Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay proposes a design perspective on argumentation, intended as complementary to empirical and critical scholarship. In any substantive domain, design can provide insights that differ from those provided by scientific or humanistic perspectives. For argumentation, the key advantage of a design perspective is the recognition that humanity’s natural capacity for reason and reasonableness can be extended through inventions that improve on unaided human intellect. Historically, these inventions have fallen into three broad classes: logical systems, scientific methods, and disputation frameworks. Behind each such invention is a specifiable “design hypothesis”: an idea about how to decrease error or how to increase the quality of outcomes from reasoning. As problems in contemporary argumentation practice become more complex, design thinking rises in relevance and importance. A design research agenda in argumentation would focus on theorizing design innovations (such as advanced patterns of argumentation) and on evaluating design hypotheses (such as proposals for how to incorporate expert opinion into public decision-making).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aakhus, Mark. 1999. Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 2(3): 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aakhus, Mark. 2007. Communication as design. Communication Monographs 74: 112–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aakhus, Mark, and Sally Jackson. 2005. Technology, design, and interaction. In Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. Kristine Fitch, and Robert E. Sanders, 411–436. Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bero, Lisa, and Drummond Rennie. 1995. The Cochrane collaboration: Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effect of health care. Journal of the American Medical Association 274(24): 1935–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biro, John, and Harvey Siegel. 1992. Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In Argument illuminated, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard, 85–103. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Borenstein, Michael, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P.T. Higgins, and Hannah R. Rothstein. 2009. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470743386.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Robert T., and Karen Tracy. 1995. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory 5: 248–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, Gene V. 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 5: 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Alvin I. 1997. Argumentation and interpersonal justification. Argumentation 11(2): 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2011. Accounting for the appeal to the authority of experts. Argumentation 25(3): 285–296. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9219-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Jean, and Lee Honeycutt. 2009. When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority. Studies in Communication Sciences 9(2): 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goody, Jack. 2000. The power of the written tradition. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goody, Jack, and Ian Watt. 1963. The consequences of literacy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5(3): 304–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2009. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally. 1989. Method as argument. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. Bruce E. Gronbeck, 1–8. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally. 1992. “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Argument illuminated, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Jackson, Sally. 1998. Disputation by design. Argumentation 12: 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally. 2008. Black box arguments. Argumentation 22: 437–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally. 2012. Black box arguments and accountability of experts to the public. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. Jean Goodwin, 1–18. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Jackson, Sally. 2014. Deference, distrust, and delegation: Three design hypotheses. Paper presented at the conference of International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam.

  • Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 2006. Designing countermoves to questionable argumentative tactics. In Contemporary perspectives on argumentation: Views from the Venice argumentation conference, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, Michael D. Hazen, Peter Houtlosser and David C. Williams, 83–100. Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20: 177–203. doi:10.1002/crq.19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1982. Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J. Robert Cox and Charles A. Willard, 205–237. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: So. Ill. U. Press.

  • Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1983. Speech act structure in conversation: Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy, ed. Robert T. Craig, and Karen Tracy, 47–66. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1989. Building a model of conversational argument. In Rethinking communication: Paradigm exemplars, ed. Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella, 153–171. Beverly Hills/Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1992. Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation 6: 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Scott, Sally Jackson, Susan A. Stearns, and Barbara Hall. 1991. Digressions in third-party mediation of disputes: Multiple goals and standing concerns. In Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals to discourse, ed. Karen Tracy, 43–61. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Ralph. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneale, William, and Martha Kneale. 1962. The development of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, Erik C.W. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in mathematical proofs. Argumentation 22: 453–468. doi:10.1007/s10503-008-9098-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, Richard J., and Paul Smith. 1971. Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educational Review 41: 429–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Harold, and Erik Stolterman. 2012. The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, Robert. 1979. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86: 638–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50: 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, Emmanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382. doi:10.2307/413107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2012. The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. Jean Goodwin, 345–354. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Sprain, Leah, Martín Carcasson, and Andy J. Merolla. 2014. Utilizing “on tap” experts in deliberative forums: Implications for design. Journal of Applied Communication Research 42. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.859292.

  • Sprain, Leah, Andy M. Merolla, and Martín Carcasson. (2012). Do experts help or hinder? An empirical examination of experts and expertise during public deliberation. In Between citizens and scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, ed. Jean Goodwin, 355–364. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. 2012. The pragma-dialectical theory under discussion. Argumentation 26(4): 439–457. doi:10.1007/s10503-012-9274-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen. 2013. In Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation, ed. Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, Charles Arthur. 1990. Authority. Informal Logic 12(1): 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziliak, Stephen T., and Deirdre N. McCloskey. 2008. The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Scott Jacobs and Mark Aakhus have contributed generously to the development of these ideas and to the argument as presented in this paper. Portions of the argument have been presented in different form at two conferences: “Between Citizens and Scientists,” sponsored by the Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation and held at Iowa State University in May, 2012, and “Empirical Approaches to Argumentation,” hosted in Paris by Le Laboratoire Communication et Politique in July, 2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 702 S. Wright St., Room 3000, Urbana, IL, 61821, USA

    Sally Jackson

Authors
  1. Sally Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally Jackson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jackson, S. Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice. Argumentation 29, 243–263 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation