Tagarchief: political domain

Argumentation in the political domain

Theme 2 Argumentation in the political domain

Project 1: Argumentation in European Union political accountability practices

Topic and scope The goal of this research is to provide a characterization of the role and quality of the arguments in EU accountability practices by examining (a) the politicians’ probative obligations, (b) how these probative obligations are expediently demarcated in order to make it easier to give an account, (c) how pragmatic arguments are employed in order to meet probative obligations, and (d) which soundness criteria need to be applied for a proper evaluation of these arguments.
Duration 2014-2017
Research question How do EU politicians involved in account-giving attempt to meet their probative obligations and how can such attempts be evaluated?
Method Qualitative empirical research
Researcher Corina Andone

 

Project 2: Institutional Constraints on Parliamentary Debate (Bart Garssen) 

Topic and scope The main question in this project is how the argumentation in parliamentary debate is shaped by the institutional settings. The research focuses on the choice and application of argument schemes in the macro context of a legislative debate in the European Parliament. What argument schemes are to be expected, how is the argumentation at large constituted, and what kind of critical questions are pertinent in response to the use of particular argument schemes in this activity type?
Duration 2016-2018
Research question What kind of constraints and opportunities for strategic manoeuvring can be distinguished in the macro context of legislative debate in the European Parliament?
Method Empirical (qualitative)
Researcher Bart Garssen

Project 3: Argumentation in support of policy decisions

Topic and scope Policy makers often justify their decisions by pointing to the process of balancing the pros and cons of a number of options. The aim of this research is to demonstrate how argumentation in support of a policy decision can be analyzed in a systematic and justified way by making use of the pragma-dialectical instrumentation of analysis and theoretical insights into the use and reconstruction of decision rules.
Duration 2016-2018
Research question How can argumentation in support of a policy decision be analyzed in a systematic and justified way?
Method Qualitative research, text analysis
Researcher Ingeborg van der Geest