@article{radford_lackmann_goodwin_correia jr_harnos_2023, title={An Iterative Approach toward Development of Ensemble Visualization Techniques for High-Impact Winter Weather Hazards}, volume={104}, ISSN={["1520-0477"]}, DOI={10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0193.1}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={9}, journal={BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY}, author={Radford, Jacob T. and Lackmann, Gary M. and Goodwin, Jean and Correia Jr, James and Harnos, Kirstin}, year={2023}, month={Sep}, pages={E1649–E1669} }
 @article{radford_lackmann_goodwin_correia jr_harnos_2023, title={An Iterative Approach toward Development of Ensemble Visualization Techniques for High-Impact Winter Weather Hazards Part I: Product Development}, volume={104}, ISSN={["1520-0477"]}, DOI={10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0192.1}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={9}, journal={BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY}, author={Radford, Jacob T. and Lackmann, Gary M. and Goodwin, Jean and Correia Jr, James and Harnos, Kirstin}, year={2023}, month={Sep}, pages={E1630–E1648} }
 @article{jhala_cheng_goodwin_singh_anwar_davis_jiang_lee_younho_grady_et al._2022, title={A Digital Communication Twin for Addressing Misinformation: Vision, Challenges, Opportunities}, volume={26}, ISSN={1089-7801 1941-0131}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2021.3129547}, DOI={10.1109/MIC.2021.3129547}, abstractNote={In this article, we propose a novel approach to address the major ethical and societal problem of misinformation on social media. Specifically, how can we identify misinformation, understand how it spreads, and produce effective interventions? Our envisioned solution is sociotechnical in that it relies upon people (specifically community leaders) to push back against the ravages of misinformation but incorporates novel computational support for doing so. Specifically, we envision a digital communication twin platform for misinformation flow in social networks. We present the motivation, components, challenges, and opportunities in the development of this platform. We illustrate the potential for this approach via misinformation about healthcare, which has flourished during the COVID-19 pandemic.}, number={2}, journal={IEEE Internet Computing}, publisher={Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)}, author={Jhala, Arnav and Cheng, Yang and Goodwin, Jean and Singh, Munindar P. and Anwar, Mohd and Davis, Lauren and Jiang, Steven and Lee, Anna and Younho, Seong and Grady, Siobahn and et al.}, year={2022}, month={Mar}, pages={36–41} }
 @article{ladd_goodwin_2022, title={Extreme arguments: Anwar al-Awlaki's radicalizing discourse}, volume={200}, ISSN={["1879-1387"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.08.004}, DOI={10.1016/j.pragma.2022.08.004}, abstractNote={Terrorist violence remains one of the most significant threats in the contemporary world. Yet while substantial attention has been paid to the Western discourse that frames these events, the discourse of the violent extremists themselves remains understudied. This case study of an influential talk by Yemeni-American al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki aims to address that gap. We find that Awlaki's narrative-heavy discourse was at the same time intensely reasoned, integrating arguments from analogy, from moral justification ad populum, and from expert opinion. In the context of the ongoing controversies over cartoons depicting Muhammad, these arguments served both to justify extreme violence against the artists and to make such violence an obligation for every believer. At the same time, Awlaki's appeals delegitimized other voices, encouraging audiences to resist counter-persuasion. While further research is vital, this study demonstrates the power of argument analysis for investigating radicalization appeals.}, journal={JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS}, author={Ladd, Brian K. and Goodwin, Jean}, year={2022}, month={Oct}, pages={39–48} }
 @article{kauffeld_goodwin_2022, title={Two Views of Speech Acts: Analysis and Implications for Argumentation Theory}, volume={7}, ISSN={["2226-471X"]}, DOI={10.3390/languages7020093}, abstractNote={Argumentation theorists need to command a clear view of the sources of the obligations that arguers incur, e.g., their burdens of proof. Theories of illocutionary speech acts promise to fill this need. This essay contrasts two views of illocutionary acts: one, that they are constituted by rules, the other, that they are constituted by paradigmatic practical calculations. After a general comparison of the two views, the strength of the pragmatic view is demonstrated through an account of the illocutionary act of making an accusation. It is shown that the essential conditions of ACCUSING revealed by conceptual analysis are just what is practically necessary to manage a routine, but complex, communicative problem. The essay closes with remarks on the implications of the pragmatic view of speech acts for argumentation theory generally.}, number={2}, journal={LANGUAGES}, author={Kauffeld, Fred J. and Goodwin, Jean}, year={2022}, month={Jun} }
 @article{gibson_busch_stevenson_cutts_demattia_aguilar_ardoin_carrier_clark_cooper_et al._2022, title={What is community-level environmental literacy, and how can we measure it? A report of a convening to conceptualize and operationalize CLEL}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1469-5871"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2067325}, DOI={10.1080/13504622.2022.2067325}, abstractNote={Abstract Environmental education research often emphasizes the importance of community context, but conceptualization and measurement of environmental literacy has mostly occurred at the individual level, often focusing on individual behaviors. The environmental problems facing the world today require collective action—communities coming together to address large-scale problems. Accordingly, understanding and encouraging collective action requires a shift in focus from individual to community-level environmental literacy (CLEL). Despite its importance, CLEL has been left largely undefined and unmentioned in environmental education literature. To understand the field’s current conceptualizations and measurement strategies around CLEL, the authors held a convening of 24 researchers to discuss the topic. Here, we report the findings of this convening and present a series of tensions that emerged in conceptualizing and measuring CLEL. We see this area of research as rich with opportunity for innovation and offer considerations for researchers engaging in this work.}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Gibson, Lauren M. and Busch, K. C. and Stevenson, Kathryn T. and Cutts, Bethany B. and DeMattia, Elizabeth A. and Aguilar, Olivia M. and Ardoin, Nicole M. and Carrier, Sarah J. and Clark, Charlotte R. and Cooper, Caren B. and et al.}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }
 @inbook{goodwin_2020, place={Windsor, Ontario}, series={Windsor Studies in Argumentation}, title={Norms of advocacy}, DOI={10.22329/wsia.10.2020}, abstractNote={Built in the centre of Copenhagen, and noted for its equestrian stairway, the Rundetaarn (Round Tower), was intended as an astronomical observatory. Part of a complex of buildings that once included a university library, it affords expansive views of the city in every direction, towering above what surrounds it. The metaphor of the towering figure, who sees what others might not, whose vantage point allows him to visualize how things fit together, and who has an earned-stature of respect and authority, fits another Danish stalwart, Hans Vilhelm Hansen, whose contributions to the fields of informal logic and argument theory have earned the gratitude of his colleagues, and inspired this collection of essays, written to express the appreciation of its authors and of the many, many colleagues they represent.}, booktitle={Rigour and Reason : Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen}, publisher={University of Windsor}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, editor={Blair, J. Anthony and Tindale, Christopher W.Editors}, year={2020}, month={Jun}, pages={111–142}, collection={Windsor Studies in Argumentation} }
 @article{goodwin_2020, title={Should Climate Scientists Fly?}, volume={40}, ISSN={2293-734X 0824-2577}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i2.6327}, DOI={10.22329/il.v40i2.6327}, abstractNote={ I inquire into argument at the system level, exploring the controversy over whether climate scientists should fly. I document participants’ knowledge of a skeptical argument that because scientists fly, they cannot testify credibly about the climate emergency. I show how this argument has been managed by pro-climate action arguers, and how some climate scientists have developed parallel reasoning, articulating a sophisticated case why they will be more effective in the controversy if they fly less. Finally, I review some strategies arguers deploy to use the arguments of others against them. I argue that only by attending to argument-making at the system level can we understand how arguers come to know the resources for argument available in a controversy and to think strategically about how to use them. I call for more work on argument at the system level}, number={2}, journal={Informal Logic}, publisher={University of Windsor Leddy Library}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2020}, month={Jul}, pages={157–203} }
 @inbook{goodwin_2019, title={Chapter 9. Radically reframing the climate debate}, ISBN={9789027204028 9789027262134}, ISSN={1877-6884}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.09goo}, DOI={10.1075/aic.17.09goo}, booktitle={Argumentation in Context}, publisher={John Benjamins Publishing Company}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2019}, month={Sep}, pages={157–172} }
 @article{goodwin_2019, title={Sophistical refutations in  the climate change debates}, volume={8}, ISSN={2211-4742 2211-4750}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo}, DOI={10.1075/jaic.18008.goo}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Argumentation in Context}, publisher={John Benjamins Publishing Company}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2019}, pages={40–64} }
 @article{goodwin_innocenti_2019, title={The Pragmatic Force of Making an Argument}, volume={38}, ISSN={0167-7411 1572-8749}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09643-8}, DOI={10.1007/s11245-019-09643-8}, number={4}, journal={Topoi}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Goodwin, Jean and Innocenti, Beth}, year={2019}, month={May}, pages={669–680} }
 @misc{priest_goodwin_dahlstrom_2018, title={Ethics and Practice in Science Communication}, ISBN={9780226497815 9780226540603 9780226497952}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226497952.001.0001}, DOI={10.7208/chicago/9780226497952.001.0001}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}, author={Priest, Susanna and Goodwin, Jean and Dahlstrom, Michael F.}, year={2018} }
 @article{ryan_adamson_aktipis_andersen_austin_barnes_beasley_bedell_briggs_chapman_et al._2018, title={The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research}, volume={285}, ISSN={0962-8452 1471-2954}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1977}, DOI={10.1098/rspb.2018.1977}, abstractNote={The power of citizen science to contribute to both science and society is gaining increased recognition, particularly in physics and biology. Although there is a long history of public engagement in agriculture and food science, the term ‘citizen science’ has rarely been applied to these efforts. Similarly, in the emerging field of citizen science, most new citizen science projects do not focus on food or agriculture. Here, we convened thought leaders from a broad range of fields related to citizen science, agriculture, and food science to highlight key opportunities for bridging these overlapping yet disconnected communities/fields and identify ways to leverage their respective strengths. Specifically, we show that (i) citizen science projects are addressing many grand challenges facing our food systems, as outlined by the United States National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as broader Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations Development Programme, (ii) there exist emerging opportunities and unique challenges for citizen science in agriculture/food research, and (iii) the greatest opportunities for the development of citizen science projects in agriculture and food science will be gained by using the existing infrastructure and tools of Extension programmes and through the engagement of urban communities. Further, we argue there is no better time to foster greater collaboration between these fields given the trend of shrinking Extension programmes, the increasing need to apply innovative solutions to address rising demands on agricultural systems, and the exponential growth of the field of citizen science.}, number={1891}, journal={Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences}, publisher={The Royal Society}, author={Ryan, S. F. and Adamson, N. L. and Aktipis, A. and Andersen, L. K. and Austin, R. and Barnes, L. and Beasley, M. R. and Bedell, K. D. and Briggs, S. and Chapman, B. and et al.}, year={2018}, month={Nov}, pages={20181977} }
 @inproceedings{goodwin_2016, place={Charleston, SC}, title={Confronting the challenges of public participation: Issues in environmental, planning and health decision-making}, publisher={CreateSpace}, year={2016} }
 @article{goodwin_2015, title={Comment exercer une autorité experte ? Un scientifique confronté aux Sceptiques}, volume={9}, ISSN={1565-8961}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/aad.2035}, DOI={10.4000/aad.2035}, abstractNote={The primary loyalty of argumentation theory should be to the practical knowledges arguers are exhibiting and thematizing in ordinary argumentative interactions, since such knowledges make the interactions work. In this essay, I show how theorists can learn from practitioners through a close analysis of the argumentologie populaire that emerged in a televised exchange between eminent scientist/communicator Stephen Schneider and an audience of self-described climate sceptics. In part, Schneider proceeds by inviting his audience to join the scientific community. But both Schneider and his audience recognize the limits of this approach; at base, the question is whether laypeople ought to trust scientists’ expertise, and thus also be bound by scientists’ authority. I close by pointing out the ways in which participants' understanding of the appeal to expert authority is more sophisticated than the accounts given by argumentation theorists.}, number={15}, journal={Argumentation et analyse du discours}, publisher={OpenEdition}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2015}, month={Sep} }
 @article{goodwin_2014, title={Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate About Advocating}, volume={36}, ISSN={0860-150X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0003}, DOI={10.2478/slgr-2014-0003}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric}, publisher={Walter de Gruyter GmbH}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2014}, month={Mar}, pages={79–98} }
 @inbook{goodwin_2014, place={Columbia, SC}, title={Walter Lippmann, the indispensable opposition}, booktitle={Trained capacities: John Dewey, rhetoric, and democratic practice}, publisher={University of South Caroline Press}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, editor={Jackson, Brian and Clark, GregoryEditors}, year={2014}, pages={142–158} }
 @article{goodwin_dahlstrom_2013, title={Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates}, volume={5}, ISSN={1757-7780}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/WCC.262}, DOI={10.1002/WCC.262}, abstractNote={Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists. In response, climate scientists can undertake one of two general communication strategies for enhancing trust, each appealing to one of two broad types of cognitive processing mechanisms. In the first, the communicator displays traits like humor, attractiveness, vigorous delivery, and likeability that audiences use as heuristics in determining whom to trust. But this strategy is unlikely to be successful with the very audiences who are its main targets, since those audiences will be primed to employ a more analytic and critical approach to assessing trustworthiness. In the second communicative strategy, the communicator earns trust by undertaking burdens and commitments and making herself vulnerable in ways her audience can enforce. This vulnerability signals her trustworthiness, since the audience can reason that she would not undertake such risks unless she was confident in what she was saying. Climate scientists have a variety of ways of making themselves vulnerable, including committing themselves to engaging with doubtful and dismissive audiences, undertaking burdens of proof to argue with them, empowering audiences to assess the science themselves, admitting error, and focusing on small issues. Overall, when adopting the second strategy, climate scientists must extend trust in order to earn trust, committing themselves to an on‐going relationship within which their true trustworthiness will become apparent. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:151–160. doi: 10.1002/wcc.262}, number={1}, journal={Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Goodwin, Jean and Dahlstrom, Michael F.}, year={2013}, month={Nov}, pages={151–160} }
 @inproceedings{goodwin_dahlstrom_priest_2013, place={Charleston, SC}, title={Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach}, url={https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/sciencecommunication/2013/}, publisher={CreateSpace}, year={2013} }
 @article{goodwin_2013, title={L'autorità di Wikipedia}, volume={25}, journal={Sistemi Intelligenti}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2013}, pages={9–38} }
 @inproceedings{goodwin_2012, place={Ames, IA}, title={Between Scientists & Citizens: Assessing Expertise In Policy Controversies}, publisher={Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation and the Science Communication at Iowa State University Project}, year={2012} }
 @article{goodwin_2011, title={Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts}, volume={25}, ISSN={0920-427X 1572-8374}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S10503-011-9219-6}, DOI={10.1007/S10503-011-9219-6}, number={3}, journal={Argumentation}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2011}, month={Jul}, pages={285–296} }
 @article{herndl_goodwin_honeycutt_wilson_graham_niedergeses_2011, title={Talking Sustainability: Identification and Division in an Iowa Community}, volume={35}, ISSN={1044-0046 1540-7578}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.562068}, DOI={10.1080/10440046.2011.562068}, abstractNote={This study investigates how sustainability and its inherent values figure into farmers' discourse, i.e., how farmers and members of farming communities talk about sustainability. We conducted qualitative interviews of various individuals in a single Iowa community to determine whether the visions guiding their land management choices resembled at all the ideals of a sustainable agriculture. Using Kenneth Burke's concepts of identification and division, we rhetorically analyzed the interview transcripts. We found animosity towards much green terminology but widespread commitment to environmental preservation, especially when aligned with economic interests. We highlight rhetorical strategies for promoting sustainable practices.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Sustainable Agriculture}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Herndl, Carl G. and Goodwin, Jean and Honeycutt, Lee and Wilson, Greg and Graham, S. Scott and Niedergeses, David}, year={2011}, month={Apr}, pages={436–461} }
 @article{goodwin_cortes_2010, title={Theorists’ and practitioners’ spatial metaphors for argumentation: A corpus-based approach}, volume={23}, number={1}, journal={Verbum}, author={Goodwin, Jean and Cortes, Viviana}, year={2010}, pages={163–178} }
 @inbook{goodwin_2010, place={London}, title={Trust in experts as a principal-agent problem}, booktitle={Dialectics, dialogue, and argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument}, publisher={College Publications}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, editor={Reed, Chris and Tindale, Christopher W.Editors}, year={2010}, pages={133–143} }
 @inbook{goodwin_2009, title={Actually Existing Rules for Closing Arguments}, ISBN={9781402091643 9781402091650}, ISSN={1566-7650}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_20}, DOI={10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_20}, abstractNote={Our interest in argumentation is provoked at least in part by the apparent paradox it presents. People are arguing because they disagree, sometimes deeply. But despite their disagreement, their transaction is orderly – at least, somewhat orderly. Furthermore, this orderliness apparently has a normative element; it establishes grounds for participants to critique each other’s conduct as good and bad. How is this normative orderliness achieved, even in the face of disagreement? – That must be a central question for any theory, especially one that aims to deepen our understanding of the normative pragmatics of arguing (Goodwin, 2002, 2007; Jacobs, 1999; van Eemeren, 1994).}, booktitle={Pondering on Problems of Argumentation}, publisher={Springer Netherlands}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2009}, pages={287–298} }
 @article{goodwin_honeycutt_2009, title={When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority}, volume={9}, number={2}, journal={Studies in Communication Sciences}, author={Goodwin, Jean and Honeycutt, Lee}, year={2009}, pages={125–136} }
 @article{goodwin_2008, title={Argument Has No Function}, volume={27}, ISSN={0824-2577 0824-2577}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.465}, DOI={10.22329/il.v27i1.465}, abstractNote={Douglas Walton has been right in calling us to attend to the pragmatics of argument. He has, however, also insisted that arguments should be understood and assessed by considering the functions they perform; and from this, I dissent. Argument has no determinable function in the sense Walton needs, and even if it did, that function would not ground norms for argumentative practice. As an alternative to a functional theory of argumentative pragmatics, I propose a design view, which draws attention to the way participants strategically undertake and impose norms on themselves in order for their arguments to have force.}, number={1}, journal={Informal Logic}, publisher={University of Windsor Leddy Library}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2008}, month={Feb}, pages={69} }
 @article{goodwin_2007, title={Theoretical Pieties, Johnstone's Impiety, and Ordinary Views of Argumentation}, volume={40}, ISSN={1527-2079}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/par.2007.0012}, DOI={10.1353/par.2007.0012}, abstractNote={The greatest single influence on rhetorical theory throughout its long history, and likewise on its daughter or sister enterprise, the theory of argument, has without doubt been students. In part, the influence has been bad. Docile students have (it seems) offered little resistance to their teachers' theoretical hobbyhorses, being willing to cram for the exam, or the speech, fantastical systems of staseis, topoi, figurae and five or seven part formulae for developing arguments. Even the more realistic bits of lore have proved so eminently learnable that as Sperber and Wilson (1990) have pointed out, students have not pressed us, teachers and theorists, to elaborate them further over eighty generations of basic courses. Recalcitrant students have also caused us problems, and it is this bad influence that I want to examine here. Some students, we think, resist argument. They bring negative attitudes to our classrooms. Their misconceptions shut down learning; they are wrong; moreover, they are somewhat insulting. So we have in response been tempted to a sort of preachiness, an apologetic stance?a piety about our subject. I suppose we've all caught ourselves doing it; I know I have: the first day of class defense of the dignity of argument. Like most defensiveness, this reaction feels unsatisfactory. We seem to be prisoners of what we take to be our students' limited views. In this essay, I am going to enlist the aid of Henry W. Johnstone Jr. to help show us an escape. Impiously, Johnstone accepts and even elaborates some of our students' common critiques of argument. He challenges us, teachers and theorists of argument, not to resist these critiques, but to acknowledge and embrace them. And in this way he invites us to a more complex understanding of our subject and to a deeper conversation with our students.}, number={1}, journal={Philosophy and Rhetoric}, publisher={The Pennsylvania State University Press}, author={Goodwin, Jean.}, year={2007}, pages={36–50} }
 @article{mcandrews_goodwin_mullen_2006, title={Using environmental and ethical issues for debate in an introductory agronomy course}, volume={50}, number={4}, journal={North American Colleges & Teachers of Agriculture Journal}, author={McAndrews, Gina and Goodwin, Jean and Mullen, Russ E.}, year={2006}, pages={54–61} }
 @inbook{goodwin_2005, place={Amsterdam, Netherlands}, title={Designing premises}, booktitle={Argumentation in practice}, publisher={Benjamins}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, editor={Eemeren, F.H. and Houtlosser, P.Editors}, year={2005}, pages={99–114} }
 @article{goodwin_2005, title={The Public Sphere and the Norms of Transactional Argument}, volume={25}, ISSN={0824-2577 0824-2577}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i2.1117}, DOI={10.22329/il.v25i2.1117}, abstractNote={An outsider to argument theory, should she look through the rich outpouring of our recent work, might be amused to find us theorists not following our own prescriptions. We propound our ideas, but we don't always interact with each other--we don't argue. The essays by William Rehg and Robert Asen make promising start on rectifying this difficulty. I want to discuss them, first, to show how they acknowledge in exemplary fashion a pair of challenges I think we should all be addressing; and next to consider their specific responses.}, number={2}, journal={Informal Logic}, publisher={University of Windsor Leddy Library}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2005}, month={Jan} }
 @article{goodwin_2005, title={What Does Arguing Look Like?}, volume={25}, ISSN={0824-2577 0824-2577}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i1.1046}, DOI={10.22329/il.v25i1.1046}, abstractNote={Conceptions 8 13%}, number={1}, journal={Informal Logic}, publisher={University of Windsor Leddy Library}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2005}, month={Jan} }
 @article{goodwin_2003, title={Students' Perspectives on Debate Exercises in Content Area Classes}, volume={52}, ISSN={0363-4523 1479-5795}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520302466}, DOI={10.1080/03634520302466}, abstractNote={The recent movement to promote debate across the curriculum presumes that debate-like activities in content-area classes can enhance disciplinary learning as well as core skills. Yet students in such classes may resist debate activities if they believe (1) debate promotes hostility; (2) debate disadvantages demographic groups preferring noncompetitive communication styles; or (3) debate is too unfamiliar. The present study elicited end-of-term written evaluations of debate-like activities in a 70-student class on rhetorical traditions. Students in the class worked in small groups to prepare debates on issues arising from lectures and reading. Teams presented debates during weekly discussion section meetings; those not debating acted as judges and wrote explanations of their decisions. Thematic analysis of the student responses indicated that, while a few students expressed discomfort with the competitiveness of the activities, most were laudatory. Results point to the value of debate-across-the-curriculum for promoting small group communication and for fostering divergent perspectives on course topics.}, number={2}, journal={Communication Education}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2003}, month={Jan}, pages={157–163} }
 @inbook{goodwin_2002, title={Designing Issues}, ISBN={9789048160570 9789401599481}, ISSN={1566-7650}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7}, abstractNote={Scholarship on the practical art of arguing has the good luck of inheriting from its subject a rich native vocabulary for capturing what is going on. Still, this very richness can distract the scholars — natives themselves — from giving the vocabulary a closer look. And that is unfortunate. Although our goal as argumentation theorists must not be to deconstruct ordinary views, we cannot accept them uncritically, either; rather, our job is to articulate and sort out what practitioners think they are doing and to account for how, or whether, the activity thus conceptualized works to achieve the purposes for which it is pursued (Craig, 1996; Barth & Krabbe, 1982).}, booktitle={Dialectic and Rhetoric}, publisher={Springer Netherlands}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2002}, pages={81–96} }
 @inproceedings{goodwin_2002, place={Washington, DC}, title={We should be studying the norms of debate}, booktitle={Arguing Communication & Culture Selected papers from the Twelfth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation}, publisher={National Communication Association}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, editor={Goodnight, G.T.Editor}, year={2002}, pages={51–58} }
 @article{goodwin_2001, title={Cicero's Authority}, volume={34}, ISSN={1527-2079}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/par.2001.0003}, DOI={10.1353/par.2001.0003}, abstractNote={On a stray planet in an out-of-the-way corner of the universe live odd beings with patterns of behavior odder still. It can be frequently observed that one of them stands before another, moving its limbs or producing some sounds, and the other responds apparently quite as the first expected. But why? Why should these feeble motions have such force? This puzzle or wonder is presented to us conspicuously in the phenomenon we know as authority. Authority is exercised most starkly in transactions similar to the following:}, number={1}, journal={Philosophy and Rhetoric}, publisher={The Pennsylvania State University Press}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2001}, pages={38–60} }
 @article{goodwin_2001, title={Henry Johnstone, Jr.'s Still-Unacknowledged Contributions to Contemporary Argumentation Theory}, volume={21}, ISSN={0824-2577 0824-2577}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i1.2234}, DOI={10.22329/il.v21i1.2234}, abstractNote={Given the pragmatic tum recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product. In particular, Johnstone's decidedly non-cooperative model is a refreshing alternative to the current dialogic theories of arguing, one which opens the way for specifically rhetorical lines of inquiry.}, number={1}, journal={Informal Logic}, publisher={University of Windsor Leddy Library}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2001}, month={Jan} }
 @inproceedings{goodwin_2001, place={Antwerp, Belgium}, series={Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference}, title={The noncooperative pragmatics of arguing}, booktitle={Pragmatics in 2000}, publisher={International Pragmatics Association}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, editor={Nemeth, E.T.Editor}, year={2001}, pages={263–277}, collection={Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference} }
 @article{goodwin_2000, title={Comments on [Jacobs's] Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics}, volume={14}, journal={Argumentation}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2000}, pages={287–292} }
 @article{leff_goodwin_2000, title={Dialogic Figures and Dialectical Argument in Lincoln's Rhetoric}, volume={3}, ISSN={1534-5238}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0102}, DOI={10.1353/rap.2010.0102}, abstractNote={Lincoln persistently and effectively uses a number of "dialectical" or "dialogical" figures such as prolepsis, prosopopoeia , and correctio . These figures help to frame his rhetorical texts within a universe of argument and give him the opportunity to voice and transcend positions that differ from his own. Attention to this aspect of Lincoln's rhetoric helps to explain the power of his speeches and also offers a ground for connecting rhetorical practice with contemporary scholarship in informal logic, where there is an especially keen interest in the dialectical positioning of arguments.}, number={1}, journal={Rhetoric & Public Affairs}, publisher={Project Muse}, author={Leff, Michael and Goodwin, Jean}, year={2000}, pages={59–69} }
 @article{goodwin_2000, title={Three Faces of the Future}, volume={37}, ISSN={1051-1431 2576-8476}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2000.11951660}, DOI={10.1080/00028533.2000.11951660}, abstractNote={Why should we consider the far future when we deliberate? The question puzzles both philosophers and advocates. I isolate from civic discourses three motivations: love of children, obligation to heirs, lust for fame among posterity. All embody the future in persons related to us: the faces of the future.}, number={2}, journal={Argumentation and Advocacy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2000}, month={Sep}, pages={71–85} }
 @article{goodwin_2000, title={Wigmore's Chart Method}, volume={20}, ISSN={0824-2577 0824-2577}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v20i3.2278}, DOI={10.22329/il.v20i3.2278}, abstractNote={A generation before Beardsley, legal scholar John Henry Wigmore invented a scheme for representing arguments in a tree diagram, aimed to help advocates analyze the proof of facts at trial. In this essay, I describe Wigmore's "Chart Method" and trace its origin and influence. Wigmore, I argue, contributes to contemporary theory in two ways. His rhetorical approach to diagramming provides a novel perspective on problems about the theory of reasoning, premise adequacy, and dialectical obligations. Further, he advances a novel solution to the problem of assessing argument quality by representing the strength of argument in meeting objections.}, number={3}, journal={Informal Logic}, publisher={University of Windsor Leddy Library}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={2000}, month={Jan} }
 @article{goodwin_1998, volume={12}, ISSN={0920-427X}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1007756117287}, DOI={10.1023/a:1007756117287}, number={2}, journal={Argumentation}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={1998}, pages={267–280} }
 @inproceedings{goodwin_1998, place={Annandale, VA}, title={Deliberation and character}, ISBN={9780944811245}, booktitle={Argument in a time of change : definitions, frameworks, and critiques : proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation}, publisher={National Communication Association}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, editor={Klumpp, J.F. and Hollihan, T.A.Editors}, year={1998}, pages={70–74} }
 @article{goodwin_1997, title={Deliberation in the ancient Roman Senate}, volume={38}, number={1}, journal={Parliamentary Journal}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={1997}, pages={33–36} }
 @article{goodwin_1995, title={Perelman, adhering and convictions}, volume={28}, number={3}, journal={Philosophy and Rhetoric}, author={Goodwin, Jean}, year={1995}, pages={215–233} }