Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deference, Distrust, and Delegation: Three Design Hypotheses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 28))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aakhus, M., Muresan, & Walcholder, N. (2013). In Mohammed, D., & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–12). 22–26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, D. C., Burgess, M. A., & Leask, J. (2006). The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998–2005: Inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication? Vaccine, 24, 3921–3928. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., & Weinel, M. (2011). Transmuted expertise: How technical non-experts can assess experts and expertise. Argumentation, 25(3), 401–413. doi:10.1007/s10503-011-9217-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hample, J. M. (2012). Analysis of arguments favoring vaccine resistance. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between citizens & scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University (pp. 183–193). Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobson-West, P. (2007). ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: Organized resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29, 198–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2012). Black box arguments and accountability of experts to the public. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between citizens & scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University (pp. 1–18). Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2015). Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29, 243–263. doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7

  • Jackson, S., & Aakhus, M. (2014). Becoming more reflective about the role of design in communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 125–134. doi:10.1080/00909882.2014.882009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, S. (2011). Expert testimony and epistemological free-riding: The MMR controversy. Philosophical Quarterly, 61, 496–517. doi:10.111/j.1467-9213.2010.687.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. H. (2010). Rebelling against lawful authority? The vaccination controversy during the smallpox epidemic at Muncie, Indiana, 1893. Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 14, 74–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt, R. E. (2005). Risk management in post-trust societies. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mizrahi, M. (2013). Why arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. Informal Logic, 33, 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offit, P., & Coffin, S. (2003). Communicating science to the public: The MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine, 22, 1–6. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(03)00532-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, M. (2014). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: From reasonably scrutinizing authorities to rampant scepticism about expertise. Informal Logic, 34, 192–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2012). The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between citizens & scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University (pp. 345-354). Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprain, L., Carcasson, M., & Merolla, A. J. (2014). Utilizing “on tap” experts in deliberative forums: Implications for design. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(2), 150–167. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.859292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strebhardt, K., & Ullrich, A. (2008). Paul Ehrlich’s magic bullet concept: 100 years of progress. Nature Reviews Cancer, 8(6), 473–480. doi:10.1038/nrc2394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. W. (2012). Dismantling expertise: Disproof, retraction, and the persistence of belief. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between citizens & scientists: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University (pp. 393–402). Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., et al. (1998/Retracted 2010). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0 (Retraction published February 2010, The Lancet, 375[9713], p. 445).

  • Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (2002). Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State U. Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge many helpful comments from Scott Jacobs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, USA

    Sally Jackson

Authors
  1. Sally Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally Jackson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Humanities, TAR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Frans H. van Eemeren

  2. Faculty of Humanities, TAR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bart Garssen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jackson, S. (2015). Deference, Distrust, and Delegation: Three Design Hypotheses. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation