INST 275 – Administrative Processes in Government Lecture 4b – Developing Policy Arguments

Introduction  Policy argumentation is central to policy analysis and the policy-making process.  The analysis and evaluation of policy argumentation are central to the process of critical thinking.

The Structure of Policy Arguments  A policy argument is the product of argumentation, which is the process.  In real-life policy settings, arguments are complex and prone to misunderstanding.  To minimize misunderstanding, we use the structural model of argument developed by Stephen Toulmin, which is designed to investigate structures and processes of practical reasoning.

The Structure of Policy Arguments  The conclusions of practical arguments are always uncertain, as are the reasons and evidence that lead to these conclusions.

The Structure of Policy Arguments  Types of knowledge claims. A knowledge claim is the conclusion of a policy argument. Three types of knowledge claims:  Designative: questions of fact. What are the observed outcomes of a policy and why did they occur?  Evaluative: questions of value. Was the policy worthwhile?  Advocative: questions of right action. Which policy should be adopted?

The Structure of Policy Arguments  Types of knowledge claims (contd.). Policy arguments contain six elements:  Information (I), Claim (C), Warrant (W), Backing (B), Rebuttal (R), Qualifier (Q). The first four of these elements are present in every policy argument. The claim C is the conclusion or output of an argument, which is supported by policy-relevant information I, which is the beginning or input of the argument. The warrant W is the justification, or reason, for concluding C from I. The qualifier Q indicates that C has a given truth or plausibility.

The Structure of Policy Arguments  Example: The Senator supports the privatization of the federal highway system, which have significant gains in efficiency and a reduction in taxes. Considering that the privatization of public services has been successful in other areas, this is definitely a “no brainer”. Besides this is the same conclusion as a panel of experts on privatization.

The Structure of Policy Arguments  The underdetermination of conclusions by information. Policy-relevant information does not fully determine the conclusions of policy arguments. “Information does not speak for itself.” Identical information can and often does lead to different conclusions, which we call policy claims to emphasize the fallible and indeterminate character of arguments.

The Structure of Policy Arguments  Example: Policy-relevant information from the Coleman Report “Black students attending primarily black schools had lower achievement test scores than black students attending primarily white schools.” Designative claim and qualifier: “Since schools in large urban areas are primarily black, the hopes of blacks for higher education achievement [simply] cannot be realized.” Evaluative claim and qualifier: “The Coleman Report is [clearly] a racist document based on ethnically biased achievement tests.” Advocative claim and qualifier: “[There is no question] that a national policy of compulsory school busing ought to be adopted to achieve integrated schools.”

The Structure of Policy Arguments  Warrants and rebuttals. Although each of the claims about the Coleman report begins with the same information, very different conclusions are drawn. Differences are due not to the information, but to the role of the warrants in justifying (plausibility or implausibility) the claims on the basis of the information supplied.

Modes of Policy Argumentation  Modes of policy argumentation are the characteristic routes followed by information as it is transformed into policy claims.  The several different modes of argument involve reasoning from authority, method, generalization, classification, intuition, cause, sign, motivation, analogy, parallel case, and ethics.  Each of the eleven modes of argument has a different type of warrant, and multiple modes can be found in any policy argument.  The warrants are the reasons offered by the proponent or opponent of a policy to justify a claim, or inference, based on the information supplied.

Argumentation from Authority

Argumentation from Method

Argumentation from Generalization

Argumentation from Classification

Argumentation from Cause

Argumentation from Sign

Argumentation from Motivation

Argumentation from Intuition

Argumentation from Analogy

Argumentation from Parallel Case

Ethical Argumentation

Systems of Argumentation  Completeness. Elements of an argument should comprise a genuine whole that encompasses all appropriate considerations. For example, the plausibility of arguments about the effects of a policy depends on whether such arguments encompass a full range of plausible rival explanations similar in form and content to classes of rival hypotheses (threats to validity) developed in the tradition of quasi- experimentation.

Systems of Argumentation  Consonance. Elements of an argument should be internally consistent and compatible. For example, ethical arguments concerning the justice or fairness of a policy are plausible to the degree that they incorporate a system of internally and externally consistent ethical hypotheses.

Systems of Argumentation  Cohesiveness. Elements of an argument should be operationally connected. For example, the plausibility of an ethical argument depends on whether responses to several levels of descriptive and valuative questions – levels ranging from verification and validation to vindication – are operationally linked.

Systems of Argumentation  Functional regularity. Elements of an argument should conform to an expected pattern. For example, statistical arguments that offer estimates of parameters of unobserved (and often unobservable) populations are plausible to the degree that patterns in the sample and the population from which it is drawn are functionally regular or uniform, not irregular, based on sample data and background knowledge.