Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

In the last post, we discussed the basics of argumentation. In argumentation there is no right to an opinion or a matter of an opinion as these cannot resolve a dispute. Argumentation is reason giving as a justification for a claim made. Reasons are logical and ethically presented. Argumentation has an inherent uncertainty and relies on ascent of the audience.

Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation

Ultimately, argumentation is a means of decision making. There are five key assumptions used when we employ argumentation. Understanding these assumptions is essential to building a strong argument.

Assumption ONE. Argumentation takes place with an audience who are the ultimate judge of success or failure. There is a long history dating back to ancient Greece of orators seeking to debate and influence audiences. The Federalist Papers were written and designed to influence a specific audience. The claims made in these historical debates were not always universal truths but instead subject to acceptance by the audience at hand. The audience’s disposition towards a worldview will affect values, priorities, and methods of judgment. Typically, the audience is composed of those the arguer desires to influence and some may not be directly present or may be silent listeners. Recognizing and/or acknowledging differences in the audience's beliefs does not entail acceptance. Instead, acknowledging the differences indicates recognition of many beliefs in the audience and may result in a greater willingness to listen to what an arguer is presenting.

Commentary: As a project manager, it is not uncommon to make presentations to stakeholders and  principals (your audience) on a project. Dale Carnegie offers wisdom regarding audiences. One of Carnegie’s base principles is to become genuinely interested in other people which leads to several related principles; begin in a friendly way, be a good listener, and  talk in terms of the other person. Finally, respect the other person's opinion.  One must overcome personality obstacles regularly. The use of Dale Carnegie methods goes a long way toward winning your audience over.

Assumption TWO. Argumentation occurs under the conditions of uncertainty. The notion of certainty can be audience dependent. This uncertainty originates from genuine differences in claims made that matter to the audience who wish to see the matter resolved. These differences can be controversial which has multiple dimensions as explicit or implicit, centered on a single or multiple proponents, or relate to one or more claims. The uncertainty requires an inferential leap that the audience must accept.

Commentary: Uncertainty arises not only from a lack of evidence or a break in a line of logic due to missing information but also from different world views. Most world views profess some sort of self-truth and resulting claims as an outcome of those truths that affect people's conduct and judgment. As an project manager arguing a project issue, realizing these difference in the audience and being able to speak to those differences is crucial to winning support. For example, credit and risk is handled differently under various world views. Under one world view interest cannot be charged for risk but under another system that is perfectly accepted and a foundational element for making more than what you were given. This may require an adaptation to not only a project manager's risk planning scheme to accommodate his audience but also to is procurement management during the project as interest is charged based on risk.  These considerations are important in a multi-cultural society and even more important in international projects.

Assumption THREE. Argumentation centers on justification of a claim not proof of an idea or belief. The arguer offers reasons for the audience to make inferential leaps. The audience uses critical judgment. If a reasonable person is convinced then the reasons are accepted indicating the claim is justified. A justified claim entails certain implications:

1. A justification differs from a proof as it is subjective and conditionally dependent on the audience.
2. The audience is willing to be convinced yet skeptical enough not to take unsupported statements.
3. Justification is always provisional and subject to new information or arguments.
4. The strength of an argument varies from merely plausible to highly possible.

Commentary:  Epistemology is the study of knowledge and its limits.  In general, the truth scale ranges from correspondent truths to epistemic truths.  A correspondent truth is fact based and self-evident. i.e. the car is red. Epistemic truths are based on assumptions that have either strong rationale behind the assumption or supporting facts from which an inference is made. Hence, there is a degree of uncertainty in an epistemic truth. As a project manager, especially during a complex project, circumstances are not always clear cut. Project managers need to make judgments based on experience and their knowledge. They develop work-around solutions when road blocks pop up. Often these work-arounds are questioned by stakeholders. Having a strong rationale behind the work-around builds confidence and improves stakeholder relationships. This often requires some due diligence of the stakeholders and developing a good stakeholder register and keeping it current by listening closely to them.

Assumption FOUR: Argumentation is more cooperative than adversarial. The arguers and audiences have the common goal of reaching the best possible answer. The adversarial relationships or roles have a place of improving the rigor, reduce the likelihood that critical details will be omitted, and strengthen confidence in the result. The matters in which the arguers agree include a common frame of reference from which the disagreement is built, a common language and system of meanings, they share procedural assumptions and norms as to what counts as evidence, and they share modesty, respect for the audience, as well as respect for free ascent as the arguers compete for their rationale to be chosen.

Commentary:  Project managers often encounter nay sayers and stakeholders that have an agenda.  They have politically charged questions and seek to derail the project managers rationale or redirect the conversation towards their desired outcomes. Thus, project managers must know their audiences well and make use of 'parking lots' in order to keep the conversation focused. The 'parking lot' is a technique for maintaining control as a comment or question will be put in the 'parking lot' in order to return to it later under controlled dialogue and not offend the member of the audience. Typically, the project manager would remark that is a good point and let us come back to it at the end.  When addressing it later it can be done as part of the presentation or discussion or as a sidebar marginalizing the impact.

Assumption FIVE: Argumentation entails risks. Two principal risks are losing the argument and losing face to the perception of a poor argument or position. The incentive to engage in an argument must outweigh the risk for an individual and indicates a willingness to accept the risk. The arguer assumes the same value of personhood of the adversary as for themselves as sort of a reflection of the Golden Rule.

Commentary:  Argumentation for the project manager is not always voluntary. Responsible for the project outcomes the project manager must be sharp and well attuned to the issues. Challenges come regularly to the project manager sometimes visibly and sometimes behind the scenes as project principles and stakeholders will communicate then challenge the project manager on a point.  This is when Carnegie principles become important in the argumentation process again. first, the project manager must not knee jerk and become defensive or take jabs at the other arguer, the project manager must ensure that the other arguer(s) save face. Smile.  Do not condemn or criticize instead simply state your rationale and state the risks, if any, of the other approach. Be honest in your assessments. If the stakeholder choses an undesirable path, seek to further understand, and look for compromising work-arounds that permit the same outcomes but satisfy the desire for undesirable path. If scope, cost, and schedules are impacted then communicate these concerns to all the stakeholders as some decisions are in the group or with the sponsor. 

Possessing skillful, ethical, and persuasive argumentation talents can aid one in business and personal interactions. Properly structuring an argument can reduce emotional reactions and generate interest towards your claim. In project management, developing traceable rationale behind judgments, decisions, and choices aides in communications with stakeholders and other principals involved in the project.  In the next post, we will discuss formal and informal argumentation.

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.