publication quick list

• My CV 
• Full archive of publications on this site
• Google Scholar page

Quick links

Goodwin, Jean & Ekaterina Bogomoletc. (Forthcoming, 2021). Critical questions about scientific research publications in the online mask debate. In S. Oswald, M. Lewinski, S. Greco & S. Villata (Eds.), The Pandemic of Argumentation. Springer

Bogomoletc, Ekaterina, Andrew Binder & Jean Goodwin. (2021). Masks don’t work but you should get one: Circulation of the science of masking during the COVID-19 pandemic. In D.M. Berube (Ed.), Pandemic Communication and Resilience (Risk, Systems and Decisions). Springer/Nature.

Goodwin, Jean. (2020). Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level. Informal Logic, 40(2), 157-203.

Goodwin, Jean. (2020). Norms of advocacy. In J.A. Blair & C. Tindale (Eds.), Rigour and Reason: Essays in Honour of Hans Vilhelm Hansen (pp. 111-142). Windsor, ONT: WIndsor Studies in Argumentation.

Goodwin, Jean. (2019). Radically reframing the climate debate: The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper. In Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, Argumentation in actual practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context (pp. 157-72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goodwin, Jean, & Innocenti, Beth (2019). The pragmatic force of making an argument. Topoi 4, 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09643-8

Goodwin, Jean. (2019). Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1, 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo

Goodwin, Jean. (2018) Re-framing climate controversy: The strategies of The Hartwell Paper. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation.

Goodwin, Jean. (2018) Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In Susanna Priest, Jean Goodwin & Michael Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Priest, Susanna, Goodwin, Jean, & Dahlstrom, Michael F. (Eds.). (2018). Ethics and Practice in Science Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2018 Top Edited Book Award, Communication Ethics Division, National Communication Association.

Ryan, S. F., Adamson, N. L., Aktipis, A., Andersen, L. K., Austin, R., Barnes, L., … Goodwin, J., … & Cooper, C. B. (2018). The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 285(1891), 20181977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1977

Goodwin, Jean. (2016). Demonstrating objectivity in controversial science communication: A case study of GMO scientist Kevin Folta. OSSA Conference Archive. 69. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/69

Goodwin, Jean & Beth Innocenti (2016). The pragmatic force of making reasons apparent. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation.

Goodwin, Jean. (2016). How to be a better functionalist. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation.

Goodwin, Jean. (2016). Audiences as normative roles. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Argumentation. 

Goodwin, Jean. (2016). Confronting the challenges of public participation: Issues in environmental, planning and health decision-making. Proceedings of a symposium at Iowa State University, June 3-4, 2016. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Comment exercer une autorité experte? Un scientifique confronté aux Sceptiques. [How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.] Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15.

Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the Sceptics: A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat.

Goodwin, Jean. (2014).  Conceptions of speech acts in the theory and practice of argumentation: A case study of a debate about advocating.  Studies in Logic, Grammar & Rhetoric, 36 (49), 79-98.

Goodwin, J. (2014). Introduction: Collaborations between scientists and rhetoricians of science/technology/medicine. Poroi, 10, Issue 1 (2014): Article 5.

Goodwin, Jean; Dahlstrom, Michael F.; Kemis, Mari; Wolf, Clark; and Hutchison, Christine. “Rhetorical Resources for Teaching Responsible Communication of Science.” Poroi 10, Iss. 1 (2014): Article 7. 

“Lippmann, the indispensable opposition.” In Trained Capacities: John Dewey, Rhetoric, and Democratic Practice, edited by Brian Jackson and Gregory Clark, 142-158. University of South Caroline Press, 2014.

Goodwin, Jean & Michael Dahlstrom. “Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates.”  WIREs Climate Change 5.1 (2014) 151-160.

Goodwin, Jean, Michael F. Dahlstrom & Susanna Priest (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach:  Proceedings of a symposium at Iowa State University, May 30-June 1, 2013. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace. 2013.

Goodwin, Jean, Dahlstrom, Michael F., & Priest, Susanna. (2013). Introduction: Towards a research agenda for science communication ethics. In Jean Goodwin, Michael F. Dahlstrom & Susanna Priest (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach (pp. 1-3). Charleston, SC: CreateSpace. 

Goodwin, Jean, Michael Dahlstrom, Mari Kemis, Clark Wolf & Christine Hutchison. (2013). A Preliminary Report on Cases for Teaching Responsible Communication of Science. In Jean Goodwin, Michael F. Dahlstrom & Susanna Priest (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach (pp. 71-79). Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

“Norms of advocacy.” Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013, edited by D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2013.

“L’autorità di Wikipedia,” Sistemi Intelligenti 25 (2013) 9-38.  An Italian translation of “The authority of Wikipedia“

Goodwin, Jean, and Susanna Priest. “Editors’ Note” [to theme issue on science communication ethics].  Science Communication 34 (2012) 563-5.

Goodwin, Jean, ed. Between Scientists & Citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa State University, 1-2 June, 2012. Ames, IA: GPSSA, 2012.

Goodwin, Jean. “What Is “Responsible Advocacy” in Science? Good Advice.” In Between Scientists & Citizens:  Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa State University, 1-2 June, 2012, edited by Jean Goodwin. 151-61. Ames, IA: GPSSA, 2012.

Goodwin, Jean, and Michael F. Dahlstrom. “Good Reasons for Trusting Climate Science Communication.” Paper presented at the American Meteorological Society conference, Seattle, January 2011.

Goodwin, Jean, ed. Between Scientists & Citizens: Proceedings of a Conference at Iowa State University, 1-2 June, 2012. Ames, IA: GPSSA, 2012.

“Accounting for the appeal to the authority of experts,” Argumentation 25 (2011) 285-296.

Herndl, Carl, Jean Goodwin, Lee Honeycutt, Greg Wilson, Scott Graham and David Niedergeses. “Talking sustainability: Identification and division in an Iowa community.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35 (2011) 436-461.

Goodwin, Jean and Viviana Cortes. “Theorists’ and practitioners’ spatial metaphors for argumentation: A corpus-based approach,” Verbum 23 (2010) 163-78.

Goodwin, Jean. “Trust in experts as a principal-agent problem.” In Dialectics, Dialogue, and Argumentation, ed. Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale, 133-143. London: College Publications, 2010.

Goodwin, Jean. “The Authority of Wikipedia.” In Argument Cultures, edited by Juho Ritola. Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2010.

Goodwin, Jean. “The Authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the Manufacture of Consensus.” Paper presented at the National Communication Association conference, Chicago, November,  2009.

Goodwin, Jean, and Lee Honeycutt, “When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority,” Studies in Communication Sciences 9.2 (2009) 125-36.

“Actually existing rules for closing arguments.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and B. Garrsen, 287-298. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.

Goodwin, Jean. “Maslin V. Morano:  The Full Analysis.” In Between Scientists & Citizens, 2010. Retrieved from http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/maslin-v-morano-the-full-analysis/

“Argument has no function,” Informal Logic 27 (2007) 69-90. Reprinted as “A argumentação não tem função,” Comunicação e Sociedade16 (2010) 123-144.

Goodwin, Jean. “Dilemmas of Expertise in Sustainable Agriculture.” Paper presented at  Rhetoric Society of America, Workshop on Science and its Publics, College Park, PA, June, 2009.

“Theoretical pieties, Johnstone’s impiety, and ordinary views of argumentation,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 40 (2007) 36-50. Reprinted in Philosophy and Rhetoric in Dialogue: Redrawing Their Intellectual Landscape, edited by G.A. Hauser, 36-50. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008.

Goodwin, Jean. “What, in Practice, Is an Argument?” In Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, edited by Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, 1-44. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2007.

 McAndrews, Gina, Jean Goodwin and Russ E. Mullen, “Using environmental and ethical issues for debate in an introductory agronomy course,” North American Colleges & Teachers of Agriculture Journal 2006.4 (2006) 54-61. (Outstanding journal article award.)

“The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument,” Informal Logic 25 (2005) 151-165.

“What does arguing look like?” Informal Logic 25 (2005) 79-93.

“Designing premises.” In Argumentation in Practice, edited by F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 99-114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.

Goodwin, Jean. “Institutions for Argument:  Cultivating the Formation of Collective Intent.” Paper presented at the National Communication Association conference, Boston, 2005.

Goodwin, Jean. “Manifestly Adequate Premises.” In In Informal Logic @ 25, edited by J. Anthony Blair, Daniel Farr, Hans V. Hansen, Ralph H. Johnson and Christopher W. Tindale. Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2003.

“Students’ perspectives on debate exercises in content area classes,” Communication Education 52 (2003) 157-163.

“We should be studying the norms of debate.” In Arguing Communication & Culture: Selected Papers from the Twelfth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, edited by G.T. Goodnight et al., 51-58. Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association, 2002.

“Designing issues.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, edited by F.H. van Eemeren et al., 81-96. Amsterdam: Kluwer, 2002.

“Wigmore’s Chart Method.” Informal Logic 20 (2001) 223-243.

“Cicero’s authority.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 34 (2001): 38-60.

Goodwin, Jean. “One Question, Two Answers.” In Argumentation and Its Applications, edited by Hansen Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair, Ralph H. Johnson and Robert C. Pinto. Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2001.

 “Henry W. Johnstone’s still unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory.” Informal Logic 21 (2001): 41-50. Reprinted in Henry W. Johnstone: The Dialogue of Philosophy & Rhetoric, edited by G.A. Hauser, 19-31. Pittsburg: Pennsylvania Communication Association, 2005.

“The noncooperative pragmatics of arguing.” In Pragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7^th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 2, edited by E.T. Nemeth, 263-77., Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 2001.

“Three faces of the future.” Argumentation & Advocacy 37 (2000) 71-85.

Leff, Michael and Jean Goodwin. “Dialogic figures and dialectical argument in Lincoln’s rhetoric.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 3.1 (2000) 59-69.

“Comments on [Jacobs’] ‘Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics.” Argumentation 14 (2000) 287-292.

Goodwin, Jean. “Good Argumentation without Resolution “. In Proceedings of  the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard. 255-57. Amsterdam: SicSat, 1999.

“Forms of authority and the real ad verecundiam.” Argumentation 12 (1998) 267-280.

“Deliberation and character,” In Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques; Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, 1997, edited by J.F. Klumpp, 70-74. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association, 1998.

“Deliberation in the ancient Roman Senate.” Parliamentary Journal 38.1 (1997) 33-36.

“Perelman, adhering and convictions.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 28 (1995) 215-233 (1993): 22-3.

Jean Goodwin, Jack S. Kaplan and Audrey G. Lyon. “Receivership.” In Representing Residential Tenants. Springfield, IL: Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, 1989.