TY - CHAP
T1 - Deference, Distrust, and Delegation
T2 - Three Design Hypotheses
AU - Jackson, Sally
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - Design thinking in argumentation involves speculative inquiry into alternative ways of carrying out the broad human project of becoming more reasonable. Design inquiry may or may not be accompanied by efforts at argumentation design. Engaging in intentional design of argumentation, or even just thinking about doing so, flips a perceptual switch that allows us to see many achievements of the past as the products of design and to see unsolved contemporary problems as opportunities for further innovation. Design theory can be a source of “design hypotheses”: ideas, based either on what has worked in the past or on new strands of thinking, about how argumentation could be conducted so as to produce greater overall reasonableness. A design perspective offers new ways to think about familiar problems, such as how best to incorporate expert knowledge into decisions that must be made by non experts. A design approach to the problem of expert opinion does not aim to evaluate particular arguments from expert opinion, but rather asks what resources we have in any situation, or in any homogeneous class of situations, for improving on even the general form of such arguments. A preliminary case study of the controversy over childhood vaccination is used to illustrate the embedding of design hypotheses about argumentation in durable institutional arrangements.
AB - Design thinking in argumentation involves speculative inquiry into alternative ways of carrying out the broad human project of becoming more reasonable. Design inquiry may or may not be accompanied by efforts at argumentation design. Engaging in intentional design of argumentation, or even just thinking about doing so, flips a perceptual switch that allows us to see many achievements of the past as the products of design and to see unsolved contemporary problems as opportunities for further innovation. Design theory can be a source of “design hypotheses”: ideas, based either on what has worked in the past or on new strands of thinking, about how argumentation could be conducted so as to produce greater overall reasonableness. A design perspective offers new ways to think about familiar problems, such as how best to incorporate expert knowledge into decisions that must be made by non experts. A design approach to the problem of expert opinion does not aim to evaluate particular arguments from expert opinion, but rather asks what resources we have in any situation, or in any homogeneous class of situations, for improving on even the general form of such arguments. A preliminary case study of the controversy over childhood vaccination is used to illustrate the embedding of design hypotheses about argumentation in durable institutional arrangements.
KW - Argumentation Theory
KW - Expert Opinion
KW - Expert Testimony
KW - Ordinary Citizen
KW - Tacit Knowledge
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027886228&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027886228&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_17
DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_17
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:85027886228
T3 - Argumentation Library
SP - 227
EP - 243
BT - Argumentation Library
PB - Springer
ER -