Argumentative Analysis in Public Policy: Process and Functions

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Political Science at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Political Science at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

3 Master of Political Science at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

Abstract

 
This article aims to introduce the approach of Argumentative policy analysis &its application process. Public policy analysis has various approaches, that each of them has specific objectives &focus on specific variables in policy analysis. Argumentative policy analysis focuses on policy Argument &its characteristics in order to provide different aspects of confrontation between the parties of an argument. Policymakers make a variety of arguments for a variety of purposes, including justifying their policies or to persuade audiences &gain public support. In this paper, the components of Argumentative policy analysis based on Toulmin model including clime, data, warrant, Backing, Qualifier, Rebuttal are described, &In the following, the functions &examples of application of argumentative analysis in policy analysis are presented, which can be a good manual for public policy researchers.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdollahi, Manijeh; Amal Saleh, Ihya (2012). "Investigation of the Argument Structure in Three Texts of the Qajar Period". Shiraz University's Boostan-e Adab Journal, Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 152-174 [in Persian].
  2. Afzali, parichehr. (2012). Globalization Now &Later. A Study of Interactive Argumentation among EFL Learners , Language &Culture in Europe , Master degree, Department of Culture &Communication , Linköping University.
  3. Al-Hosseini, Fereshte, Sajjadi, Seyed Mahdi, Sadeghzadeh, Alireza, Mehrmohammadi, Mahmoud (2015). "Philosophy of Islamic education in the light of practical perspectives: confronting work theory". Quarterly Journal of Research in Islamic Education Issues, 23 (28), 107 -130 [in Persian].
  4. Atkins, Judi (2008) “How Virtue-Theoretic Arguments May Be Used in the Justification of Policy” Politics, vol. 28, 3: pp. 129-137.
  5. Atkins, Judi (2010) “Moral Argument &the Justification of Policy: New Labour's Case for Welfare Reform” The British Journal of Politics &International Relations, vol. 12, 3: pp. 408-424.
  6. Attaran, Atena (2012) Speech Act of Argumentation: a Comparison of Articles, Teaching English, Master Degree, English Department, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
  7. Ball, William J. (1994) “Using Virgil to Analyze Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal Logic”Social Science Computer Review, vol. 12, 1: pp. 26-37.
  8. Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. (2012) Making health policy. Open University Press.
  9. Cano- Basare, Amparo Elizabeth; He, Yulan (2016) a Study of the Impact of Persuasive Argumentation in Political Debates. Proceeding of NAACL-HLT, Pp,1405-1413.
  10. Carr, Chad (2003) Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach Legal Argumentation, Visualizing Argumentation, Pp. 75-96.
  11. Carson, Marcus, Tom R. Burns, &Dolores Calvo (2009) paradigms in public policy: theory &practice of paradigm shift in the EU, Peter Lang.
  12. Chahar Sooghi Amin, Tina; Soltani, Ali Asghar; Hejazi, Mohammad Javad (2018). "Argument or sophistry: Rhetorical study of speeches for &against representatives of the Islamic Council". Social linguistics Quarterly, volume 2, number 4, pp. 68-80 [in Persian].
  13. Dunn, William (2013) Public policy analysis: an integrated approach. Routledge.
  14. Emmerink, R H M, Nijkamp, P, Rietveld, P (1995)” Is Congestion Pricing a First-Best Strategy in Transport Policy? A Critical Review of Arguments” Environment &Planning B: Planning &Design, vol. 22, 5: pp. 581-602.
  15. Fischer, Frank (2003) Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics &Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Fischer, Frank (2007) Deliberative Policy Analysis as Practical Reason: Integrating Empirical &Normative Arguments. In Fischer, Frank, Gerald J. Miller, Mara S. Sidney (2007) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics &Methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  17. Fischer, Frank (2013) “Policy Expertise &the Argumentative Turn: Toward a Deliberative Policy-Analytic Approach”, Revue française de science politique (English Edition), Vol. 63, No. 3-4, pp.95-114.
  18. Fischer, Frank &Gottweis, Herbert (2012) The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
  19. Fischer, Frank &John Forester (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis &Planning. Durham & London: Duke University Press. ISBN978-0-8223-1372-4.
  20. Foss, Sonja K; Al, Karen; Trapp, Robert (2002) Stephan Toulmin 5, Available at: www.msubillings.edu.
  21. Gasper, D R, George, R V (1998) “Analyzing Argumentation in Planning &Public Policy: Assessing, Improving, &Transcending the Toulmin Model” Environment &Planning B: Planning &Design, vol. 25, No. 3: pp. 367-390.
  22. Gasper, Des (1995) analyzing policy arguments.Chapter for Arguing Development Policy - Frames &Discourses, eds. R. Apthorpe &D. Gasper, London: Frank Cass, 1996, &a special issue of The European Journal Of Development Research, 1996 (June), pp. 36-62.
  23. Gilbert, Michael A. (1994) “Multi-Modal Argumentation.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 24, No. 2, 159-177.
  24. Gilson L. (1994) Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy &Planning. Vol. 9, No.4, pp353-70.
  25. Green, Mitchell (2016) Speech Act Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304410044.
  26. Greenwald, Alison Rose (2007) Learning How to Argue: Experiences Teaching the Toulmin Model to Composition Students, Art, Master degree, Lawa State University.
  27. Hall, Peter (1993) "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, &the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain". Comparative Politics, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp 275-296.
  28. Hayif Sameer, Imad (2017) Analysis of Speech Act Patterns in Two Egyptian Inaugural Speeches, SIELE Journal, Vol.4, No. 2, Pp 134-147.
  29. Hidayat, Agus (2016) Speech Act: Force behind Words, Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, Vol. 9, No.1, Pp. 1-12.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301660276_Argumentation_Political
  30. Jacquin, Jérôme, Zampa, Marta (2016) “Do we still need an army like in the First World War? An argumentative analysis of a television debate on abolishing compulsory military service in Switzerland” Discourse & Communication, vol. 10, 5: pp. 479-499.
  31. Jafari Tabar, Hassan (2019) "Implementation of Toulmin's Argument Model in Law". Quarterly of Private Law Studies, Volume 49, Number 1, pp. 35-50 [in Persian].
  32. Khoirunisa, Andini; Nur Indah, Rohamani (2017) Argumentative Statements in the 2016 Presidential Debates of the u.s: A Critical Discourse Analysis, JEELS, Vol.4, No.2, Pp 155-173.
  33. Krishna Rohit, Sakala Venkata (2019) Study of Argument Structure in Parliamentary Debates , Exact Humanities ,master degree, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad
  34. Lapintie, K (1998) “Analysing &Evaluating Argumentation in Planning” Environment &Planning B: Planning &Design, vol. 25, 2: pp. 187-204.
  35. Lasswell, Harold D. (1971) a Pre-view of Policy Sciences, New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.
  36. Levasseur, David G. (2005) “The Role of Public Opinion in Policy Argument: An Examination of Public Opinion Rhetoric in the Federal Budget Process” Journal of Argumentation &Advocacy, Vol. 41, No. 3, Pp 152-167.
  37. Liewellyn, Clare (2012) Using Argument Analysis to Define a Structure for User Generated Content, Philosophy, Doctor Degree, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.
  38. Mayer, Igor, Daalen, Els van, Bots, Pieter (2004) “Perspectives on Policy Analysis: A Framework for Understanding &Design” International Journal of Technology Policy &Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, Pp 1-23.
  39. Mazinani, Abolfazl &Nasiri, Sahar (2019). "Research method design for the application of Toulmin's Argument in stylistics, discourse analysis, &legal linguistics". Linguistic Studies, 10(3), 169-189 [in Persian].
  40. Mirjani, Hamid (2010). "Logical reasoning as a research method". Safa magazine, 20(50), 35-50 [in Persian].
  41. Morady Moghaddam, Mostafa (2012) Discourse Structures of Conddence Speech Act, Journal of English Language, No. 10.Pp 106-125.
  42. Nozari, Hamzeh (2015). "Analysis of reactions &arguments opposed to development strategies after the Islamic Revolution". Economic Sociology &Development, 4(2), 137-163 [in Persian].
  43. Nussbaum, E. Michael(2011) Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, &Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education, Taylor &Francis Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2 ,Pp. 84-106.
  44. Parsons, Wayne (2017) Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory &Practice of Policy Analysis. Translated by Hamidreza Malek Mohammadi, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. first volume [in Persian].
  45. Perumal, Thinagaran (2014) Research Methodology, Open University Malaysia, Digital Text Book Library, Available at: https://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tamop412A/2011-0021_22_research_methodology/adatok.html
  46. Poluzhgn, M.M; Vrabel, T.T (2005), Basic Problems of Speech Act Theory, English Department, Uzhhorod National University.
  47. Rieke, Ricard D; Sillars, Malcom O, Peterson, Tarla Rai (2012) Argumentation &Critical Decision Making. Publisher Pearson, 8 Ed.
  48. Ripley, M. Louise (2005) "Arguing For the Ethics of an Ad: An Application of Multi-Modal Argumentation Theory" in Hitchcock, David (ed.) (2005) The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
  49. Saad, Muhammad &tamma, sukri (2018) structure &forms of the argument analysis in the maing of the city government budget policy in makassar, Jurnal Politik Profetik, Vol. 6, No. 2, 174-197.
  50. Secchi, Leonardo (2016)Policy Analysis in Brazil: A Comparison of Rationalist &Argumentative Approaches, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research &Practice, Vo. 18, No. 1 , 88-101.
  51. Simon, Simona; Cartis, Deniel Djica (2015) Speech Acts in Written Advertisements: Identification, Classification &Analysis, Procedia &Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 192, No. 2, Pp. 234-239.
  52. Simosi, Maria(2003) Using Toulmin ’s Framework for the Analysis of Every day Argumentation: Some Methodological Considerations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Vol. 17,Pp. 185-202.
  53. Smith, Kevin &Larimer, Christopher (2017). A theoretical introduction to public policy. Translated by Behzad Attarzadeh. Tehran: Scientific &Cultural Publications [in Persian].
  54. Teglgaard Andersen, Karen Sofie (2017) an Analysis of Presentation in a Political Discourse, Trump &the Media, spring semester.
  55. Toulmin, Stephan E (2003) the uses of Argument, Published in The United States Of America By Cambridge University press, New York.
  56. Wang, Jianfang (2016) on Freeman’s Argument Structure Approach, Published at: http://ceur-ws.org.
  57. White, Hugh c (1988) Speech Act Theory &Biblical criticism, Published by Scholars Press, New York.
  58. Wildavsky, Aaron. (I979) Speaking Truth to Power. Boston: Little, Brown &Co. (Published in Britain as the Art &Craft of Policy Analysis, London: Macmillan I980).
  59. Wingate, Ursula (2012) Argument! Helping Students Underst&What Essay Writing is About, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 11, Pp. 145-154.
  60. Wodak, Ruth (2015) Argumentation, Political, Available at:
  61. Zittoun, Philippe (2015)” Analyzing policy failure as an argumentative strategy in the policymaking process: A pragmatist perspective” Public Policy &Administration, Vol. 30, No. 3–4, Pp 243–260.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 8, Issue 3
2022
Pages 9-25

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics