In this research programme, argumentation is examined as a mode of discourse aimed at resolving differences of opinion by putting the acceptability of the standpoints at issue to a critical test. The general aim is to achieve a methodical integration of critical and empirical insights in argumentation that constitutes a sound theoretical starting point for the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse in a variety of contexts. Recently, the ‘pragma-dialectical' theory of argumentation developed to achieve this aim has been extended by developing a theoretical notion of ‘strategic manoeuvring' that makes it possible to integrate rhetorical insights in the theoretical framework. In 2007, the next move was made by focusing on three domains of discourse - political, juridical and medical discourse - to examine conventional preconditions for strategic manoeuvring in specific argumentative activity types.

Making this new move was made possible by the completion of three research projects. First, van Eemeren, Houtlosser and Snoeck Henkemans finished their study of the pragmatic characteristics of argumentative discourse by publishing Argumentative Indicators in Discourse (2007), a monograph about indicators of argumentative moves and relations between argumentative moves in the various stages of a critical discussion. Second, van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels completed The Intersubjective Validity of the Rules for Critical Discussion (forthcoming), a monograph discussing their research on conceptions of reasonableness aimed at testing empirically the intersubjective acceptability of the pragma-dialectical rules for critical discussion. Third, van Eemeren and Houtlosser ended their rhetorical and dialectical analysis project by exploring the relationship between argumentative activity types and strategic manoeuvring. Due to Peter Houtlosser's untimely death, the publication of their monograph Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse is delayed to 2009.

In 2007, the fruitful collaboration with the University of Lugano was formalized and joint research projects were started concentrating on argumentation in context. As a sequel to the 2006 conference ‘Perspectives on strategic manoeuvring', which resulted in 2007 in a special issue of the journal Argumentation with contributions by van Eemeren and Houtlosser, van Laar, and van Rees (who retired in 2007), two international conferences were organised to support the new developments in Argumentation in Discourse. ‘Persuasive effects of strategic manoeuvring' counted Andone and Meuffels among its invited presenters and ‘Strategic manoeuvring in institutionalised argumentative discourse' Feteris and Mohammed. At the IPRA Conference in Gothenburg the research team contributed to the special panel ‘Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative confrontations', named after its research programme sponsored by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research NWO. The new developments manifested themselves also in an abundance of publications.

Among the other memorable results were in 2007 the publication of the Proceedings of the 2006 Amsterdam Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) and the appointment of three new PhD students, all of them graduates from the research master Rhetoric, Argumentation theory and Philosophy. Besides, all members of the team actively presented papers at international conferences; the programme director became a Senior Fulbright Scholar and delivered keynote addresses all over the world. Among the team's crucial activities that were maintained in 2007 are: leading ISSA, editing book series and journals (e.g. Argumentation) and organising regular research colloquiums.