1 / 8

MEd Conference

dharris@marjon.ac.uk http://www.arasite.org/. MEd Conference. Usual Advice # 1. Avoid certain kinds of “argument” Arksey & Harris ( 2007) ch . 5: avoid personal rant, ad hominem, over-generalised argument Bonnett ( 2001) ch.3: avoid circular , reductionist, telelogical argument.

kura
Download Presentation

MEd Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. dharris@marjon.ac.uk http://www.arasite.org/ MEd Conference

  2. Usual Advice # 1 • Avoid certain kinds of “argument” • Arksey & Harris ( 2007) ch. 5: avoid personal rant, ad hominem, over-generalised argument • Bonnett ( 2001) ch.3: avoid circular, reductionist, telelogical argument

  3. Usual advice #2 • Good arguments are structured in certain ways • Arksey & Harris suggest summary plus comment • Bonnett – discuss alternative interpretations or views together with supporting or contrary “evidence” • Flow-chart approaches: state your views; support with evidence; state contrary views; support with evidence; discuss strengths and weaknesses

  4. Theories of Argument • Arguments are not just logical but rhetorical, persuasive. Even (sports) science ones. • Need full picture to include rhetoric • Toulmin: the role of claims, data, warrants (a way of authorising claims from data), qualifiers, rebuttals (aimed specifically at the warrant), and backing. • Varies by context?

  5. Toulmin -- see Lunsford (2002) • D So, Q,C • Since W unless R • On account of B • D= data; Q= qualifier; C=claim; W=warrant; R= rebuttal; B=backing

  6. Universal Argument? • Habermas and the “ideal speech act” (see Ray 2004) • Challenging validity in 4 main ways: • Is the claim true, does it describe an actual state of affairs as accurately as possible? • Is the claim effective, well-formed, logical, plausible and comprehensible? • Is the claim appropriate according to what is normally expected and required? • Is the claim a genuine expression of the claimant's views -- is it sincere?

  7. References • Arksey, H. and Harris, D. (2007) How to Succeed in Your Social Science Degree, London: Sage • Bonnett, A. (2001) How to Argue: a student’s guide, London: Pearson Education Ltd • Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J-C., and de Saint Martin, M. (1994) Academic Discourse, Oxford: Polity Press • Harris, D. (no date) ‘Study Skills’ [online] http://www.arasite.org/studyskills/sskillsmenu.html • Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press • Lunsford, K. (2002) ‘Contextualising Toulmin‘s Model in the Writing Classroom. A Case Study’, Written Communication 19(1): 109—74 • Ray, L. (2004) ‘Pragmatism and Critical Theory’, European Journal of Social Theory 7(3): 307--21

  8. The Academic Context? • “Strategic communication” in academic life – motives other than pure argument? • Academic work really about conforming not creativity? – Bourdieu et al (1994). • Nice practical advice to end: • Get the hang by reading academic work (or critical studies of it) • Research and decode your local criteria and power structures

More Related