STRUCTURING THE ARGUMENT
OF A THEORETICAL PAPER
in social sciences and humanities (SSH)
Richard Parncutt
Centre for Systematic Musicology, Uni Graz, Austria
Thanks to students in Musikologie Graz who contributed to the development of this approach!
Florian Eckl, Johannes Lehner, Manuela Marin, Margit Painsi, Sonja Zechner and others
Critical thinking
clear, careful, complex, constructive, collegial, caring, courageous  credible!

The most important thing taught at university?





Universities themselves need it!



Helps you address any issue in any discipline  “create knowledge”
Allows you apply current knowledge to new or future questions
Helps you become independent and “find your voice”
As important as content (foundations, current literature, methods)
In teaching, research, administration
In evaluation of departments, staff and students at all levels
Democracies need it to function!

E.g. political advertising before election campaigns
Last update:
10 March 2015
Unclear questions, unclear answers
examples from music psychology.
How should we manage this uncertainty?
 evolutionary function of music
 nature of musical talent, emotion
 perceptual status of roots, tonics
 effect of music on intelligence
 trance, ecstasy, peak experiences, flow
 association between music and spirituality
 music, migration, integration, identity
Last update:
10 March 2015
My thesis
All undergraduate students - but especially
in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) -
should learn general principles of critical
thinking, argumentation and theory
development
and apply these principles to research in
their discipline
Last update:
10 March 2015
The construction of “knowledge”
A hermeneutic approach for both humanities and sciences
Process-oriented creativity
no clear beginning or end
 any draft can be improved
 but you have to stop sometime!

Repeated interaction:
theses
top-down
bottom-up
evidence
Last update:
10 March 2015
Argument > “Truth”
What do researchers do?
1.
Search for “truth”? (idealistic)
2.
Try to convince others? (pragmatic)
2 is the only measurable criterion for 1!
 Only 2 has “impact”!

 Research students must learn:

to convince other researchers

if proven wrong, to accept advice

essential for survival in any academic career!
Further reading: Wikipedia “impact factor”, “peer review”
Last update:
10 March 2015
“Argument”
in social sciences and humanities (SSH)
Intuition, introspection, speculation (humanities)




motivation
context (social, cultural, historic, political, moral)
author’s expertise and experience
informal interaction with other researchers
Empirical evidence, modeling (scientific aspect)





systematic observation
transparent design
quantitative or qualitative data
data analysis
interpretation
Last update:
10 March 2015
“Reasoning” is based on argument!
The virtual discussion in your head
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2010). Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Abstract: Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make
better decisions. However, …reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and
poor decisions. … Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative.
It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so
conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on
communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. … Poor performance in
standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When
the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out
to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after
arguments supporting their views. … Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations
and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also
favours decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these
instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what
can be expected of an argumentative device: look for arguments that support a
given conclusion, and favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.
Last update:
10 March 2015
You cannot “prove theories”!
in SSH
Not possible due to the problem of induction!

You can’t reliably generalize from specific observations

You can’t reliably predict the future from the past
Can theories be (completely) disproven?

Popper (1934, Logik der Forschung): falsification

Kuhn (1962, Structure of scientific revolutions): paradigm shift
Solution: Compare arguments for and against

Which side has the most or strongest evidence?
Further reading. Wikipedia “Problem of induction”
Last update:
10 March 2015
What are “good” theories?
in SSH
simple  parsimonious, falsifiable
 general  account for a range of phenomena
 concrete  clearly define terms, processes
 logical
 argue clearly
 empirical  based on observation; ecological
 supported  experts agree; evidence converges
 seminal
 original, inspire new approaches

Ockham
Kuhn
Popper
Gibson
Last update:
10 March 2015
Metacognition about the research process
(not about the object of research)
Metacognition is:
cognition about cognition, thinking about thinking
 makes thinking conscious by describing it
 enhances planning of research process
 quality of thinking and research

Improve your metacognitive skills by:
reflecting on your own research processes
 expanding your vocabulary to describe them
 building structures to organise and analyse them

Last update:
10 March 2015
A formal approach
to creating and presenting a convincing argument

What are the main structural elements?


How are those elements structured?


Names? functions? (cf. any theoretical article)
Is basic structure independent of content?
How can I build an original argument?

Does a standard structure improve the argument?
Last update:
10 March 2015
Why formalize structure?
Why not just be intuitive?

Formal structures can aid learning


Learn to follow guidelines




balance formality and spontaneity
conferences and journals
general style guidelines e.g. APA Publication Manual
grant applications
Strict formalism should be temporary


organisational abilities become intuitive
internalise the main ideas, then move on
Last update:
10 March 2015
“Logical song”
Supertramp
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
oh joyfully, oh playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, oh responsible, practical.
And then they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
oh clinical, oh intellectual, cynical…
 Develop the ability to switch between


formal, analytical
intuitive, emotional
Practice both the formal and the intuitive  balance!
Intuition: let spontaneous thoughts lead you to new insights.
Last update:
10 March 2015
A guideline for structuring an argument
What kind of argument?


Complex qualitative arguments
Theoretical papers
In what disciplines?


academic or political
humanities or social sciences
By whom?


advanced students
alone or in teams
Last update:
10 March 2015
Prerequisities
for using this guideline
To understand and apply this guideline, students need:
Basic academic writing skills

conventions of presentation: headings, citations etc.
Motivation to develop advanced writing skills

quality of argument, clarity of thinking, analytic approach
Background knowledge in relevant disciplines

or the time and motivation to read a lot quickly ;-)
About 20 good, relevant literature sources

or the time and motivation to find and read them
Last update:
10 March 2015
The structure of an argument
Two interconnected patterns of connections

Surface structure (narrative)
temporal presentation
 linear, one-dimensional


Deep structure (logical content)
semantic representation
 hierarchical, multidimensional

Last update:
10 March 2015
SURFACE structure of an argument
Comparable with a literary narrative
Introduction (setup)

holistic, contextualised
general  specific
Main part (conflict)

analytic, detailed
(cf. Wikipedia:
“Narrative
structure”)
Conclusion (resolution)

holistic, contextualised
specific  general
Last update:
10 March 2015
DEEP structure of an argument
=the hierarchical structure of cognition?
Introduction:
Ist subtopic
Conclusion:
1st subthesis
Main question
2nd subtopic
3rd subtopic
Main thesis
2nd subthesis
3rd subthesis
Last update:
10 March 2015
Examples of deep structure
from music performance research
Question
Thesis
Subtopics
What promotes a
child’s musical
development?
people
closest to the
child
 parents
 teachers
 peers
cognitive
factors
 preparation
 trait anxiety
 situation
 learned thought patterns
 self-efficacy
pattern
recognition
 text versus music
 memory
 eye movements
 creativity
What does
performance anxiety
depend on?
What is the
psychological basis of
sight-reading?
Last update:
10 March 2015
Further aspects of deep structure
A one-way circle and a one-way street
Three elements of an argument
that comprise almost the same words
Verb?
Topic
no
Question yes
Thesis
Yes
Question mark?
no
yes
no
Example
• Topic:
The origins of music
• Question: How did music originate?
• Thesis:
Music originated in social interaction
Last update:
10 March 2015
Formulating a thesis
It’s harder than you think
1. Explore


Collect some good publications in a topic area
Find relevant claims in the literature and list them
An example of a
hermeneutic cycle:
2. Believe


Choose a claim that you believe to be true
Your belief will motivate you to investigate it!
3. Convince


Find arguments for and against this claim
Do the arguments convince you? Other people?
https://garyborjesson.wordpress.com
If you/they are not convinced, return to 1 or 2!
Go around the cycle several times until satisfied!
Last update:
10 March 2015
Avoid trivial theses!
The following kinds of thesis can be interesting for quantitative empirical
studies or statistical tests, but they are too trivial for complex qualitative work.
A choice from two possibilities (e.g. yes or no)

Answer contains only 1 bit of information ( one-dimensional)

Cf. Likert scale (many answers) versus 2AFC (yes/no)

Better to ask “how” or “why” ( multidimensional answer)
Example: “X and Y are different”

Only two possibilities: same or different

This is only interesting if we describe how they are different

Cf. two-tailed test - usually only interesting if we report direction
A thesis upon which experts already agree

Not original  not “research”
Last update:
10 March 2015
Formulating subtheses
Not easy, either...they should be:



Relevant: Support main thesis
Diverse: Address different (non-overlapping)
aspects of main topic - as different as possible
Plausible: Are supported by arguments and
evidence that are stronger than counterarguments
and -evidence
 Convergent evidence  convince experts!
Last update:
10 March 2015
Abstract structure: A guideline
Almost the same as the structure of the paper itself


Introductory sentence
Main question, main thesis
(first subtopic:) first subthesis
 (second subtopic:) second subthesis
 (third subtopic:) third subthesis



Main counterargument and rebuttal
Implications if the main thesis is correct
Abstract structure: Example
Introduction. Global warming may be most serious problem ever faced by humans.
Main question. What is its main cause?
Main thesis. Convergent evidence suggests: anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
1st subtopic (temperature data). Apart from well-understood fluctuations, global
mean temperature has risen steadily since humans started burning fossil fuels.
2nd subtopic (influences on global mean temperature). Recent natural influences
on long-term global mean temperature were smaller than human influences.
3rd subtopic (modeling results). Successful models of global temperature
history combine several factors, of which anthropogenic emissions is the biggest.
4th subtopic (magnitude of temperature increase). A model of thermal capacity of
oceans, crust and atmosphere can explain the emissions-temperature relationship.
5th subtopic (role of expertise). Almost all qualified climate scientists agree that
global warming is caused by humans; there is no reason to expect bias.
Counterargument and rebuttal. Many are skeptical about global warming because
they cannot perceive it, but research shows the effects are already serious.
Implications. Urgent and radical political action is required to prevent global
warming exceeding 2°C later this century.
Developing your argument
A guideline
Go to “Structuring the argument of a theoretical paper
in the social sciences” (link). Then either:
1. Fill in the table in the doc file



Click on “Create a tabular argument”
Leave the left column as is, and enter the content
Discuss in class
2. Fill in the pages of the ppt file



Click on “Give a talk”
Leave the headings and enter the content
Present it to the class
In both cases:
Revise content repeatedly (hermeneutic approach)
Last update:
10 March 2015
Tabular argument: Introduction
Concisely formulate each of these points


Example
Main topic
 Definitions
 Academic

Main question
 Context


background
and relevance
Possible theses
Approach
Tabular argument: Each subtopic
Concisely formulate each of these points

Subquestion
 Possible


subtheses
Arguments and evidence
Subthesis
 Counter-arguments
or -evidence; rebuttal
Tabular argument: Conclusion
Concisely formulate each of these points


Main question
Main thesis
 Domain

of validity*
Main arguments and evidence
 Main
counter-evidence ; rebuttal*
 Methodological limitations*



Application to original example
Implications
Suggestions for further research
*These points often overlap
Writing the paper
Turning your argument into narrative text
Use the same structure as the table

Just explain and add detail
Write in an appropriate style


Imitate the style of the main papers in your reference list
Write for an audience of anonymous experts (not your teacher)
Avoid argument-jargon

Don’t talk about “possible theses”, “subquestion”, “main topic”…
Last update:
10 March 2015
Educational context
Pedagogical approaches at different levels
High school
Bachelor: (pro-) seminar
Bachelor: final thesis
Master: seminar
Summarize literature
Defend a thesis
passive
 achieve an overview
 danger: positivism

active
 convince others
 contribute to research

Doctorate
Significant original contribution to knowledge

Not possible without critical thinking!
Might Uni Graz one day recommend to all CuKos to include courses of this
kind in all Bachelor’s and/or Master’s curricula? And less disciplinary content?
Last update:
10 March 2015
Structuring an argument: Summary

Critical thinking can and should be taught!
 Quasi-general
principles
 In all disciplines
 With application to specific issues in the discipline

Effective teaching of argumentation includes
 Stepwise
introduction over ca. 3 years (in curriculum!)
 Clear structure and guidelines
 Flexibility & discussion of approach (metacognition)