The Minimal Model of Argumentation: Qualitative data analysis for epistemic speech, text and policy

Abstract

Social scientific work on argumentation is yet to address the perennial tension between social cognition and social constructionism. Moreover, argumentation‐based qualitative analysis protocols are needed for interview and textual data. Nonetheless, argumentation models remain too complex to reflect everyday argumentation and are not necessarily reflective of underlying cognitive processes. This presents the need for further theorising social behaviour, with a view to formulating a model of argumentation that (a) is parsimonious, and (b) aligns with the literature on joint projects, due to the fact that in social cognition terms, argumentation is for doing. In this paper, we draw upon interdisciplinary literature on argumentation, noting convergences among different approaches. We then proceed to consider the socio‐cognitive bedding provided by Lay Epistemic Theory, to present our Minimal Model of Argumentation (MMA). In MMA, interlocutors are held to make claims concerning an issue of concern, and defend them using warrants, evidence and qualifiers. We end by providing empirical examples supporting the utility of our model in qualitative research.

Minority arguments on integration: Arabs in the Southern European state of Malta

“…Minimal argumentation analysis (Buhagiar & Sammut, 2023a) was completed using NVIVO12, yielding (a) argumentative themes; (b) claims, warrants, evidence and qualifiers and (c) illustrative quotes. Data were first explored by re-reading the transcribed interviews and note-taking.…”

“…Pseudonyms are used below, and nationalities are omitted to ensure anonymity. Importantly, minimal argumentation interviewing and analysis (Buhagiar & Sammut, 2023a) were developed precisely to understand how people argumentatively justify the lay representations (Diamanti, Iatridis, & Kadianaki, 2023) they live by in daily life. Thus, analysis shed light on participants' views on integration-a project that had since permeated popular discourse.…”

“…To do this, one requires data collection and data analysis procedures that: (a) yield data showing participants' main claims (signifying their preferred joint project); (b) enable insights into the reasons behind participants' main claims and how similar claims can be justified differently via an emphasis on ‘“why” questions’ (Flick, Foster, & Caillaud, 2015, p. 66) and (c) limit post hoc interpretations of participants' arguments by asking interview questions aimed at understanding argument structures. Minimal argumentation interviewing—which asks participants to make their claim/s , provide reasons ( warrants ) and examples ( evidence ) for their argument and contextualise ( qualifiers ) it—and minimal argumentation analysis (which codes these four components in the dataset) fulfil the above criteria (Buhagiar & Sammut, 2023a). These procedures do what others did on media data (Liakopoulos, 2000), but using a minimal model with just four components (Buhagiar & Sammut, 2023a), premised on the idea that while our thought contents do differ, the reasoning process often retains a monist if‐then form (Kruglanski, 1980).…”

“…Minimal argumentation interviewing—which asks participants to make their claim/s , provide reasons ( warrants ) and examples ( evidence ) for their argument and contextualise ( qualifiers ) it—and minimal argumentation analysis (which codes these four components in the dataset) fulfil the above criteria (Buhagiar & Sammut, 2023a). These procedures do what others did on media data (Liakopoulos, 2000), but using a minimal model with just four components (Buhagiar & Sammut, 2023a), premised on the idea that while our thought contents do differ, the reasoning process often retains a monist if‐then form (Kruglanski, 1980). Minimal argumentation interviewing/analysis extends this logic to the argumentative realm: people make claims based on warrants/evidence ( if warrants/evidence, then claim), using qualifiers if relevant (Buhagiar & Sammut, 2023a).…”

“…The summary question allowed the participant to verify the summary provided by the interviewer. The coding frame is included for transcribed data per argument component (seeBuhagiar & Sammut, 2023a). Arab arguments: Themes, positions by valence and claims.…”