Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
•
What are the personal characteristics of the researcher that may bias the selection of
some materials rather than others?
Questions such as these can help students develop a level of probability that the
evidence presented is credible. This probability can be stated in their assignment work and
so avoid the risk of statements that typically take the form that “it can therefore be
categorically stated that…” or “it is obvious that…” and similar statements that weaken many
students' work.
A GUIDING FRAMEWORK FOR INQUIRY:
TOULMIN
The frameworks previously discussed provide a basis for the gathering and being
critical of a variety of evidence that can be used to support debate in a balanced and informed
manner. They do not, however, provide a clear structure for the presentation of that evidence,
and for that, we can turn to the work of the English philosopher Stephen Toulmin (Toulmin,
1999). Toulmin suggested that our first intellectual obligation is to “abandon the Myth of
Stability that played so large a part in the Modern age” and to return to “reasonableness”
rather than rationality. He suggested that the future will not be served by the “optimistic
daydreams of simple-minded calculators, who ignore the complexities of life, or the pessimis-
tic nightmares of their critics, who find these complexities a source of despair” (Toulmin, 1999).
It is the reflective practitioners, in his opinion, steering a middle way between the extremes
of abstract theory and personal impulse, who will be able to contribute most to the future.
He described a clear structure that helps frame an argument in such a way that a Claim, “C,”
can be tested by detailing the foundation of the claim (the Data, “D”), and the rules, principles,
and inferences that connect the claim to the data (the Warrant, “W”). The items that give the
warrant legitimacy (assurances, currency, authority) provide the Backing, “B,” and Qualifi-
ers, “Q,” are used to indicate the strength of the warrant (“possibly,” “probably,” for example)
with Rebuttals, “R,” being used to indicate those conditions that might be capable of
defeating the warranted conclusion. The basic “T” shape of the argumentation structure is
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
D _____________________
So
, Q, C
| |
|
Unless
| R
Since
W
|
On account of
B
(Toulmin S E, 1999)
