Page 147 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 147
itical Discourse 147
and Argumentation
Profiles
Hans V. Hansen, University of Windsor
Summary
A way in which argumentation workers can be of value to society and have their field
of study and expertise recognized is proposed: it is to make profiles of the argumen-
tation behaviour of political parties during election campaigns. The profiles are to
be made in terms of concepts unique to the study of argumentation: argumentation
schemes and dialectical roles, for example. The argumentation profiles will be of val-
ue to members of the voting public, as well as the political parties. Moreover, under-
taking such empirical research affords an opportunity for argumentation workers to
test the efficiency and adequacy of their concepts.
Key words: argumentation worker, argumentation agent, argumentation profile, dia-
lectical role, dialogical role, dialogical position.
C1. Introduction
an we argumentation workers1 be of any use to society? Yes, we
teach many students to write, analyse and evaluate argumenta-
tion, and this undoubtedly makes them better at dealing with ar-
guments and ideas, and maybe even makes them better citizens. Still,
our contribution overlaps with, and tends to be fused and confused
with, the work done by our colleagues who teach history, civics, eco-
nomics, grammar, politics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology, etc.
There is nothing wrong with that: education is about the integration of
knowledge and harmonizing of skills. But that the original work of the
1 “Argumentation worker” is my term for those who work with arguments and argumentation (qua
arguments and argumentation). Calling ourselves “scholars” or “theorists” may be saying too much;
“analysts” too little.
and Argumentation
Profiles
Hans V. Hansen, University of Windsor
Summary
A way in which argumentation workers can be of value to society and have their field
of study and expertise recognized is proposed: it is to make profiles of the argumen-
tation behaviour of political parties during election campaigns. The profiles are to
be made in terms of concepts unique to the study of argumentation: argumentation
schemes and dialectical roles, for example. The argumentation profiles will be of val-
ue to members of the voting public, as well as the political parties. Moreover, under-
taking such empirical research affords an opportunity for argumentation workers to
test the efficiency and adequacy of their concepts.
Key words: argumentation worker, argumentation agent, argumentation profile, dia-
lectical role, dialogical role, dialogical position.
C1. Introduction
an we argumentation workers1 be of any use to society? Yes, we
teach many students to write, analyse and evaluate argumenta-
tion, and this undoubtedly makes them better at dealing with ar-
guments and ideas, and maybe even makes them better citizens. Still,
our contribution overlaps with, and tends to be fused and confused
with, the work done by our colleagues who teach history, civics, eco-
nomics, grammar, politics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology, etc.
There is nothing wrong with that: education is about the integration of
knowledge and harmonizing of skills. But that the original work of the
1 “Argumentation worker” is my term for those who work with arguments and argumentation (qua
arguments and argumentation). Calling ourselves “scholars” or “theorists” may be saying too much;
“analysts” too little.
