Effective argumentation for action in health policy: a case study of the UK’s review on antimicrobial resistance

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1080/10511431.2023.2275845

Chris Ackerley

{"title":"Effective argumentation for action in health policy: a case study of the UK’s review on antimicrobial resistance","authors":"Chris Ackerley","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2023.2275845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis article is a rhetorical analysis of an influential report on antimicrobial resistance in the context of national and global health policymaking. Through a textual-intertextual analysis, it examines how the report’s argumentation structure, grammatical moods, and use of strategic ambiguity direct multiple audiences to debate policy action, without becoming mired in manufactured scientific controversy about the existence or extent of the problem. The report successfully deploys a “beachhead” argumentation strategy by moving swiftly past arguments of scientific fact, definition, and quality, to focus public debate more effectively on matters of procedure. This analysis reveals promising strategies for future reports arguing on behalf of scientific consensus and seeking to stimulate policy action.Keywords: Rhetoric of scienceantimicrobial resistancepublic controversystasis theoryscience communication Disclosure statementThe author reports there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingFulbright Canada| Recipient: Christine Ackerley; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada | Recipient: Christine Ackerley.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":"20 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation and Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2023.2275845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractThis article is a rhetorical analysis of an influential report on antimicrobial resistance in the context of national and global health policymaking. Through a textual-intertextual analysis, it examines how the report’s argumentation structure, grammatical moods, and use of strategic ambiguity direct multiple audiences to debate policy action, without becoming mired in manufactured scientific controversy about the existence or extent of the problem. The report successfully deploys a “beachhead” argumentation strategy by moving swiftly past arguments of scientific fact, definition, and quality, to focus public debate more effectively on matters of procedure. This analysis reveals promising strategies for future reports arguing on behalf of scientific consensus and seeking to stimulate policy action.Keywords: Rhetoric of scienceantimicrobial resistancepublic controversystasis theoryscience communication Disclosure statementThe author reports there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingFulbright Canada| Recipient: Christine Ackerley; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada | Recipient: Christine Ackerley.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

卫生政策行动的有效论证:联合王国对抗菌素耐药性审查的案例研究

摘要本文是对一篇在国家和全球卫生政策制定背景下有影响力的抗菌素耐药性报告的修辞分析。通过文本互文分析，它研究了报告的论证结构、语法语气和战略歧义的使用如何引导多个受众讨论政策行动，而不会陷入关于问题存在或程度的人为科学争议的泥潭。该报告成功地部署了一个“滩头堡”的论证策略，迅速超越了对科学事实、定义和质量的争论，将公众辩论更有效地集中在程序问题上。这一分析为未来的报告揭示了有希望的策略，这些报告代表科学共识进行辩论，并寻求刺激政策行动。关键词:科学修辞学;抗菌素耐药性;公众争议;加拿大富布赖特基金会|受助人:Christine Ackerley;加拿大社会科学与人文研究理事会|获奖者:Christine Ackerley。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Argumentation and Advocacy COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量