what-when-how
In Depth Tutorials and Information
the next phase of the development life cycle. he following sections explain these
three phases in more detail. Section 8.3.3 discusses how the structured argument
in this negotiation process is implemented.
8.3.3 Synthesis with a Generic Argument
Structure by Stephen E. Toulmin
he “structured argument” in our approach is built based on the Toulmin struc-
ture of argument [Toulmin 1958]. Practicing collaborative design and negotiating
dialogue have been found to be positively linked with argumentation and critical
thinking skills [Hart 1990, Parsons, Sierra, and Jennings 1998, Jin, Geslin and Lu
2005, Marttunen 1992, Smith 1977]. Furthermore, the work of Buckingham and
his colleagues argue that exposing an argument's structure facilitates its subsequent
communication since important relationships can be more easily perceived and
analyzed by others [Buckingham et al. 1997]. In these works, Stephen E. Toulmin's
1958 work, Uses of Argument, has become commonplace in structuring argumen-
tation. Toulmin acknowledges as much in his the preface to his 1979 text,
An
IntroductiontoReasoning
[Toulmin et al. 1984]. For example, Houp, Pearsall, and
Teheaux's textbook,
ReportingTechnicalInformation
, introduces Toulmin logic as
providing “a way of checking your own arguments for those overlooked laws. It
can also help you arrange your argument” [Houp et al. 1998].
Argumentation is a process of making assertions (claims) and providing sup-
port and justification for these claims using data, facts, and evidence [Toulmin
1958]. he goal of argumentation in negotiation is to persuade or convince others
that one's reasoning is more valid or appropriate. Toulmin's model of argument
provides the language symbols and data structure that supports the argumentation
process. Toulmin's model, as shown in Figure 8.4, is procedural, and the layout of
this model focuses on the movement of accepted data to the claim through a war-
rant. Toulmin also recognizes three secondary elements that may be present in an
argument: backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. Backing is the authority for a warrant
and provides credibility for the warrant; it may be introduced when the audience
is unwilling to accept the warrant. A qualifier indicates the degree of force or cer-
tainty that a claim possesses. Finally, rebuttal represents certain conditions or excep-
tions under which the claim will fail and hence anticipates objections that might
be advanced against the argument to refute the claim [Toulmin 1958]. As such,
Toulmin's argument structure becomes a mechanism for structuring argumenta-
tion between negotiating stakeholders. It aims to clarify reasoning by encouraging
parties to make explicit important assumptions, distinctions, and relationships as
they construct and rationalize ideas [Buckingham et al., 1997].
We selected Toulmin's argument structures to investigate negotiation after
considering a number of possible approaches and structures applied or developed
for negotiation [Janssen and Sage 1996]. Negotiation is a process that involves
both qualitative and quantitative concepts. Many of the formal approaches such
