Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the rule plus whatever material, procedural, and institutional resources are required to assure its dependability. We present a case study on the Cochrane Review, a new method for synthesizing evidence across large numbers of scientific studies. After reviewing the evolution and current structure of the device, we discuss the distinctive kinds of critical questions that may be raised around Cochrane Reviews, both within the expert field and beyond. Although Toulmin’s theory of field-dependence is often criticized for its relativism, we find that, as a matter of practical fact, field-specific warrants do not enjoy immunity from external critique. On the contrary, they can be opened to evaluation and critique from any interested perspective.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)241-272
Number of pages32
JournalArgumentation
Volume32
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

expert
health
relativism
immunity
invention
Health
evaluation
resources
evidence
Inference Rules
Warrants
Invention
Backing
Resources
Relativism
Immunity
Evaluation
Reviewing
Procedural

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Cochrane Review
  • Expert opinion
  • Field-dependence
  • Health reasoning
  • Toulmin model
  • Warranting device

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health. / Jackson, Sally A; Schneider, Jodi A.

In: Argumentation, Vol. 32, No. 2, 01.06.2018, p. 241-272.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{05b1f519e687437e842acd9131f9b656,
title = "Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health",
abstract = "Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the rule plus whatever material, procedural, and institutional resources are required to assure its dependability. We present a case study on the Cochrane Review, a new method for synthesizing evidence across large numbers of scientific studies. After reviewing the evolution and current structure of the device, we discuss the distinctive kinds of critical questions that may be raised around Cochrane Reviews, both within the expert field and beyond. Although Toulmin’s theory of field-dependence is often criticized for its relativism, we find that, as a matter of practical fact, field-specific warrants do not enjoy immunity from external critique. On the contrary, they can be opened to evaluation and critique from any interested perspective.",
keywords = "Argumentation, Cochrane Review, Expert opinion, Field-dependence, Health reasoning, Toulmin model, Warranting device",
author = "Jackson, {Sally A} and Schneider, {Jodi A}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10503-017-9440-z",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "241--272",
journal = "Argumentation",
issn = "0920-427X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health

AU - Jackson, Sally A

AU - Schneider, Jodi A

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the rule plus whatever material, procedural, and institutional resources are required to assure its dependability. We present a case study on the Cochrane Review, a new method for synthesizing evidence across large numbers of scientific studies. After reviewing the evolution and current structure of the device, we discuss the distinctive kinds of critical questions that may be raised around Cochrane Reviews, both within the expert field and beyond. Although Toulmin’s theory of field-dependence is often criticized for its relativism, we find that, as a matter of practical fact, field-specific warrants do not enjoy immunity from external critique. On the contrary, they can be opened to evaluation and critique from any interested perspective.

AB - Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the rule plus whatever material, procedural, and institutional resources are required to assure its dependability. We present a case study on the Cochrane Review, a new method for synthesizing evidence across large numbers of scientific studies. After reviewing the evolution and current structure of the device, we discuss the distinctive kinds of critical questions that may be raised around Cochrane Reviews, both within the expert field and beyond. Although Toulmin’s theory of field-dependence is often criticized for its relativism, we find that, as a matter of practical fact, field-specific warrants do not enjoy immunity from external critique. On the contrary, they can be opened to evaluation and critique from any interested perspective.

KW - Argumentation

KW - Cochrane Review

KW - Expert opinion

KW - Field-dependence

KW - Health reasoning

KW - Toulmin model

KW - Warranting device

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032019793&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032019793&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10503-017-9440-z

DO - 10.1007/s10503-017-9440-z

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 241

EP - 272

JO - Argumentation

JF - Argumentation

SN - 0920-427X

IS - 2

ER -