Vol. 9 No. 1 (2021): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal

Using argumentation theory to analyze verbal interactions in organizations

Rasim Serdar Kurdoğlu
Asst. Prof., Bilkent University
İbrahim Halil Kayral
Asst. Prof., İzmir Bakırçay University

Published 2021-03-25


  • Argümantasyon Analizi, Yeni Retorik, Argümantasyon Teorisi, Örgütsel Anlaşmazlıklar
  • Argumentation Analysis, New Rhetoric, Argumentation Theory, Organisational Conflicts

How to Cite

Kurdoglu, R. S. ., & Kayral, İbrahim H. (2021). Using argumentation theory to analyze verbal interactions in organizations. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(1), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i1.1732


Compared to the artificial language of mathematics, the language in use is often ambiguous and usually not amenable to objective interpretations. Interpretative methods are still able to produce rich linguistic evaluations, though. Yet, the loose structure of those methods can be challenging, especially for junior researchers. The argumentation theory of new rhetoric can fill this gap as a structured method of systematically dissecting arguments to generate new theoretical propositions from textual data. Arguing is practical reasoning to produce conclusions by using logically or empirically imperfect justifications. It is a way of employing rationality when formal logic and self-evident demonstrations are not applicable. Argumentation analysis can systematically capture personal views within arguments and the reasoning processes that led to those views. Accordingly, this study proposes five steps for argumentation analysis. These five steps guide researchers to identify critical arguments, analyse their structure, establish intentions behind arguments and produce hypotheses accordingly. The proposed method aims to facilitate inquiries into verbal interactions in organisations.


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Alvesson, M. (1993). Organisations as Rhetoric: Knowledge-Intensive Firms and the Struggle with Ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 997–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00476.x
  2. Alvesson, M. (2019). Leadership: Convergence and divergence in leadership relations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(3), 319–334. doi: 10.1177/1056492617717339
  3. Apramian, T., Cristancho, S., Watling, C., & Lingard, L. (2017). (Re)Grounding grounded theory: a close reading of theory in four schools. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 359–376. doi: 10.1177/1468794116672914
  4. Baillie, J., & Meckler, M. R. (2012). Truth and objectivity regained. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(3), 248–260. doi:10.1177/1056492611435247
  5. Bansal, P. T., Smith, W. K., & Vaara, E. (2018). From the editors: New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195. doi:10.5465/amj.2018.4004
  6. Bartels, K. P., & Wagenaar, H. (2018). Doubt and excitement: an experiential learning approach to teaching the practice of qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 18(2), 191–206. doi:10.1177/1468794117713056
  7. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9780203774847-11
  8. Bitektine, A., & Miller, D. (2015). Methods, theories, data, and the social dynamics of organisational research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(2), 115–130. doi:10.1177/1056492614546897
  9. Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866–1891. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x
  10. Bodner, J., Song, S. Y. (Jamie), & Szulanski, G. (2019). Heuristics to navigate uncertainties: Interview with Professor Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(3), 359–365. doi: 10.1177/1056492618790077
  11. Booth, W. C. (2004). The rhetoric of rhetoric : The quest for effective communication. London: Blackwell Publishing.
  12. Bouwmeester, O. (2013). Field dependency of argumentation rationality in decision-making debates. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(4), 415–433. doi: 10.1177/1056492612469727
  13. Brown, A. D., Ainsworth, S., & Grant, D. (2012). The rhetoric of institutional change. Organisation Studies, 33(3), 297–321. doi: 10.1177/0170840611435598
  14. Charmaz, K. (2020). "With constructivist grounded theory you can't hide": Social justice research and critical inquiry in the public sphere. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 165–176. doi: 10.1177/1077800419879081
  15. Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2019). Thinking about data with grounded theory. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(8), 743–753. doi: 10.1177/1077800418809455
  16. Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London: SAGE.
  17. Erkama, N., & Vaara, E. (2010). Struggles over legitimacy in global organisational restructuring: A rhetorical perspective on legitimation strategies and dynamics in a shutdown case. Organisation Studies, 31(7), 813–839. doi: 10.1177/0170840609346924
  18. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York, NY: Routledge.
  19. Folger, R., & Stein, C. (2017). Abduction 101: Reasoning processes to aid discovery. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 306–315. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.08.007
  20. Frost, D. M. (2014). Markers of quality and best practices in qualitative inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 47–48. doi: 10.1037/qup0000008
  21. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151
  22. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2007). Theory and Reality : An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. London: The University of Chicago Press.
  23. Graebner, M. E., Martin, J. A., & Roundy, P. T. (2012). Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 276–284. doi: 10.1177/1476127012452821
  24. Green, S. E., Li, Y., & Nohria, N. (2009). Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalisation and institutionally embedded agency. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 11–36. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.36461725
  25. Hammersley, M. (2019). Ethnomethodological criticism of ethnography. Qualitative Research, 19(5), 578–593. doi: 10.1177/1468794118781383
  26. Harley, B., & Faems, D. (2017). Theoretical progress in management studies and the role of qualitative research. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 366–367. doi: 10.1111/joms.12239
  27. Hartelius, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research: A literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 13–39. doi: 10.1177/0893318908318513
  28. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organisational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755–778. doi: 10.2307/3069414
  29. Houé, T., & Murphy, E. (2017). A study of logistics networks: the value of a qualitative approach. European Management Review, 14(1), 3–18. doi: 10.1111/emre.12086
  30. Hunt, S. D. (1994). On the rhetoric of qualitative methods: Toward historically informed argumentation in management inquiry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 3(3), 221–234. doi: 10.1177/105649269433002
  31. James, A. (2013). Seeking the analytic imagination: reflections on the process of interpreting qualitative data. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 562–577. doi: 10.1177/1468794112446108
  32. Jia, M., Cheng, J., & Hale, C. L. (2017). Workplace emotion and communication: Supervisor nonverbal immediacy, employees' emotion experience, and their communication motives. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(1), 69–87. doi: 10.1177/0893318916650519
  33. Kenealy, G. J. J. (2012). Grounded theory: A theory building approach. In G Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges (pp. 408–425). London: Sage.
  34. Klag, M., & Langley, A. (2013). Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 149–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00349.x
  35. Kurdoglu, R. S. (2018). Managerial legitimation of allegedly unfair decisions : studying arguments in career advancement disputes (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Leicester, UK.
  36. Lee, J. (2001). Leader-member exchange, perceived organisational justice, and cooperative communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 574–589. doi: 10.1177/0893318901144002
  37. Lester, J. N. (2014). Discursive psychology: Methodology and applications. Qualitative Psychology, 1(2), 141–143. doi: 10.1037/qup0000015
  38. Lewin, D. (2001). IR and HR perspectives on workplace conflict what can each learn from the other? Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 453–485. doi: 10.1016/s1053-4822(01)00049-3
  39. Martela, F. (2015). Fallible inquiry with ethical ends-in-view: A pragmatist philosophy of science for organisational research. Organisation Studies, 36(4), 537–563. doi: 10.1177/0170840614559257
  40. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. doi: 10.1177/1077800413513733
  41. Nechanska, E., Hughes, E., & Dundon, T. (2020). Towards an integration of employee voice and silence. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 100674.doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.11.002
  42. O'Neill, T. A., & McLarnon, M. J. W. (2018). Optimising team conflict dynamics for high performance teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 378–394. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.06.002
  43. O'Reilly, K., Paper, D., & Marx, S. (2012). Demystifying grounded theory for business research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 247–262. doi: 10.1177/1094428111434559
  44. Owen Lo, C. S. (2014). Enhancing groundedness in realist grounded theory research. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 61–76. doi: 10.1037/qup0000001
  45. Peirce, C. S. (1997). Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.
  46. Perelman, C. (1963). The Idea of Justice and The Problem of Argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  47. Perelman, C. (1965). Philosophy and the sciences. Philosophy Today, 9(4), 273–277.
  48. Perelman, C. (1968). Rhetoric and philosophy. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 15–24.
  49. Perelman, C. (1979). The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  50. Perelman, C. (1980). Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning. London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  51. Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
  52. Perelman, C. (1984). Rhetoric and politics. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 17(3), 129–134.
  53. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric : A Treatise on Argumentation [Google Play Books Version]. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
  54. Phillips, L., & Jørgensen, M. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.
  55. Piore, M. J. (2006). Qualitative research: Does it fit in economics? European Management Review, 3(1), 17–23. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500053
  56. Point, S., Fendt, J., & Jonsen, K. (2017). Qualitative inquiry in management: Methodological dilemmas and concerns in meta-analysis. European Management Review, 14(2), 185–204. doi: 10.1111/emre.12097
  57. Popper, K. R. (1972). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Vol. 4th). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  58. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.
  59. Roulston, K. (2018). Qualitative interviewing and epistemics. Qualitative Research, 18(3), 322–341. doi: 10.1177/1468794117721738
  60. Saunders, M. N. K., & Townsend, K. (2016). Reporting and justifying the number of interview participants in organisation and workplace research. British Journal of Management, 27(4), 836–852. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12182
  61. Sillince, J. A. A., & Brown, A. D. (2009). Multiple organisational identities and legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62(12), 1829–1856. doi: 10.1177/0018726709336626
  62. Sillince, J. A. A., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Organisational rhetoric bridging management and communication scholarship. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 5–12. doi: 10.1177/0893318908318264
  63. Springgay, S., & Truman, S. E. (2018). On the need for methods beyond proceduralism: Speculative middles, (in)tensions, and response-ability in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(3), 203–214. doi: 10.1177/1077800417704464
  64. St. Pierre, E. A., & Jackson, A. Y. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715–719. doi: 10.1177/1077800414532435
  65. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.22083020
  66. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 35–67. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35
  67. Symon, Gillian, Buehring, A., Johnson, P., & Cassell, C. (2008). Positioning qualitative research as resistance to the institutionalisation of the academic labour process. Organisation Studies, 29(10), 1315–1336. doi: 10.1177/0170840607086552
  68. Thomas, G. (2010). Doing case study: Abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(7), 575–582. doi: 10.1177/1077800410372601
  69. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
  70. Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  71. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. New York, NY: Springer.
  72. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., … Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory : A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahway,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  73. Walton, D. N. (1998). The New Dialectic : Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  74. Walton, D. N. (1999). One-Sided Arguments : A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.
  75. Whittle, A., Mueller, F., Lenney, P., & Gilchrist, A. (2014). Interest‐talk as access‐talk: How interests are displayed, made and down‐played in management research. British Journal of Management, 25(3), 607–628. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12021
  76. Whittle, Andrea, & Mueller, F. (2015). The language of interests: The contribution of discursive psychology. Human Relations, 64(643), 415–435. doi: 10.1177/0018726710386395
  77. Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 73–90). London: Sage.
  78. Willing, C. (2019). What can qualitative psychology contribute to psychological knowledge? Psychological Methods, 24(6), 796-804. doi: 10.1037/met0000218
  79. Woodilla, J., & Forray, J. M. (2008). Justice and the political in organisational life: A narrative inquiry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(1), 4–19. doi: 10.1177/10564926080170010201
  80. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis : A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: SAGE.