on argumentation

By now you should have at least an impression of the type of work I expect you to deliver. Within the freedom of the blog format, I am keen on finding rigorous argumentations, which are explicit so they can be scrutinized. If you think of the blog entry and the academic article as the opposite sides of a continuum, then I expect you work to lean towards the latter.  This includes proper referencing: each time you use information or an idea from another person/source, this should be mentioned. At the same time, the number of words and time available mean that you cannot write a full scientific analysis. If you want to do that, your master thesis next year will be the opportunity to do that!!

Let's look a bit deeper into what an argument really entails. We make an argument whenever we are in the presence of one or more others, and we want to convince them to accept a certain statement. So an argument is part of an interaction between several persons, where one of them seeks to convince the others of something. This means a number of things:

- you have to make your position as explicit and clear as possible;
- you have to present a set of arguments that you think may convince the other person to accept your position;
- you should try to find out what counterarguments could be made by the other, and pre-empt these by trying to make clear why you believe they are not valid, relevant, or important.

Toulmin provides a model of the 6 parts that an argument contains. Let’s run through these with an example.

The CLAIM is the position that you put forward. As an example we will use the following statement: “Social sciences contribute to insight into industrial ecosystems”. In order to provide a compelling argument, we must first state the GROUNDS for this claim: the reasons why we feel this claim is correct. One important reason is that industrial ecosystems are – in part - social systems. The next element in the argument is the WARRANT, which connects the reason to the claim. It specifies why the fact that industrial ecosystems are (in part) social systems leads to the conclusion that social sciences contribute to insight into industrial ecosystems. My specification of this link would be that social sciences provide the up-to-date knowledge on social systems, and such knowledge is indispensable to gain insight into the social system-part of industrial ecosystems. This warrant also builds on reasons, which are the BACKING. In the example, this would be something like ‘insight requires up-to-date scientific knowledge’ (you may accept this as a common sense truth, but others might be less convinced; they might stress that insight can only be developed by actually working within industrial ecosystems for a long period of time).

Being an attempt at convincing others, there may be objections to this claim. As far as you know these, they become part of your argumentation as REBUTTALS (counter arguments to objections to your claim). In our example, one could say that in an analytical sense, the social system only causes a minor part of the dynamics of industrial ecosystems, and can therefore be safely dismissed. In argument, I would include a rebuttal to show that this is not true: I could show with empirical evidence that the same industrial activity, using similar technologies (say oil refining), is organized in radically different ways in different countries, and that these different organizational forms have consequences for the flows and environmental impacts produced. This would effectively silence any opponent that would want to make the objection. This is one way to take objections to your claim into account in your argumentation. Another way is to add a QUALIFIER. This is a statement that narrows down the scope of your claim. It could be that, after summing up certain evidence, you hold the claim to be unproven in certain types of industrial ecosystems.

  

So, providing a full argument means that you are precise in formulating your claim and possible qualifiers, provide not only the grounds for the claim but also how these grounds connect to the claim (warrant), and the backing for that warrant (see the scheme in this link, together with some additional explanation). If you apply this to your blogs you will notice that it takes some time to figure out all these elements, and the way they connect. That’s exactly what is supposed to happen: you are then making the implicit parts of your thinking explicit. If you write that up, then your argumentation is solid. In essence, that means: you provide others with all the information necessary to make a decision whether they are convinced by you. If not, then they will have to provide good reasons for questioning one of these elements.  

Argumentation is important in any scientific discipline. It is especially important in the social sciences, where there is less unity about the concepts and theories that are used. This simply means that the choice for a theory or concept also has to rest on a solid argumentation.