Abstract
The relationship between argument and narrative has been the subject of much debate, particularly in the area of law, where a number of theorists have argued for the priority of one over the other in the decision-making process, the premise being that argumentation and narrative are two distinct text forms. Through the rhetorical analysis of a series of expert reports in a case of alleged child abuse, we seek to explore the dynamics between argumentation and narrative. In so doing, we argue that while certain actions may undermine the robustness of an argument, it is these very actions that make possible the telling of a persuasive story. We conclude with a plea for the development of rhetorical skills among social workers so as to be better able to discern future directions for the benefit of service users.
Reference54 articles.
1. Artingstall, K. (1998). Practical aspects of Munchausen by Proxy and Munchausen Syndrome investigation. CRC Press.
2. Baldwin, C. (2005). Who needs fact when you’ve got narrative? The case of P, C &S vs. United Kingdom. International Journal for the Semiotics of the Law, 18(3-4), 217–241.
3. Baldwin, C. (2008). Rhetoric, child protection and the violation of human rights. British Journal of Community Justice, 6(1), 35–48.
4. Baldwin, C. (2011). Narrative rhetoric in expert reports: A case study. Narrative Works, 1(2), 3–20.
5. Baldwin, C. (2013). Narrative social work: Theory and application. Policy Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献