This section of the chapter discusses the contribution that argumentation theory makes to the thesis and how it assists in data analysis in the empirical chapters. The model used serves as a tool to allow the researcher to make the structure of arguments more transparent and provides a useful starting point for the analysis of claims and evidence. Argumentation theory is the study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning; that is claims based, soundly or not, on premises. It includes studying debate, dialogue, conversation and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic and procedural rules in different settings. It includes debate and negotiation that are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions. It links a post-positivist epistemology with social theories and methodology often applies interpretive and framing theoretical approaches. This is an example of what Guba (1990) refers to as the ‘inter-breeding’ between theories. Argumentation theories give special attention to language and ‘the process of utilising, mobilising, and weighing
56 (Gottweis, 2006:461). In accordance with the constructivist approach, argumentation theories do not consider policy analysis to be value free and argue that both policy making and policy analysis involve argumentation that needs to be at the centre of policy studies. It has its roots in European philosophy and theory and is always connected to considerations of the notions of logic, communication and persuasion. Argumentation is about attempts to convince another party, not about revealing truths as there can be no absolute standard for truth. It is a social activity and an activity of reason (Eemeren et al. 1996). When two or more people have a different opinion or standpoint about an issue then they are able to have an argument with one another about that issue. Argumentation is about justifying one’s standpoint to another person or group or about refuting someone else’s. The argument that is presented by an individual is subject to scrutiny by the audience.
Argumentation theory is appropriate for this research because the researcher is concerned with understanding how actors utilise evidence in order to convince others of their argument. It acknowledges the role of the audience who are tasked with accepting or refuting a claim presented by a person. The notion that argumentation is not about revealing truths and being about reasoning speaks to this research because evidence reviewed in chapter two suggests that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. Reasoning can often lead to poor outcomes, such as the decision to build an expensive high speed train line perhaps; but it reveals that people systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. There are three main categories of argumentation models: monological, dialectical and rhetorical. Monological models emphasise the argument itself and focus on the relationships between the components of the argument. Toulmin’s model (1958) is perhaps the most well-Many have developed ideas set out by Toulmin such as Clark (1991) and Stranieri and Zeleznikow (1999). Dialectical models focus on the issue of
57 two parties, or more, speak in turn in an orderly way’ (Bentahar et al. 2010:224). Rhetorical argumentation, deals with arguments, which are both based on the audience’s perception of the world, and with evaluative judgments rather than with establishing the truth of a
proposition.
In 1958 Stephen Toulmin developed a model representing the layout of arguments. He believed that absolutism lacked practical value and so he aimed to develop practical
arguments that focus on the way in which opinions or claims can be justified. He argued that theoretical arguments made inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim. In contrast, a practical argument seeks a claim of interest first, and then provides justification for it. His theory (1958; 2003) stated that actors in a policy process are part of competing
coalitions that argue about a chosen policy, and out of this argument decisions are made by policy makers, depending on the strength of each coalition’s argument. His model has been used for the analysis, evaluation, and construction of arguments. It incorporates evidence, claims and warrants. He believed that the procedure of argumentation begins with the formulation of a problem in the form of a question. In regards to the level of single argumentation (micro-level), this will likely be the expressing of a standpoint or opinion. Then they must defend this standpoint ‘in the event that it should be attacked…the standpoint put forward and to be upheld is called the claim’ (Eemeren et al. 1996:139). Toulmin’s layout of an argument is as follows:
Data/evidence Claim Warrant
(Toulmin, 2003:162)
He suggested that actors make claims about a particular issue based on evidence, and warrants are the hypothetical and logical statements that serve as bridges between the claim
58 and the evidence. Toulmin believed that the way in which to defend a claim is to appeal to evidence. Therefore there must be a stage in the process that consists of the construction of evidence to support the claim. The warrant is then justified by the actor for using the evidence concerned as support for the claim (the evidence-claim relationship). The reason that Toulmin distinguished between evidence and warrants is that ‘data are appealed to explicitly, warrants implicitly’ (2003:92). This suggests that when analysing an argument, one should be able to identify both the claim and the evidence each time but it may not always be possible to identify the warrant. In principle, the warrant is expressed as a general statement and its hypothetical form will be “if (evidence) then (claim)”. Warrants are defined as ‘statements which justify drawing conclusions from the grounds’ (Best, 1987:108). For example, in regards to the issue of drink driving a claims-maker might argue that even one person losing their life due to a drunk driver is one too many, and that, therefore, something must be done. Concluding that something should be done demands that a person accepts some warrant that the problem deserves attention. As Toulmin (1958:100) argued:
‘Unless in any particular field of argument, we are prepared to work with warrants of some kind, it will become impossible in that field to subject arguments to rational assessment. The data we cite if a claim is challenged depend on the warrants we are prepared to operate with in that field, and the warrants to which we commit ourselves are implicit in the particular steps from data to claims we are prepared to take and to admit’
This implies that for an argument to be persuasive, the people being persuaded must
ordinarily belong to a field which deems the warrant valid. Or a person may be persuaded by another warrant, ‘perhaps one which the person making the argument would not find valid’ (Best, 1987:108). It is the warrant in which values most often come into play. It is assumed that the warrant is a rule without any exceptions, and that the accuracy of the warrant itself is not an issue. The data or evidence in Toulmin’s model refers to facts we appeal to as a
59 foundation for the claim (1958). It answers the questions of what is the proof, and why
questions. According to Toulmin, the evidence can consist of a number of different data including statistics, quotations, reports, findings, or various forms of reasoning. Evidence is significant because it is the reasoning behind the claim and the basis of real persuasion. For Toulmin (1958) the evidence can sometimes be used as the backing for a warrant, or to confirm or deny that a warrant satisfies the conditions of a rebuttal. The claim is the statement that a claims-maker is asking their audience to accept. It is defined as the
conclusion ‘whose merits we are seeking to establish’ (Best, 1987:102). It is also referred to as the thesis. Toulmin (1958) stated that people often start their argument with the claim and then present evidence to support the claim. If the audience do not agree with the claim or claims being made then argumentation is required in support of the claim. Toulmin argued that the degree to which a claim can justifiably be asserted depends on the quality of the argumentation that can be advanced in its support. However, the quality of the evidence does not necessarily mean that a claim will be accepted by the audience. In many instances a claim will not be accepted, regardless of the evidence presented.
Toulmin argued that in a more complex argument it is necessary to include qualifiers and rebuttals. Qualifiers are conditions under which the claim is true and rebuttals are statements which contradict the evidence or warrant (Toulmin, 2003). According to the model, these two elements are not vital in every argument but in a multi-layered, complex argument there is more than one piece of evidence and rebuttals are used to extend the argument further. A detailed argument on a complex issue such as HS2 may involve several simple arguments where the intermediate conclusions build up to an overall claim such as HS2 should not be built. The strength of the overall argument depends on the strength of the component parts.
For the purpose of this research, only the three (essential) elements of an argument are identified which includes the claim, warrant and evidence. Because it is not the aim of the
60 researcher to analyse the argument itself, it is not necessary to identify all the elements. The model is only serving as a tool for identifying the key components within the arguments presented in the data. The model does have some criticisms which are discussed below.
Toulmin did not explain in much detail how he conceptualises evidence. When naming something as data he used the term ‘facts’ or the ‘truth’ on which the claim is based. This may be due to the theoretical lens that he has applied to his work. He assumed that the data will accepted at face value, otherwise it risks becoming a claim itself that must be defended. However, this does not coincide with the assumptions in this thesis. The thesis argues that evidence itself is contested and not accepted at face value, and it is because of this that we have policy controversies. If a person frames an issue in a particular way then this will affect the way in which they interpret evidence and the claims that they make. Another issue with the model is that Toulmin believed that rationality can, in principle, be claimed for every sort of argumentation and that its soundness criteria depend on the nature of the problems at issue. However, this thesis argues that human beings are not always capable of rational activity, especially concerning highly contentious and emotive policy decisions. The model assumes rationality on both the side of who is arguing and on the audience. In order to address this assumption, an additional arrow should point towards the data/evidence to indicate that evidence is interpreted and not taken at face value. The process is not a linear one.
There have been critiques of Toulmin’s model in that it has its origins in foundationalism. This is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. Foundationalist arguments claim that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of non-inferential knowledge. This model is useful for the research because it allows the researcher to separate an argument that they are reading into parts for analysis. The model separates two of the key aspects of the research which are claims and evidence. Rather than viewing arguments as rational activities the literature review sought out an approach that included argumentation as
61 well as negotiation of evidence through claims-making. This led to the work of Spector and Kitsuse (1973; 1977) and Bulmer (1971). They use a social constructionist lens to define, understand and study social problems that is quite distinct from previous perspectives. The model is useful for analysing argumentation, not so much as a model for its evaluation. In analysing spoken discourse and written texts, it allows the researcher to make the structure of argumentation more transparent and it provides a good starting point for the analysis of claims and evidence. The model is applied to the case study to distinguish between different elements of the argumentation process and to see whether or not the model fits the
complexity of the HS2 debate.
The reason that there is a strong focus on the Toulmin model of argumentation within the research as opposed to other models of argumentation is that his diagram is very helpful to display premises and conclusions in an argument and to show how groups of premises support conclusions that can in turn be used as a premise in adjoining arguments. The approach allowed the researcher to look at two sides of the policy debate and examine their arguments, in particular, how propositions interact with each other and reveals the strengths and weaknesses in each argument. It was important to use a monological model because they stress the link between the different components of an argument and how a conclusion is related to evidence and they emphasise the structure of the argument itself. Alternative models of argumentation such as dialogical do not take into account the micro-structure of arguments and the audience’s perception of such arguments. Rhetorical models of
argumentation the emphasis is put on the audience rather than on the argument. The intention of the researcher was to use a model of argumentation that focused on the argument itself in order to deconstruct it.
62