Move on to Policy

Imagine looking at what’s playing at a movie theater with some friends. You have a friendly discussion about which movie is worth seeing, discussing the different styles of different directors and actors, maybe even deriding some of the movies and questioning whether or not some of the worst ones can really be called “movies”. Within this discussion, you and your friends will have hit on the first 3 levels of Stasis:

• Fact: Whether or not what’s playing at the theaters can really be called “movies.”
• Definition: Discussing actor and director style.
• Value: Which movie is the best or worth seeing.

And then none of you go see the movie.

This would mean the discussion never rose to Policy because no action was taken: the discussion ended at Value, merely deciding which is best. While there’s nothing wrong with having Fact, Definition, or Value level arguments, there’s only so much these arguments can do. Because they’re not Policy arguments, by definition, very little or nothing at all directly happens because of them.

Policy deals with what to do. Fact, Definition, and Value deal with what or how something is. It's fairly easy to argue these points because we can easily pick them up and leave them behind. Think about an art exhibition:

• Fact: Do I consider what is being exhibited art?
• Definition: What makes it art or not art? Just what is art?
• Value: Is it good art? Which pieces are better or more important?

And these are arguments you could easily have with anyone: friends, family, curators, artists, and even complete strangers. Some discussions may become heated or deeply philosophical, but if they never go beyond Value, it is very easy to just go on as if nothing has happened.

This is where Policy comes in. A Policy level argument focuses on action and change, which requires more attention to audience, implementation, and even considering the repercussions of your actions.

For example, at the art gallery, you have a friendly argument with someone you met and you convince them of the transcendence of a certain piece. Congratulations on your Value level argument. This person then turns to you and asks you to sell them the artwork. But you're in the same position they're in: an observer who came to see the exhibit. If you collect this person's money for this artwork, you'll be guilty of fraud. Instead, you'd have to find out who can sell the artwork (studio or artist) and then purchase it. There could even be a competition for it: a museum could be vying for it, but you want it for your private collection: you have to convince the owner, who may be the studio or the artist but likely not both, that their work is better suited in your collection than in a museum (a Value level argument) so they should sell it to you (Policy level).

Ultimately, this is about recognizing that our decisions, even if they are purely abstract or philosophical, like what constitutes “art” or what art is superior, will reflect itself in our actions and we need to consider the implementation and consequences of those actions. You may decide Artwork A is better than Artwork B, but how could you buy Artwork A? And from there, what happens when you buy Artwork A? Or if you buy Artwork B? How will it impact your life, your home, your social standing? What will happen because other places, like the museum and by extension the general public, won't have access to it?

Policy level arguments require more attention to audience, implementation and repercussions and, whether implicitly or explicitly, involve Fact, Definition and Value level arguments. This is all because Policy focuses on bringing about action. Fact, Definition, and Value level arguments are merely Policy Level arguments waiting to be acted on.

Make more than noise and smoke: Audience Specificity

“Specific Audience” is a term I throw around. This terminology came after I asked students about their audiences and they answered with things like “parents”,“doctors, “teachers”, and “the government.”

I've addressed this elsewhere (in “Write for a specific, powerful audience”), which I will quote here:

Picking an audience varies from genre to genre and purpose to purpose. Unfortunately, students frequently default to “parents,” “teachers,” and (this one makes me want to break things) anything that starts with “people who...” The problem with these audiences is it’s difficult, if not impossible, to address them as a whole because there will be so many different groups within the larger body. Writing for them can mean relying on logical fallacies and broad assumptions that reflect your own bias more than your understanding of the demographic you're trying to write to.

So broad, vague, audiences while trying to write argumentatively, is just spinning your wheels: you'll make some noise and some smoke, but in the end, it'll dissipate and you won't go anywhere.

I think the issue stems from two sources. The first is how arbitrary the concept is in a lot of English education and the second is popular media. As much as teachers pound it in, audience rarely ascends beyond something to mention, especially when it is closely tied to genre in literature studies, with genres written to appeal to broad audiences for the sake of market appeal and sales. This leads me to popular media, which acts the same way. Basically, it's easy to say “people who've watched Star Wars” because, in American culture, if not worldwide, this demographic will be large.

Authors and directors thrive off of this appeal to a wider audience, but, in education, there's the underlying, frequently unstated, fact the teacher is the audience and whatever a student writes, they need to tailor it to their teacher.

As it turns out, paying careful attention to and even seriously researching your audience can help shape what you're writing and helps you to better understand your topic and its implications, which is why audience is especially important in argumentation and persuasion. In the same post as the above quoted paragraph, I also said:

[A] specific audience (one that has a formal name, whether it's an individual or an organizational body) is a far better option.

Sometimes I elaborate on this by asking whether or not the audience has a physical mailing address. If, for example, you were to write to “parents,” what address would you put on the envelope? It's one thing to write for parents saying they should do something, but it's another thing to write to, for example, a major publication that has a large audience consisting of parents who share your concerns and interests.

Allow me to elaborate:

Vague Audience	Specific Audience
Parents	Parenting magazines, websites, and blogs
Teachers	A specific school, a school district, a parent-teacher association, a state's board of education.
Doctors	A hospital or clinic, a medical association
Government	State legislature, a senator or congressperson, a state managed organization
Employers	The Better Business Burearu, a manager, supervisor, or owner of a business.

Note that saying something like “a school district” is still indistinct because every school district has different priorities and standards: your essay that may be gladly accepted by one would be vehemently rejected by another.

Basically, if your audience is vague, adjust it to a more specific audience that has direct influence over the issue you are concerned with. This may seem redundant but it is significantly more realistic because, outside of the classroom, this is how you would do it and because it forces you to evaluate your audience and tailor your writing to them.

So, in short, specify your audience.

The Toulmin Model

The Toulmin Model is a way to structure arguments to best understand what the information does, and the relationship each bit of information has with everything else. It helps us to dissect or prepare an argument by demonstrating how each bit of information relates to the claim being made: the model is made up of the following parts:

• Claim: The basic argument being made.
• Grounds: The facts, data, and evidence the claim is based on.
• Warrant: The logical connection between the claim and the grounds.
• Backing: Evidence that establishes the credibility of the warrant.
• Rebuttal: Restrictions placed on the claim,
• Qualifier: Words that denote how certain the claim is, like “probably,” “rarely,” “certainly,” etc. These are made to accommodate the rebuttal.

You'll notice each term has a direct connection with another, even the claim. When forming an argument, or constructing a Toulmin Model, these components are best expressed as brief statements to simply demonstrate the corresponding information, which in turn, shows its relationship to everything else. Here's an example based on the cost of college textbooks:

• Claim: Textbooks are too expensive for college students.
• Grounds: Individual textbooks can be more than a hundred dollars and students need to buy a couple of books for each class.
• Warrant: Students rarely have a lot of money and have to deal with tuition, so several hundred dollars in textbooks strains already limited funds.
• Backing: Increasing tuition costs; delayed graduation rates as students take time off of school to work.
• Rebuttal: Some students have scholarships. Not all disciplines have very expensive textbooks.
• Qualifier: Most textbooks are too expensive for many college students.

The Toulmin Model can be used for any level of argument: fact, definition, value, and policy. The above example is a fact level argument because the grounds and warrant seek to clarify whether or not textbooks are in fact too expensive. Consider it again as a policy level argument. Please note this is all hypothetical!

• Claim: Because textbooks are too expensive for college students, the university bookstore should lower the prices of textbooks.
• Grounds: Individual textbooks can cost more than a hundred dollars and students need to buy a couple of books for each class. The University Bookstore has a considerable profit from other sales.
• Warrant: Students rarely have a lot of money and have to deal with tuition, so several hundred dollars in textbooks further strains their limited funds. With a sizable profit elsewhere, the bookstore can lower textbook prices and still be solvent.
• Backing: Increasing tuition costs. Delayed graduation rates as students take time off of school to work. Profit and income statements of the university bookstore.
• Rebuttal: Some students have scholarships. Not all disciplines have very expensive textbooks.
• Qualifier: Because most textbooks are too expensive for college students, the university bookstore should lower the prices of many textbooks.

As the type of argument changes, the claim naturally changes also, and because the claim changes, the other information has to change to accommodate it. 

Note it is possible for the rebuttal to entirely refute an argument. If the rebuttal had been the bookstore profits fund scholarships and other academic programs, which in turn help students, the claim would have to change along with it, either being dropped entirely, or the argument would need to suggest eliminating or funding those programs another way to benefit more students a little, rather than a few students a lot.

Ultimately, everything pivots around the claim: it is the focal point of the argument and is to be defended or refuted. While Toulmin is not an organizational method for writing an essay, it provides a strong basis for analyzing, understanding, and developing arguments by giving every bit of information, whether hard evidence, logical inferences, or potential rebuttals, a specific place.

Rogerian Argumentation

Rogerian Argumentation addresses some of the main misconceptions about arguments: that they are confrontational, oppressive, and center around at least two competitive, incompatible perspectives.

On the contrary. Rogerian Argumentation is centered around principles of mutual understanding, sympathy, and corroboration. Its purpose is to find a common ground between the two parties: a balance where both sides of the issue can come to an agreement. It is a much more amicable way to discuss differences.

Rogerian Arguments follow a four-step process designed to both ingratiate yourself to opposition and to help you better understand and sympathize with them:

• Address the issue. It's important to identify that there is an issue – not that you have an issue or someone else has an issue but that an issue exists. While being careful not to take sides, you should address the issue by taking a serious look at the situation from a neutral perspective and address what both sides can agree on.
• Identify positives and negatives of the opposition. You aren’t trying to bring down your opposition: you are trying to show your understanding. This way, you present yourself as concerned about the issue and sympathetic to their concerns without tearing down their entire argument. Sometimes, we can feel inclined to point out every fallacy and short-coming, but rarely are things so simple and convenient. Instead of tearing down, build them up, and show you are sympathetic to your opposition.
• Identify positives and negatives of your own stance. Rather than lift your own stance on the issue as a paradigm, you should own up to its shortcomings: making your own stance seem ideal can be just as off-putting as tearing down an opposing side. Instead of championing your own stance, approach your stance as if you were a third-party. Be objective and be honest.
• Compromise. Having established that you understand and are sympathetic to both sides of the issue, it is time to work out a compromise: propose a plan that employs the strengths and positive aspects of both sides, while simultaneously minimizing the weaknesses and negative aspects. By suggesting a compromise, you recognize your opposition has a voice in the matter, and you disagree with but still respect, as opposed to disregarding all different opinions.

Analyzing both sides of an issue can help us understand the complexities of a problem and others' perspectives. It’s all too easy to limit our own perspectives, rather than consider the opinions or concerns of others, or even take a serious look at the problem itself, but we can mire ourselves with our preoccupations and prejudices. Rogerian Argumentation gives us a way to reevaluate just how we see and deal with problems or topics.

By way of disclaimer, I want to add, while the principles behind Rogerian Argumentation can be be applied to any situation, compromise is not always an option. One side may not be willing to concede to a compromise, or a mutually beneficial option simply is not feasible. 

However, no matter what the situation, take time to explore, understand, and in particular, articulate the positions of your opposition.

Is It Worth Using? The Appropriateness of Sources and The Rhetorical Triangle

Not all sources are created equally. Some sources are better than others.

This post deals with research, but not how to use research. Rather, whether or not the sources are worth using. Unreliable or inappropriate sources can actually hurt your credibility because it suggests your research is insufficient, and if the information you are using to develop your argument is bad, then your argument will also be bad.

The hard part is in determining whether or not a source is reliable. Granted there are some indicators that will almost guarantee good sources – government web pages, peer reviewed journals, university publications – but these aren't the only reliable sources, and only deal with one aspect of reliability: who published it? While this can be a good start, it is important to evaluate a source from multiple angles. The angles I recommend evaluating from stem from the Rhetorical Triangle:

• Ethos: In a way, Ethos is how an author presents themselves in their writing: their ability to demonstrate their authority in the text itself. They may do this by referencing their own research or referencing their experience and work in the field, which is sometimes evident through their terminology and style. In short, whether or not the text presents itself authoritatively.
• Logos: If the source's conclusions don't make sense, or if they rely on logical fallacies to support their claims, then the source is not reliable. The source should move easily from topic to topic, without any jumps in logic, and should be in agreement with other sources on the same topic.
• Pathos: For whom was it written? This actually returns to the issue of publication; peer reviewed pieces will be written for experts. It is possible to identify the intended readership of a piece based on how detailed it is, or on the terminology used. A piece that appropriately uses specified vocabulary will be for a more educated audience than one that doesn't, and one that misuses terminology will be one to stay away from.

Evaluating sources is a matter of looking for textual evidence showing the author's appropriate use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. For a classic example, I turn to Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets a bad rap because it is collaborative - anyone and everyone can go and make changes to it and it is frequently shot down on that basis alone. However, like I said before, that’s only looking at it from one perspective: it’s important to consider it from multiple angles:

• Ethos: Despite the collaborative, anyone-can-do-it nature of Wikipedia, most Wikipedia pages have references lists and citations, like any decent piece of research. These pages are also checked and double checked by users who make sure that the information is correct and accurately presented. Whatever few bad vandals there are, there are many more that make sure the information is good.
• Logos: The information on Wikipedia tends to make sense: it's logical, and users can keep the information straight. With this in mind though, it's a good idea to go back and double check Wikipedia pages in case there was faulty information. So, it could not be reliable on this basis, but it isn't the nail in the coffin for this resource.
• Pathos: It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are designed to be neutral and provide readily understandable information for people who have even a superficial understanding. This means the information on Wikipedia, while likely trustworthy, will not go into any substantial depth. The information is cursory; superficial. It's basic information that someone doing serious research should already know.

In short, Wikipedia is a reliable source – but it is not an appropriate one. It’s information is accurate, but superficial. You can do better.

Once we stop and understand that just because something is reliable does not mean it is appropriate, we can look at our research differently. It's like when I have students who count fact sheets as resources: lists of dates, figures, and sometimes fancy info-graphics without any serious analysis. The information may be perfectly reliable, but if you are committed to doing serious research, leave the sundries aside and focus on the sources that explore the concepts in detail.

What makes it Argumentative? An Overview

I want to start this post off by saying the words argument and persuasion have very close definitions, but can be interpreted quite differently. I try to avoid any confusion by using them interchangeably. My interest here, however, is not to draw distinctions between being argumentative and persuasive, but between being argumentative and informative.

Most of us are familiar with informative writing. We encounter it all the time in textbooks, news sources, blogs, documentaries, etc. This causes problems when students need to move to argumentative writing.

I’ve had students insist they will argue by merely being informative. I take this to mean they haven’t caught on to the issues regarding argumentation I’ve covered in class. The distinction is as follows:

Informative writing just gives information: facts, details, observations, research, etc.

Argumentation makes recommendations and proposals about what to do with that information.

To further describe the difference between informative and argumentative is to use the Stasis Model, which is a kind of hierarchy of argumentation. Each aspect must be addressed, or at least clear, before moving to the next:

• Fact: Determining whether or not something exists, did or did not happen, could or could not happen, etc. This is generally a yes or no question. Sometimes called “Conjecture.”
• Definition: Describing characteristics and attributes of the Facts.
• Value: Determining the quality or severity of the issue or topic – if what has been defined is good or bad, better or worse, etc. Sometimes called “Quality.”
• Policy: Proposing active change based on the discussion of the Values: if a better option exists and its implementation is feasible, then recommendations how to pursue it should be made.

Argumentation address all of these: Facts are considered, defined, and weighted against actual and hypothetical situations, culminating in the proposed change. 

Informative writing stops anywhere before Policy: a proposal isn't made, a plan of action isn't discussed, plans aren't made for improvement.

While the Stasis Model is the first step in differentiating between informative and argumentative writing, argumentative writing also necessitates a number of considerations:

• Take a stance: Perhaps the most important. Being argumentative requires a clear stance on the issue.
• Rhetorical Situation: Aristotle broke rhetoric down into a number of different aspects. These are, primarily:
• Ethos: Author's authority; how does the author demonstrate their credibility.
• Pathos: Audience awareness; how is the piece written for its audience.
• Logos: Logic; the structure and coherence of the argument itself.
• Audience Specificity: Not exactly the same as pathos. Audience is always important. In Argumentation it is very important. Argumentative writing necessitates writing not just for an audience, but an audience, people, persons, or groups, that can enact the recommended change.
• Opposing viewpoints: Others will recommend different policies, interpret the research or situation differently, or think nothing needs changing. Acknowledging opposing viewpoints and countering them can strengthen arguments.
• Advocating active change: By “active” I mean it should be more than just “people need to know.” Knowing something is being informative. Argumentation entails making recommendations about the action that specific (see “Audience Awareness” above) people need to do. Best case scenario, if the proposal were accepted, there should be observable, measurable changes.

These may still be present in informative writing, but sometimes informative writing just weighs the sides of an issue without taking a stance or proposing a change. Just as the Stasis Model becomes more and more argumentative as it goes from Facts to Policy, informative essays may adopt some aspects of argumentation. There isn't anything wrong with that. The important thing is an argumentative essay does significantly more, regarding audience, opposition, and proposing than an informative piece.

Argumentation: Write for a specific, powerful audience

Once, in a persuasive writing class, I had students write down their intended audience. Then I had them write down their proposals for their essays. Then, I had them put the word “should” between the two:

[Intended Audience] should [Proposal]

It was an eye opening experience as many of my students looked at the sentences they had written and realized the people they were writing for were not in positions to make the changes they were arguing. They quickly realized they needed to either change their proposal to fit their audience or change their audience to fit their proposal.

Picking an audience varies from genre to genre and purpose to purpose. Unfortunately, students frequently default to “parents,” “teachers,” and (this one makes me want to break things) anything that starts with “people who...” The problem with these audiences is it’s difficult, if not impossible, to address them as a whole because there will be so many different groups within the larger body. Writing for them can mean relying on logical fallacies and broad assumptions that reflect your own bias more than your understanding of the demographic you're trying to write to.

On the other hand, a specific audience (one that has a formal name, whether it's an individual or an organizational body) is a far better option.

This leads to the next important aspect of picking your audience: what power or authority do they have? For example, if you think the local high schools should change from a semester to a trimester system. Writing to the teachers would be a bad idea because they're too far down the administrative hierarchy to make the decision. The administrators may value their input, but the teachers won't be making the decision. So, the next step is to go up the hierarchy to the powers-that-be.

The next two options are either the principal or school district personnel. Unfortunately, principals won't be able to make the change themselves, but they are closer to those who make the decisions and are in a valued position to give feedback.

Therefore, if writing to principals, you'll be arguing they should go to the district and convince them – but you'll have to convince the principals first.

Information like research, pedagogy, interviews, and surveys of the student body and faculty will be useful. However, where the principals will be more invested in the teachers and students, and would have to deal with scheduling on a regular basis, the administrators at the district will be more concerned with policy, legislation, and the public reception of the change. Two different audiences, two different sets of interests and capabilities.

Different information, appeals, and research will be needed in each situation; there will be some overlay, but not enough to simply cross off one set of names or titles and replace them with another. Every audience is going to have different concerns, regulations, and authorities, and an argumentative piece or any piece of writing must be written to a specific audience’s interest and ability.