In this article I analyze talk in a political setting to demonstrate how disagreement-relevant practices are fitted to context to accomplish a kind of argumentative strategy. I propose that in the British Parliament’s House of Lords, interlocutors deal with dilemmas of disagreement by doing something I refer to as ‘talking around the issue’, a practice involving 1) institutional positioning, 2) display of emotionality, and 3) orientation to the issue. I suggest that these practices are indicative of institutional norms, but also (...) comprise some of the argumentative resources available to interactants in everyday argumentative practice. These practices also reflect key areas of interest in disagreement and conflict research related to context, style, and issues in conflict. (shrink)

A shift from top-down, hierarchical decision-making toward collaborative, consensus-oriented decision-making is taking place across many settings, leading to meetings in which diverse participants seek to reach agreement on issues of significance. This article proposes a new approach to analyzing such meetings that integrates conversation analysis and issue framing. While CA and IF have both been applied to collaborative decision-making, each approach, on its own, suffers from significant limitations. Combined, they allow negotiation talk in meetings to be examined holistically, integrating a (...) consideration of both process and content. New relationships among interactional sequences and framing processes are revealed, leading to the discovery of patterns across the decision-making activity as a whole. These patterns, in turn, can be situated in the context of the institutions within which the negotiations take place. This novel integrative approach is illuminated through application to a 162-turn decision-making activity. (shrink)