This study examines the strategies employed in justifying counter-arguments against answers provided in Q&A (question and answer) discussion. The study also explores how information sources are used in support of such arguments. The findings draw on the analysis of 100 discourse episodes focusing on global warming – a controversial topic eliciting competing answers from the participants. The empirical data were downloaded from Yahoo! Answers. Four strategies were identified. Of them, questioning the validity of answers and questioning the background assumptions of answers were used most frequently. While justifying counter-arguments, the participants also drew on emotional appeals and questioned the contributor’s motives. To support the counter-arguments, the participants mainly drew on internet-based sources of information. The controversial nature of the discussion topic was reflected in the debate about the most authoritative information sources: persuasive material advocating a particular viewpoint to global warming vs objective research reports.
KimS. Questioners’ credibility judgments of answers in a social question and answer site. Information Research2010; 15(2), http://informationr.net/ir/15-2/paper432.html (accessed 8 June 2012).
2.
ShachafP. Social reference: Toward a unifying theory. Library & Information Science Research2010; 32(1): 66–76.
3.
AdamicLZhangJBakshyEAckermanM. Knowledge sharing and Yahoo! Answers: Everyone knows something. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on the WorldWideWeb (ACMWWW’08). New York: ACM Press, 2008, pp. 665–674.
4.
ToulminSE. The uses of argument, updated edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
5.
SavolainenR. The structure of arguments patterns on a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2012; 63(12): 2536–2548.
6.
BradleyRS. Global warming and political intimidation: How politicians cracked down on scientists as the earth heated up. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2011.
7.
HogganJLittlemoreR. Climate cover-up: The crusade to deny global warming. Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2009.
8.
SingerFS. Hot talk, cold science: Global warming’s unfinished debate. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 1997.
9.
MyersonGRydinY. The language of environment: A new rhetoric. London: UCL Press, 1996.
10.
GazanR. Social Q&A. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2011; 62(12): 2301–2312.
11.
OhS. The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing information, knowledge, and experience in online environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2012; 63(3): 543–577.
12.
ShahCOhSOhJS. Research agenda for social Q&A. Library & Information Science Research2009; 31(4): 205–209.
13.
RosenbaumHShachafP. A structuration approach to online communities of practice: The case of Q&A communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2010; 61(9): 543–577.
14.
OhSOhJSShahC. The use of information sources by Internet users in answering questions. In: ASIST 2008. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Columbus, OH, 24–29October2008, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/meet.145.v45:1/issuetoc (accessed 8 June 2012).
15.
HarperFMMoyDKonstanJA. Facts of friends? Distinguishing informational and conversational questions in social Q&A sites. Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing (ACM CHI’09). New York: ACM Press, 2009, pp. 759–768.
16.
FichmanP. A comparative assessment of answer quality on four question answering sites. Journal of Information Science2011; 37(5): 476–486.
17.
WikgrenM. Health discussions on the Internet: A study of knowledge communication through citations. Library & Information Science Research2001; 23(4): 305–317.
18.
WikgrenM. Everyday health information exchange and citation behaviour in Internet discussion groups. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research2003; 4: 225–239.
19.
GilbertGN. Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science1977; 7(1): 113–122.
20.
WynneP. Knowledge in context. Science,Technology and Human Values1991; 16(1): 111–121.
21.
FogelinRJ. Understanding arguments. An introduction to informal logic. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987.
22.
PerelmanCOlbrechts-TytecaL. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
23.
Van EemerenFHoutlosserPH. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies1999; 1(4), 479–497.
JohnsonRH. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
26.
ClarkDBSampsonVWeinbergerAErkensG. Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychology Review2007; 19(3): 343–374.
27.
FeinbergM. Two kinds of evidence: How information systems form rhetorical arguments. Journal of Documentation2010; 66(4): 491–512.
28.
ClarkDBSampsonVD. Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education2007; 29(3): 253–277.
29.
ErduranSOsborneJSimonS. The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In: BoersmaKde JongOEijkelhofHGoedhartM (eds) Research and the quality of science education. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005, pp. 381–394.
30.
MilesMBHubermanAM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn.London: Sage, 1994.
31.
LincolnYSGubaE. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1985.
32.
GazanR. Seekers, sloths and social reference: Homework questions submitted to a question-answering community. New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia2007; 13(2): 239–248.
