A Taxonomy of CEDA Debate Critics.
Saved in:
| Title: | A Taxonomy of CEDA Debate Critics. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Dudczak, Craig A., Day, Donald L. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 31 |
| Publication Date: | 1989 |
| Document Type: | Speeches/Meeting Papers Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Classification, Communication Research, Correlation, Criteria, Debate, Interrater Reliability, Judges, Models, Persuasive Discourse, Philosophy, Questionnaires, Speech Communication |
| Abstract: | To develop a taxonomy of Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) critics, a study associated professed judging philosophy and responses to survey questions with ballot behavior and elaborated judging profiles. Subjects were debate critics who judged rounds at CEDA tournaments in the Northeast during the Spring 1989 season. In all, 13 critics had sufficient quantities of all three measures (questionnaire, philosophy statement, and ballots) to be included in the pilot study. First, analysis revealed that traditional paradigms are associated more strongly to key discriminators than are merged or new profile types. Second, the criteria discriminators, despite their limitations, were associated with relatively clearly defined profile types; however, these profile types are not conceptually coherent. Third, the present analysis suggests that at least the following profile types should be considered as targets of future research in CEDA paradigm use: value-comparison and argument skills, argument skills and hypothesis testing, argument critic, stock issues, and analytic centered. Finally, the descriptive boundaries between paradigms are porous and unreliable. The low correlation distinctiveness between profile types indicated that paradigm adherence by critics is not a highly valued behavior. Elaboration of criteria discriminators should reveal whether the traditional or profile candidates do support taxonomic elements which would inform debaters of real differences existing among their judge-critics. (One figure and nine tables of data are included; 19 endnotes and 14 references are attached.) (MG) |
| Entry Date: | 1990 |
| Accession Number: | ED318071 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | To develop a taxonomy of Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) critics, a study associated professed judging philosophy and responses to survey questions with ballot behavior and elaborated judging profiles. Subjects were debate critics who judged rounds at CEDA tournaments in the Northeast during the Spring 1989 season. In all, 13 critics had sufficient quantities of all three measures (questionnaire, philosophy statement, and ballots) to be included in the pilot study. First, analysis revealed that traditional paradigms are associated more strongly to key discriminators than are merged or new profile types. Second, the criteria discriminators, despite their limitations, were associated with relatively clearly defined profile types; however, these profile types are not conceptually coherent. Third, the present analysis suggests that at least the following profile types should be considered as targets of future research in CEDA paradigm use: value-comparison and argument skills, argument skills and hypothesis testing, argument critic, stock issues, and analytic centered. Finally, the descriptive boundaries between paradigms are porous and unreliable. The low correlation distinctiveness between profile types indicated that paradigm adherence by critics is not a highly valued behavior. Elaboration of criteria discriminators should reveal whether the traditional or profile candidates do support taxonomic elements which would inform debaters of real differences existing among their judge-critics. (One figure and nine tables of data are included; 19 endnotes and 14 references are attached.) (MG) |
|---|
