Search

In this paper, we examine the attitudes toward integrating work and family in a sample of 247 teachers in Switzerland and Israel. More particularly, we focus on the national context’s role in mediating the relations between professional and private spheres. The data were collected by a questionnaire implemented and administered in the two countries. The analysis reveals differences between Israeli and Swiss teachers regarding the importance of attribution to life roles and their attitudes toward conflict and facilitation. Findings suggest new insights into the consideration of cultural elements in shaping the teachers’ attitudes toward the integration of family and work.

Research related to the integration of the demands of work and family highlights the difficulties teachers experience in handling their careers and private lives. The goal of this study is to examine the arguments they use to explain what might make work-family integration easier for them. A questionnaire has been administered to 728 teachers in Israel and Switzerland, two countries dealing with teachers’ work-family relations. Through a qualitative analysis of the types of arguments advanced by teachers, the reconstruction of their reasoning (for the topical and endoxical components) has been performed. Results reveal that the support of family and institution are advanced as critical aspects in both countries. Implications in shaping teachers’ attitudes towards work-family integration are discussed. (DIPF/Orig.) In der Forschung zur Vereinbarung von Beruf und Familie wird häufig auf Schwierigkeiten von Lehrkräften hingewiesen. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, Argumente von Lehrpersonen zu untersuchen, die die Vorteile einer Vereinbarung dieser beiden Bereiche beschreiben. Hierfür wurde ein Fragebogen von 728 Lehrkräften aus Israel und der Schweiz ausgefüllt. Anhand einer qualitativen Analyse der vorgebrachten Argumente wurde die Rekonstruktion der Argumentation (für die thematischen und endoxischen Komponenten) durchgeführt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Unterstützung durch die Familie und durch die Institution in beiden Ländern als wichtige Aspekte angeführt werden. Es wird diskutiert, welche Auswirkungen dies auf die Einstellung der Lehrer*innen zur Integration von Beruf und Familie hat. (DIPF/Orig.)

The analysis of collaborative exchanges of couples during their household activities is at the core of this paper. Although the management of responsibilities around household tasks is a potential source of contention within the decision-making process about home activities, another complementary perspective considers practices of communication during household activities as ways to build or reinforce the family educational processes. Our goal is to capture these daily interactions as indicators of collaborative relationships among couples, exemplifying how communicative exchanges contribute to the creation of frames for family participation in routines. In the first part of the paper, a review of issues regarding the division of labor within the family setting will be introduced in order to examine how these aspects relate to the ongoing negotiation of responsibilities and expectations between women and men. Thereafter, the methodological design of the study will be presented, as well as the qualitative analysis of data based on the argumentative topic model. A discussion of participants’ responsibilities in household tasks will be presented as indicators of their collaborative relationships during everyday activities. Lastly, implications for family studies will be highlighted in order to illustrate how family members ascribe meanings during routines.

Resumen Este estudio se propone investigar los tipos de respuestas de los niños de edades comprendidas entre 3 y 7 años en discusiones argumentativas relacionadas con las reglas y normas de los padres. El corpus de datos se compone de 132 discusiones argumentativas seleccionadas de 30 comidas grabadas en video de 10 familias suizas y italianas. Los datos se presentan mediante extractos discursivos de discusiones argumentativas y se analizan mediante el modelo ideal pragma-dialéctico de discusión crítica. Los hallazgos muestran que cuando los padres usan argumentos contextuales como los argumentos de calidad de comida, los niños reflejan los mismos tipos de argumentos. Por otro lado, cuando los padres utilizan argumentos más complejos, elaborados y sin contexto, los niños generalmente no usan ningún argumento, pero su respuesta es una expresión de dudas o una mera oposición sin proporcionar ningún argumento. En general, los resultados de este estudio indican que los tipos de respuestas de los niños están estrictamente conectadas con el tipo de argumento previamente utilizado por sus padres. Este aspecto es particularmente relevante en términos de las capacidades de los niños para participar en intercambios argumentativos y reaccionar de manera racional durante el enfrentamiento con los padres. Se necesita una investigación adicional en esta dirección para comprender mejor las potencialidades específicas del lenguaje en el proceso cotidiano de socialización dentro del contexto familiar.

Cet article interroge les interactions intergenerationnelles en famille lors de desaccords verbaux exprimes a table. Ces echanges offrent un apercu psychosocial et culturel des regles de socialisation familiale qui sont transmises par les parents aux enfants. L’etude menee vise a reconstruire les schemas argumentatifs sous-jacents aux echanges discursifs lors de repas en famille. Le corpus de donnees est constitue de 30 enregistrements video de 10 familles suisses et italiennes reunies a table. Une selection de 132 discussions argumentatives, realisee selon des procedures et des criteres prealablement etablis, a ete operee pour une analyse pragma-dialectique des schemas argumentatifs mobilises, c’est-a-dire pour reconstruire les modalites privilegiees par les participants lors d’echanges discursifs a table. Les resultats montrent que les parents et les enfants mobilisent differents types de schemas lies a l’objet de discussion et aux liens entre arguments en termes de relations symptomatiques, de causalite et d’analogie. L’etude contribue a eclairer les connaissances actuelles sur les manieres d’interagir lors d’echanges argumentatifs en famille. La reconstruction des schemas utilises par les adultes et les enfants constitue une piste fructueuse pour investiguer les modalites de gestion des desaccords par les membres de la famille.

This paper aims to investigate the types of source on which students base the arguments from expert opinion when used to convince their teacher and classmates to accept their standpoint during disciplinary discussions. Using the model of a critical discussion integrated with the Argumentum Model of Topics as analytical approach, a corpus of 66 arguments from expert opinion were analyzed. The results show that students in most cases refer to scholars and their scientific notions and theories as source of expertise (other-oriented argument). Less frequently, students refer to themselves and their previous personal experience as source of expertise (self-oriented argument).

Previous works have investigated argumentative skills of young children referring to the number of arguments and counter-arguments advanced by children as the sole indicator to assess their capacities. Hitherto, less attention has been paid to analyze the strategies adopted by children of different ages in family interactions. This study investigates the argumentative types used by children aged 3–5 and 6–9 years to refute parental eat-directives during mealtime conversations, and whether participants refer to activity-bound/-unbound arguments within the two age groups. To analyze video-recorded meals of Swiss and Italian families, we employed the pragma-dialectical ideal model of critical discussion as tool to examine sequences in which children advance different types of arguments to support their refusal to parental eat-directives. Findings highlight differences and similarities in the two groups of children: mostly, both younger and older children use activity-bound arguments such as quantity and quality of food in response to parental directives; on the contrary, only children aged 6–9 years use activity-unbound arguments (adult-expert opinion and appeal to consistency) to refute the parental eat-directives. Results show how the construction of and engagement in argumentation are embedded in and shape social activities, and how argumentative skills are valued to participate in family interactions.

This study aims to explore the interplay between parents' arguments, children's reactions and topics of disagreement during mealtime conversations. Within a data corpus constituted by 30 video-recorded meals of 10 Swiss and Italian families, a corpus of 132 argumentative discussions was selected for a qualitative analysis through the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Findings indicate that both parents and children assume argument schemes related to the object of the disagreement: when the contested standpoints refer to food, arguments are based on a symptomatic relation; when they refer to the behavior of children, parents base their argumentation on a causal and analogy relation, while the children's reaction is typically an expression of further doubt or a mere opposition without providing any argument. The results of this study bring further light on the actual knowledge of argumentative interactions and the interplay between topics of disagreement and the argumentative strategies adopted by family members.

The chapter constitutes a synthetic note based on the empirical studies presented in the volume and provides a comprehensive discussion of selected theoretical and empirical issues at the forefront of research, by ensuring a view of how interpersonal argumentation in educational and professional contexts is presently questioned and investigated. The chapter highlights the common issues of the volume concerning the analysis of how people argue in different contexts, in order to identify similarities and differences in the modes and concepts related to specific fields, and to examine argumentative strategies that are suitable for learning, knowledge orientation, and decision-making processes. Two dimensions (argumentative stages, symmetric/asymmetric nature) are presented as crucial components, which help to give a comprehensive picture of the argumentative interactions occurring in different educational and professional contexts. The chapter claims that, taken together, the studies presented in the volume show the complexity of argumentative processes by taking into account, at different levels, the nature of the relationship among participants to the argumentative discussions.

This paper sets out to investigate the issues leading parents to engage in argumentative discussions with their children during mealtimes. Within a data corpus of 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families with a high socio-cultural level, 107 argumentative discussions between parents and children aged from 3 to 9 years old were selected. The approach for the analysis is based on the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion. The results show that family argumentative discussions unfold around issues that are generated both by parental prescriptions and by children’s requests. The parental prescriptions largely concern context-bound activities such as having to eat a certain food or the teaching of correct table manners. The issues triggered by children’s requests refer to a wide range of activities, mainly related to the activity of mealtimes but also related to the children’s behavior outside the family context. These results indicate that argumentative interactions between parents and children are not mere conflictual episodes that must be avoided, but they essentially have a broader educational function.

Questions represent a crucial tool of interaction between parents and children from a very early age. This study aims to investigate which function – argumentative or explanatory – most characterizes Why-questions asked by children to their parents in a natural setting such as mealtimes at home. Why-questions asked by 13 children – eight girls and five boys aged between three and seven years – coming from 10 middle- to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families with a high socio-cultural level were analyzed. In the corpus, the explanatory function largely characterizes children’s Why-questions. Questions we observed play fundamentally an educational role, since they favor the acquisition of new information and the transmission from parents to children of parental behavioral models (social behavior). The argumentative Why-questions, less frequently asked by children in our sample, are also important from an educational point of view. By these questions children challenge their parents to make clear the reasons behind their opinions, suggestions, rules and prescriptions, which are often largely implicit. Altogether, the results of this study indicate that both the explanatory and argumentative types of children’s Why-questions have a knowledge-seeking function, that is, children asking such questions are seeking knowledge of something.

At mealtimes, the evaluation of the appropriate (or not appropriate) behavior concerning the food is often assumed as a topic of discourse. The aim of this study is to single out the argumentative strategies used by parents with their children and by children with their parents in order to convince the other party to eat or not to eat a certain food. Within a data corpus constituted by 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families, we selected a corpus of 77 argumentative discussions between parents and children arisen around a food-related issue. Data are presented through discursive excerpts of argumentative discussions that were found within the data corpus and analyzed through the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion. The results of this study show that the feeding practices in families with young children during mealtimes are argumentatively co- constructed by participants. In most cases parents put forward arguments based on the quality (e.g., very good, nutritious, salty, or not good) and quantity (e.g., too little, quite enough, or too much) of food to convince their children to eat. Similarly, children put forward arguments based on the quality and quantity of food to convince their parents to change their standpoint, although their view on the issue is the opposite of that of their parents.

This study aims to analyze how family members engage themselves in resolving differences of opinion during everyday interactions. In particular, we focus on the argumentative strategies used by parents during dinner conversations at home with their children. Within a data corpus based on video-recordings of family dinnertime interactions, two different excerpts of argumentative discussions among parents and children are presented and qualitatively analyzed. Our analytical approach includes the model of Critical Discussion as the general framework to investigate the family's strategies for conflict management and resolution in different cultures. The results show two specific argumentative strategies adopted by parents with their children: the use of ironic comments, and the admonition of the parent's authority. Besides, differences in the argumentative style between Italian and Swiss families are highlighted.