mw. dr. R. (Roosmaryn) Pilgram MA
Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen
Capaciteitsgroep Taalbeheersing, Argumentatietheorie en Retorica
Spuistraat 134 Kamernummer: 5.13
1012 VB Amsterdam
Roosmaryn Pilgram is a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer at the department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric. She conducts experimental research on the effects of metaphor in argumentation, as part of the NWO Resistance to Metaphor project (led by prof. dr. Gerard Steen). Roosmaryn also teaches courses in argumentation and communication. Her research interests are in the field of argumentation, metaphor analysis and health communication (PhD on argumentative discussions in medical consultation obtained in 2015).
A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation
In medical consultation, a doctor can appeal to his medical knowledge or expertise as a sign of the acceptability of his diagnosis, prognosis and/or advice (“It’s best to take these loratadine tablets, because I have seen them work really well against hay fever”). This could be quite convincing, as the patient typically requests a medical consultation because he does not know exactly what his health problem amounts to, how serious this problem is and/or what to do about it, while he does expect the doctor to be able to determine these matters. Yet, in some cases, an argument by authority from a doctor can be too paternalistic and does not allow for further discussion about the doctor’s medical judgment or advice.
In this study, it is investigated under which conditions a doctor’s argument by authority may constitute a reasonable and effective strategic manoeuvre in medical consultation. To establish the conditions under which a doctor’s argument by authority may constitutes a reasonable and effective strategic manoeuvre in medical consultation, this study is divided into an analytical part (chapter 2-5) and an empirical part (chapter 6-8). In the analytical part, the conditions under which a doctor’s argument by authority can be regarded as reasonable are established. In the empirical part, the conditions under which a doctor’s argument by authority can be perceived as effective are established.
Testing resistance to metaphor
Postdoc project (2017-2018) within the NWO funded Resistance to Metaphor project (led by prof. dr. Gerard Steen)
Metaphors can be resisted for various reasons. For instance, a metaphor such as a "tsunami of islamisation" could be opposed by pointing out differences between a "tsunami" and the process of islamisation, by pointing out that the islamisation process is more like a "stream", or by opposing the notion that there even is a process of "islamistation" in the first place. Yet, not all argumentatively used metaphors trigger resistance. What makes people resist one metaphor, but not the other? The goal of this postdoc project is to test a model of metaphor resistance, a model that shows which conditions induce resistance to metaphor and how these conditions relate to each other. For constructing and testing this model, the effects of argumentative characteristics of metaphors and of characteristics of metaphor receivers on resistance will be examined.
- Pilgram, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2018). A pragma-dialectical perspective on obstacles to shared decision making. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 161-176.
- Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Labrie, N., & Pilgram, R. (2018). Argumentation and patient centered care: Introduction to the special issue on medical argumentation and patient centered care. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 117-119.
- Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Pilgram, R., & Labrie, N. (Eds.) (2018). Special issue Medical argumentation and patient centered care. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2).
- Pilgram, R. (2014). Reasonableness of a doctor’s argument by authority: a pragma-dialectical analysis of the specific soundness conditions. In S. Rubinelli, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Argumentation and health (pp. 33-50). (Benjamins current topics; No. 64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/bct.64.04pil [details]
- Pilgram, R. (2012). Reasonableness of a doctor's argument by authority: a pragma-dialectical analysis of the specific soundness conditions. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 33-50. DOI: 10.1075/jaic.1.1.04pil [details]
- Pilgram, R. (2012). Strategisch manoeuvreren in medische consultatie: Een pragma-dialectische analyse van autoriteitsargumentatie van de arts. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 34(2), 168-181. [details]
- Pilgram, R. (2011). A doctor’s argumentation by authority as a strategic manoeuvre. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1527-1537). Amsterdam: Rosenberg/Sic Sat. [details]
- Goodnight, G. T., & Pilgram, R. (2011). A doctor's ethos enhancing maneuvers in medical consultation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 135-153). Amsterdam / Piladelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/z.163 [details]
- Pilgram, R. (2009). Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: medical consultation as a pragma-dialectical communicative activity type. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 153-169. [details]
- Pilgram, R. (2009). Een pragma-dialectische analyse van medische consultatie. In W. Spooren, M. Onrust, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Studies in taalbeheersing 3 (pp. 297-308). Assen: Van Gorcum. [details]
- Pilgram, R., & Polcar, L. E. (2007). Questioning the fallacy of many questions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1059-1064). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [details]
- Pilgram, R. (2009). A pragma-dialectical reconstruction of doctor-patient consultations. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: proceedings of OSSA '09 Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. [details]
- Pilgram, R., & Braet, A. C. (2007). De anatomie van overtuigingskracht. Verzamelde lessen en enkele andere wervende genres [boek signalering ]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 29(4), 377.
- van Eemeren, F. H., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Pilgram, R., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2007). Werkboek argumentatie: Inleiding in het analyseren, beoordelen en houden van betogen. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. [details]
- Pilgram, R., Labrie, N., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2018). Commentary: "Integrating insights from argumentation theory and shared decision making". Society for medical decision making newsletter, Winter 2018.
- van Eemeren, F., Snoeck Henkemans, F., Pilgram, R., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Werkboek bij Argumentatie - 4e druk 2011 (op website). Groningen: Noordhoff.
- Pilgram, R. (2012). Soundness criteria for a doctor's argumentation by authority. Paper presented at OSSA 2011, Argumentation: Cognition & community, .
- Pilgram, R. (2011). Reasonableness of a doctor’s argument by authority: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the specific soundness conditions. Paper presented at Argupolis 1: Final Conference, .
- Pilgram, R. (2009). A pragma-dialectical reconstruction of doctor-patient consultations. Paper presented at Seventh Interdisciplinary COMET Conference, .
- Pilgram, R. (2009). Analysing appeals to ethos in medical consultation. Paper presented at Second International Conference Rhetoric in Society, .
- Polcar, L. E. (speaker) & Pilgram, R. (speaker) (2007). Materializing material starting points. Identifying commitments in argumentative discourse, 15th NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Alta.
- Pilgram, R. (2015). A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation [details]
Leids Universitaire Medisch Centrum