Legal Communication Papers @ NCA 2011

Many papers on legal communication were presented at NCA 11: The 97th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, held November 17-20, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Here is a list of those I could identify. For abstracts and full text, please contact the authors. (If you know of other papers on legal communication presented at NCA 2011, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post. Click here for the complete NCA 2011 program.)

  • Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa, University of Tampere: Professional Communication in Courtrooms: American and Finnish Listening Concepts.
  • Brita Anderson, University of Pittsburgh: The Law: Rhetorically Constructed, Aesthetic, and Sublime.
  • Jennifer Biedendorf, Penn State University: The Ratification Debate over the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Communicating International Law.
  • Peter Odell Campbell, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: The Procedural Queer: Substantive Due Process, Lawrence v. Texas, and Queer Rhetorical Futures.
  • Jane Elmes-Crahall, Wilkes University; Mark Congdon Jr., University of North Carolina, Greensboro: Words Do Matter: A Diachronic Analysis of Judicial, Legislative and Advocacy Rhetoric on Behalf of Public Support for Children with Disabilities.
  • James Farrell, University of New Hampshire: Daniel Webster for the Prosecution: The Moral Drama of the Salem Murder Trial.
  • John W. Gastil, Penn State University; Katherine Knobloch, University of Washington; Justin Reedy, University of Washington; Mark Henkels, Western Oregon University; Katherine Cramer Walsh, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Hearing a Public Voice in Micro-Level Deliberation and Macro-Level Politics: Assessing the Impact of the Citizens’ Initiative Review on the Oregon Electorate.
  • Ian E. Hill, Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: ‘Preaching Dynamite’: Ironic Metaphor at the Haymarket Trial.
  • Erica Hollander, Metropolitan State College of Denver: Teaching Debate from a Courtroom Orientation.
  • Michael E. Holmes, Ball State University: Negotiating ‘Best Interest:’ The Voice of the Advocate in the Foster Care System.
  • Sharon E. Jarvis, Univ of Texas, Austin; Clariza Ruiz De Castilla, Univ of Texas, Austin: Are Latinos Citizens? Voice Given to Labels and Rights in Coverage of Arizona’s Immigration Reform Legislation.
  • James Jasinski, Univ of Puget Sound; Dustin Buehler, University of Arkansas, Fayette; Catherine Langford, Texas Tech Univ; Carlo A. Pedrioli, Barry University; Mary Lynn L. Veden; Univ of Arkansas, Fayetteville: Dissonant Voices, Democratice Choices: The Rhetoric of Apportionment in Baker v. Carr.
  • Jason Jordan, University of North Texas: De Jure Blackness: Racialization in Brown v. Board of Education.
  • Amber Kelsie, Univ of Pittsburgh: Speaking For Others: The Post-Feminist, Post-Racial Politics of Anti-Abortion Legislation.
  • Katherine Knobloch, University of Washington; John W. Gastil, Penn State University; Justin Reedy, University of Washington; Katherine Cramer Walsh, University of Wisconsin, Madison: Did They Deliberate? Applying a Theoretical Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review.
  • Katherine Knobloch, University of Washington; Rory Raabe, University of Washington: Exploring the Effects of Deliberative Participation through Panelist Self-Reports.
  • Michael R. Kramer, Saint Mary’s College: The Utility of Law-Related Examples in Communication Education.
  • William Lewis, Drake University (Chair): Voices In, Of, and Against “The Law”: Roundtable on Alternative Pedagogies for Teaching Legal Communication as Other than Professional Preparation.
  • Nneka Logan, Georgia State University: Corporate Speech Rights and Neoliberalism: An Analysis of Supreme Court Discourse as Constitutive Rhetoric.
  • Stephen H. Macek, North Central College: The Chicago Media, the Labor Movement and the Struggle over Taft-Hartley.
  • Sara L. McKinnon, Univ of Wisconsin, Madison: Geopolitics and Human Rights Rhetoric in Recent Mexican LGBT Asylum Cases in the United States.
  • Nick Merola, Univ of Texas, Austin; Vysali Soundararajan, University of Texas, Austin: Interrupting Justice: Interruptions in Supreme Court Proceedings.
  • Eric C. Miller, Penn State University: From Dayton to Dover: The Rhetorical Evolution of American Anti-Evolutionism.
  • Ashley R. Muddiman, Univ of Texas, Austin: Hear Our Voice! Incivility(?) in the 2009 Health Care Protests.
  • Jeffrey A. Nelson, Kent State University: The Connecticut Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage: A Departure From Disgust.
  • Elizabeth A. Petre, Southern Illinois Univ, Carbondale; James T. Petre, Southern Illinois Univ, Carbondale: ‘There Are Certain Things Only a Government Can Do’: Obama’s Rhetorical ‘Voice’ about the Role of Government in Food Regulation.
  • Stephen E. Rahko, Indiana University: Citizens United and its Discontents or Musings on a Rhetoric of Corporate Law.
  • Susan H. Sarapin, Purdue University, Emily Haas, Purdue University, Scott McWilliams PhD, Jurinex Legal Services, Rahul Mitra, Purdue University, Melanie Morgan, Purdue University: Optimizing Voices from the Witness Box: The Effects of Physician-Defendant Testimony on Findings of Nurse-Defendant Negligence in Medical Malpractice.
  • Jennifer Scarduzio, Arizona State University; Sarah J. Tracy, Arizona State University: Paradoxes, Dirty Work, and Intermediary Emotional Labor: The Emotional Work of Female Judges, Bailiffs, and Clerks.
  • Susan A. Sci, Regis University: Between French and Islamic Law: Cennet Doganay’s Embodied Argument and le Loi 2004-228.
  • Joseph Sery, Univ of Pittsburgh: Cultivating Virtue: Rhetoric, Stoic Law, and the Good Community.
  • Lindsey Shook, University of Kansas: Inventing Bracton: Questioning the Medieval Concept of Invention in Law and its Relation to ‘Voice’ in Modern Rape Myths through the Bracton Legal Treatise.
  • Kami J. Silk, Michigan State University; Samantha Nazione, Michigan State University; Lindsay Neuberger, University of Central Florida; Sandi W. Smith, Michigan State University; Charles K. Atkin, Michigan State University: The Role of Involvement, Scientific Literacy, Education, and Message Format in Influencing the Lay Public’s Regulatory Attitude about PFOA Exposure.
  • John M. Sloop, Vanderbilt University: Gender Laws: Caster Semenya and the Third World War.
  • James Smith, Univ of Missouri, Columbia: Political Blogs and the Permanent Campaign: A Functional Analysis of the Health Care Debate.
  • Zack Stiegler, Indiana Univ of Pennsylvania; Dan Sprumont, Indiana University of Pennyslvania: Mediated Voices: Framing the Net Neutrality Debate.
  • Matthew Thornton, Louisiana State University: The Case of Corrupted Coverage – Press Coverage and Framing Effects of the Citizens United Decision.
  • Robert N. Yale, Purdue University: The Influence of Narrative Believability on Juror Verdicts and Verdict Confidence: A Test of the Narrative Believability Scale (NBS-22).
This entry was posted in Articles and papers, Conference papers, Conference proceedings, Research findings and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s