Argumentative practices in different clinical contexts

core research   -   dialogues in clinical settings   -   topics

How much does argumentative competence count in clinical encounters?

Is persuasion a ‘bad thing’ in the clinical setting? which are the conditions for a ‘healthy’ use of argumentative strategies in doctor-patient interactions?


These and other questions are at the heart of one of the main strands of research in the HRLab, which has produced so far many publications and papers at various conferences. The most recent are listed below:



Recent Publications:
Bigi, S. (2018). The role of argumentative strategies in the construction of emergent common ground in a patient-centred approach to the medical encounter. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7/2, pp. 141-156.

Bigi, S. (2018). The role of argumentative practices within advice-seeking activity types. The case of the medical consultation. Rivista italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 12/1, pp. 42-52.

Rossi, M.G., Leone, D., & Bigi, S. (2017). The ethical convenience of non-neutrality in medical encounters: Argumentative instruments for healthcare providers. Teoria, 37/2, pp. 139-157.

Lamiani, G., Bigi, S., Mancuso, M.E., Coppola, A., & Vegni, E. (2017). Applying a deliberation model to the analysis of consultations in haemophilia: Implications for doctor-patient communication. Patient Education and Counseling, 100/4, pp. 690-695.

Bigi S. (2016). Communicating (with) care: A linguistic approach to the study of doctor-patient interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.