Concomitant with the rise of rationalizing accountability in higher education has been an increase in theoretical reflection about the forms accountability has taken and the ones it should take. The literature is now peppered by a wide array of distinctions (e.g. internal/external, inward/outward, vertical/horizontal, upward/downward,…

One shortcoming in the literature on policy framing has been the absence of analytic models through which to explicate change. This paper advances research in this area in three related ways. First, it links policy frames to the actors who employ them. Second, based upon this linkage it proposes two complementary approaches for examining…

This paper argues that the judge who uses argumentation and logic as the sole criteria for determining the winner of an academic debate sees debate as an intellectual contest with speech being only an incidental element. A paradigm for judging is presented and discussed in terms of the following core concepts: analysis, investigation, evidence,…

Argues that hypothesis testing is an inadequate paradigm for evaluating academic debates because (1) defenders of hypothesis testing cannot meet the standards they impose on other arguers and (2) hypothesis testing does not achieve its goal of discovering probable truth. (PD)

This paper presents a paradigm based upon four premises: persuasion is any means employed to make someone respond in a predetermined manner; persuasion is at its best in formal debate; debate should encourage judges to place confidence in debaters' credibility; and debating is an art in which the participants must be fully aware of their role as…

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing tournament directors wishing to provide a balance between individual events and debate is an equitable overall sweepstakes formula. One such formula, modified from a methodology initially developed in response to a need at the Missouri Association of Forensic Activities (MAFA) intercollegiate…

College debaters who go to law school are often surprised by the differences between the processes that take place in the court of reason and the process that takes place in the court of law. The court of reason relies mainly on authoritative testimony, while the court of law relies on direct evidence. Evidence in the court of reason is either…