentative Strategies Adopted by Parents and Children in Food-Related Discussions at Mealtimes

At mealtimes, the evaluation of the appropriate (or not appropriate) behavior concerning the food is often assumed as a topic of discourse. The aim of this study is to single out the argumentative strategies used by parents with their children and by children with their parents in order to convince the other party to eat or not to eat a certain food. Within a data corpus constituted by 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families, we selected a corpus of 77 argumentative discussions between parents and children arisen around a food-related issue. Data are presented through discursive excerpts of argumentative discussions that were found within the data corpus and analyzed through the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion. The results of this study show that the feeding practices in families with young children during mealtimes are argumentatively co-constructed by participants. In most cases parents put forward arguments based on the quality (e.g., very good, nutritious, salty, or not good) and quantity (e.g., too little, quite enough, or too much) of food to convince their children to eat. Similarly, children put forward arguments based on the quality and quantity of food to convince their parents to change their standpoint, although their view on the issue is the opposite of that of their parents.

Investigating Children's Why-Questions. A Study Comparing Argumentative and Explanatory Function

Questions represent a crucial tool of interaction between parents and children from a very early age. This study aims to investigate which function – argumentative or explanatory – most characterizes Why-questions asked by children to their parents in a natural setting such as mealtimes at home. Why-questions asked by 13 children – eight girls and five boys aged between three and seven years – coming from 10 middle- to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families with a high socio-cultural level were analyzed. In the corpus, the explanatory function largely characterizes children’s Why-questions. Questions we observed play fundamentally an educational role, since they favor the acquisition of new information and the transmission from parents to children of parental behavioral models (social behavior). The argumentative Why-questions, less frequently asked by children in our sample, are also important from an educational point of view. By these questions children challenge their parents to make clear the reasons behind their opinions, suggestions, rules and prescriptions, which are often largely implicit. Altogether, the results of this study indicate that both the explanatory and argumentative types of children’s Why-questions have a knowledge-seeking function, that is, children asking such questions are seeking knowledge of something.

Argumentation Among Family Members in Italy and Switzerland: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

The main goal of this study is to analyze to what extent family members engage to resolve differences of opinion during everyday interactions at home. Our aim is to point out the relevance of the context in the analytical reconstruction of argumentation carried out by parents and children at dinnertime. Trough the examination of everyday interactions, we analyze qualitatively how argumentation shapes the communicative practices of Italian and Swiss family members and how it can foster a critical attitude in their processes of decision-making. We integrate two theoretical and methodological approaches: the first one is the model of the critical discussion, derived from the pragma-dialectical perspective. It represents an ideal argumentative discussion against which real-life interaction can be analytically reconstructed and evaluated. The second one is the conversational and discursive approach that aims at identifying the sequential patterns of discourse produced by participants. The present study shows that within the setting of dinnertime conversations pragma-dialectical and conversational analyses are powerful tools to understand how argumentation fosters a critical attitude in the process of decision-making and of the building of consent. The results open a space of investigation about the management of family debates in different contexts, taking into account a double perspective on argumentation.

Methodological Thinking in Psychology: Starting from Mixed Methods

Abstract The aim of this paper is to revise the development of the methodological thinking in psychology, underlying the central role of mixed methods. The article is based on a discussion on the main general aspects of mixed methods, in order to show that mixed methods does necessarily produce a new starting point in the mismatch between quantitative and qualitative methods. Through the discussion of these aspects, the paper highlights conditions in which mixed methods can become fruitful instruments of research.

Where and How Family Members Spend Time at Home: A Quantitative Analysis of Observational Tracking of Everyday Lives of Italian Families

Abstract This paper examines a dataset that derives from an observational tracking, in order to analyze where and how middle-class working families spend time at home. We use an ethnographic approach to study the everyday lives of Italian dual-income middle-class families, with the aim to analyze quantitatively the use of home spaces and the types of activities of family members on weekday afternoons and evenings. The different analyses (multiple correspondence analysis, agglomerative hierarchical cluster, discriminant analysis) show how particular spaces and activities in these spaces are dominated by certain family members. We suggest a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies as useful tools to explore in detail the everyday lives of families, and to understand how family members use the domestic spaces. In particular, we consider relevant the use of quantitative analyses to examine ethnographic data, especially in connection with the methodological reflexivity among researchers.

Symposium Editorial: Computer-assisted analysis in the social sciences: A unique strategy for mixed research?

research, and in particular psychology, has grown enormously in the last 20 years. Analysis techniques and very complex software, which make it possible to put into practice different approaches based on both experimental quantitative research and as a support for quality research, have been available for quite some time. However, different authoritative researchers have recently advocated the need to think about (and consequently put into practice current operational research methods) integrating the different approaches.

Reading Together: The Interplay Between Social and Cognitive Aspects in Argumentative and Non-argumentative Dialogues

The aim of this chapter is to consider the intertwining of social and cognitive aspects of learning through interactive activities, in order to explore how the two aspects are interrelated in children’s joint work. Focusing on participants’ talk while they are asked to solve together a reading comprehension task and to agree on a joint answer, we highlight the ways in which the process of dialogical construction of a common answer is influenced by social and cognitive factors. In particular, we problematize the interplay of multiple aspects (cognitive, personal, interpersonal) that structure interactions among peers in order to focus on the regulation of social relations during children’s discussions and its interplay with cognitive dimensions of joint task solving. We show how solving reading comprehension tasks through peer interactions appears as a complex and dynamic phenomenon shaped by the interplay of cognitive, social and personal aspects.

Agency Online: Trends in a University Learning Course.

Abstract This article aims to investigate how university students perform agency in an online course and whether the collaborative nature of the course affects such expression. A total of 11 online web forums involving 18 students (N = 745 posts in total) were qualitatively analysed through the use of a codebook composed of five categories (individual, interpersonal, epistemic, transformative and collective) and several sub-categories purposely developed for the sake of this research. The results show that each category follows a specific path, although two events – the re-mixing of the groups and the assumption of the peer-tutor role – particularly affected the evolution of trends. Although this study needs further development, the authors believe that an in-depth understanding of the nature of agency, including how to analyse it as well as empower it when implementing blended educational activities, engages relevant theoretical and pedagogical issues.

Notes on Similarities and Differences in Studying Argumentation: A Synthetic View

The chapter constitutes a synthetic note based on the empirical studies presented in the volume and provides a comprehensive discussion of selected theoretical and empirical issues at the forefront of research, by ensuring a view of how interpersonal argumentation in educational and professional contexts is presently questioned and investigated. The chapter highlights the common issues of the volume concerning the analysis of how people argue in different contexts, in order to identify similarities and differences in the modes and concepts related to specific fields, and to examine argumentative strategies that are suitable for learning, knowledge orientation, and decision-making processes. Two dimensions (argumentative stages, symmetric/asymmetric nature) are presented as crucial components, which help to give a comprehensive picture of the argumentative interactions occurring in different educational and professional contexts. The chapter claims that, taken together, the studies presented in the volume show the complexity of argumentative processes by taking into account, at different levels, the nature of the relationship among participants to the argumentative discussions.

Argumentation in Dialogue: Final Conclusions

In Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic and Copernican was Galileo trying to convince the scientific community? To persuade himself about the rightness of his own theories or simply writing academic texts basically to “save his skin” from the Sacrum Officium?