Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Argument-Analysis-Contribution-To-In 👈

1. An argument analysis contribution to interpretive policy analysis
Des Gasper -- Institute of Social Studies, The Hague -- gasper@iss.nl
May 2007 – First draft, not for quotation; for conference on Interpretation in Policy
Analysis, University of Amsterdam
1. Introduction
2. Interpretive policy analysis
Yanow on steps and tools in interpretive investigation
Hansen on investigation of identities
3. An open approach to working with texts
4. Argument analysis as an integrative procedure
The Scriven and Toulmin formats
Turning Scriven and Toulmin’s ideas into more user-friendly work formats
Roles of micro-analysis and an argumentation analysis format
5. Conclusion and preview
Appendix, by Rose-Ann Espiritu: The evolving Filipino perceptions of citizenship.
1. Introduction
Problems that I have encountered during a number of years of trying to teach interpretive
perspectives in policy analysis include student readiness in terms of attitudes and of
prerequisite skills; and on the other hand, limitations in terms of what we yet offer them in
terms of accessible and integrated methodology. Some students are uncomfortable with being
asked to intellectually ‘open up’ issues, assumptions, authorities and identities, including their
own. Many are put off by extensive and abstruse discourse theory, especially if of diverse
kinds coming from diverse disciplinary and theoretical backgrounds and with little explicit
interconnection. Others, plus some of the previous groups when further down the track, are
interested to investigate but, on being asked to examine specific issues, discourses and texts,
rush forth with pre-set judgements, or feel a lack of reliable methodology—workable
approaches which have some investigative power, do not already presume major conclusions,
and yet do not require long specialist training in linguistics, logic or hermeneutics.
Interpretive policy analysis needs methods that adequately operationalise its perspectives
while being absorbable and usable by ordinary practitioners and students. A combination only
of abstracted theories, rich case studies, and highly complex methodologies may not make
widespread impact in practice. The paper presents an approach to argument analysis that can
partner some other, more complex, methods and approaches. It outlines the approach, its
rationale and roles; and indicate how it connects to, and helps to connect, various relevant
methods and approaches. The approach fulfils two broad functions, with respect to attitudes
and skills. It inculcates a style of reading, an investigative style, that brings an openness to
discovery, through attention both to details and to macro-structures. And secondly, it provides
a frame for work, that gives space for a range of specific inquiries and methods (such as the
investigation of categories, metaphor and assumptions) and gives a way to help situate and
integrate them.
Policy discourse analysis centrally involves investigation of meanings and how they are
constructed, conveyed and used. It therefore fits naturally into an interpretive approach to
social research. Section 2 outlines corresponding approaches in policy analysis presented by
Dvora Yanow and Lene Hansen. In both these cases, the issues mentioned above can still
arise when students are asked to apply the approach in order to investigate particular cases
and/or texts. First, the prerequisite of attitude: How to investigate with a suitably open,
inquiring, but not empty, mind? Second, the need for skills and frameworks, to tackle

2. 2
specifics, integrate them into an overall interpretation, and demonstrate it effectively to
others.
Sections 3 and 4 outline an approach to text analysis that helps to convey a perspective on
working with texts and to strengthen a range of interconnected skills. It builds on, modifies
and connects the Scriven and Toulmin formats of argument analysis, and operationalises a
number of principles of critical and constructive thinking. The approach has been tried out in
teaching and research for several years, with good results in terms of student learning and
adoption. It gives a basis for entering and navigating within the more demanding waters of
other approaches, such as from within the Critical Discourse Analysis family.
2. Interpretive Policy Analysis
Interpretive policy analysis proceeds from the insight that policy making, policy debates and
struggles involve exercises in meaning-making and cultural construction: attempts to interpret
complex, obscure, conflictual situations and to assert, build and employ meanings (unities,
identities, priorities). ‘In this focus, policies are seen not just as tools for instrumental, goal-
oriented, rational action. Rather this approach brings into view the ways in which public
policies are modes for the expression of human meaning—as for example, when they
constitute narratives of national identity’ (Yanow 2003: 229).
Yanow (2000) has clarified a number of component activities in such a process of interpretive
policy research.
o Identify interpretive communities
o Identify key meaning-laden artifacts
o Identify the embodied systems of meanings, including by use of category analysis, trope and
metaphor analysis, frame analysis
o Compare the systems employed by different communities (compare for scope, consistency, ..)
o Clarify sources of disagreements, criteria for comparison, and, where needed, essay a
comparative judgement (‘value-critical policy analysis’).
Table 1 gives an overview of this linked set of activities and how they are based in a
particular interpretive conception of social research and research process. It further indicates
component sub-activities and/or illustrative studies, often drawn from Yanow and Schwartz-
Shea’s helpful collection (2006).
Let us take a look at a recent acclaimed example of interpretive policy analysis, even if
presented under another name: Lene Hansen’s Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and
the Bosnian War (2006). Hansen attempts to define a workable methodology for applying
post-structuralist insights in research on identity, conflict, and international relations. Post-
structuralist work influenced by “Foucault, Derrida and Kristeva” (Hansen’s three main
sources of inspiration; p. xviii) has often been criticised for lacking a clear and rigorous
research methodology, and sometimes for even claiming that the idea of methodology is a
mistaken ideal (Hansen p. xix, on Derrida). Hansen sensibly argues that methodology is
unavoidable: it concerns the reasoning about how to make the choices that are involved in any
piece of writing or research (p. xix). A methodology of poststructuralist discourse analysis is
both necessary and possible.
We will see that Hansen’s methodology largely overlaps with Yanow’s, albeit presented
under a different label and with much emphasis on its novelty and distinctiveness—one of the
typical obstacles and irritants faced by students. She in effect elaborates a number of aspects
within Yanow’s framework. Like Yanow’s, Hansen’s methodology has the requirements in
terms of prior attitude and complementary skills that we mentioned above.

3. 3
Table 1: Themes and approaches in interpretive policy analysis
(largely derived from Yanow 2000)
THEMES APPROACHES / METHODS ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
Interpretive research investigates
meanings in human behaviour: their
content(s), formation, uses, impacts.
Meanings are contained in artifacts:
language, objects, acts.
It is a humans-specific/humanistic
form of research, that reflects a
constructivist ontology – that the
forms of social existence are
constructed through meaning-making,
by people.
Families of methods:
Hermeneutics – investigation of
meanings in ‘texts’/artifacts; (an
interpretivist epistemology)
Phenomenology – investigation of how
persons perceive, grasp, experience,
interpret, construct their “life worlds”
Lynch on investigation of the
ways in which the interwar peace
movements have been described
Interpretive research process
consists of ongoing cycles of deeper
interpretation, seeking to establish
reliable / persuasive answers for the
components/stages listed in the facing
cell.
- Identify interpretive communities
- Identify key meaning-laden artifacts
- Identify the embodied systems of
meanings ( use category analysis,
metaphor analysis, frame analysis, ..)
- Compare the systems of different
communities (for scope, consistency, ..)
- Clarify sources of disagreements
Schmidt on language policy
Identify interpretive communities Stakeholder analysis. Test by a matrix
comparison of views per issue/aspect.
Exercise: select your own case.
Category analysis
- especially important for examination
of official, and policy, discourses
- Look for inconsistency / ‘category
errors’, at a given time
- Look at the sequence in category lists
- Interpret: ask what is the unstated ‘not-
A’ that defines the perceived unity of
category A? What is the (group) point of
view that drives the categorization?
E.g., also: - Look for changes over time
- Look for differences across space
US government classifications of
population groups (Yanow 2003)
Metaphor analysis
Metaphors (and similes) are almost
ubiquitous. They are generative, not
merely decorative.
Community centres as
supermarkets (Yanow 1996).
Examples in Stillwaggon, Gasper
2000a
Trope analysis (looking at
“language’s ‘body language’”)
Metaphors are only one type of
figurative use of language.
- Synecdoche
- Metonymy
- Irony
Hood 2000: understanding the
rhetoric of indicators
Analysis of the character and
selection of examples/cases used
Gasper, 2000b, ‘Anecdotes, Situations and Histories’
Frame analysis
Schön: one way to investigate
embodied systems of meaning – see
what devices are used for inclusion/
exclusion/prioritisation and
patterning.
Rein and Fischer extend frame-
analysis into frame-evaluation:
‘value-critical policy analysis’
Off-the-shelf/ existing lists of frames
(e.g. Burrell & Morgan)
Matrices (e.g. Douglas’s grid-group
analysis)
Use of Scriven-Gasper-Toulmin-George
framework, for fresh investigation.
Examination of metaphors
Examination of category systems …
[Yanow: Frame analysis is less easy to
use when we lack (authoritative) texts]
[Evaluative comparison and choice /
synthesis / transcendence; e.g. by
comparison of synthesis tables]
Linder; Swaffield; Schmidt
Exercise: how did Linder,
Swaffield and Schmidt come to
their lists of frames?
Exercise: select your own case.
Lakoff
Douglas et al. ‘Cultural Theory’
Choice of methods should depend on
nature of your questions and nature of
the case. Beware becoming slave to a
method, let alone to a particular
version (e.g. a particular list of mental
frames).
Any good research methodology (not
methods) book treats fitting together
topic-case-objectives-questions-methods:
- Booth et al., The Craft of Research
- Yanow & Schwartz-Shea (eds)
- Becker, Tricks of the Trade
See (other) examples in Yanow &
Schwartz-Shea.

4. 4
Hansen on the investigation of identities
The issue of identity/identities is central to politics and international relations, and in much of
social life and social science. Policies work with a particular set of ideas about identities – a
picture characterising the set of actors who are involved in and affected by (or left out by) the
policy. Policies also influence identities; and identities influence policymaking. Research in
this field requires a methodology adequate for investigation of meanings. Identities do not
exist prior to discourse; instead they are created, contested, and recreated through discourse.
“Policies require identities, but identities do not exist as objective accounts of what people
and places ‘really are’, but as continuously restated, negotiated and reshaped subjects and
objects” (Hansen, p.xvi). Hansen proposes that poststructuralism can provide an appropriate
methodology, for it centrally examines how identities are created, used, influenced and have
influence. She substantiates this claim as follows. Table 2 gives an overview, in the same
format as used for Yanow, in order to highlight the complementarity of the two.
Analyse key concepts as parts of systems of contrasted characteristics
Following Derrida (and numerous others, including, as we will see, Scriven), Hansen
proposes that ‘meaning is established not by the essence of a thing itself but through a series
of juxtapositions, where one element is valued over its opposite’ (Hansen, p.19). Thus the
concept of ‘woman’ in 19th
century Europe involved, she posits:
1. linkage together of a series of proposed attributes (emotional, motherly, dependent,
simple, ..); and
2. differentiation from a series of contrasted concepts (rational, intellectual,
independent, complex, ..) which formed ‘woman’’s Other: ‘man’; and
3. valuation of ‘woman’ and her attributes as in general inferior to ‘man’(’s). (p.20)
She applies this theory of meaning-through-contrast to social identities. Identity is relational:
“identity is always given through reference to something it is not. … foreign policy discourse
always articulates a Self and a series of Others” (p.6). An identity is thus always part of a
system of identities: a ‘cast of characters’.
As a second example, the nation state not merely has to be defended against outsiders, its
identity depends on them. The nation state uses a discourse of identity (‘us’, decent people,
within the national boundaries) and difference (‘them’, dangerous and different people,
located within the anarchic and [potentially] violent international space). This focus on the
stereotyped and (supposedly) threatening Other serves to unify the ‘us’ group and divert
attention away from its often weak cohesion.
Discourses as persistent but changeable frames
Identity discourses are thus not only ‘discourse’, extended stretches of text. They are
‘discourses’: “framings of meaning and lenses of interpretation” (p.7); structured patterns of
meanings. They involve and work through ‘material as well as ideational factors’ (p.17).
Material factors are extremely important, but are ‘always discursively mediated’ (p.25): their
meaning and impact depends on how people conceive them and think about them. For
example, the ‘threats’ discussed in security studies are not simple given facts, but depend on
how people see the world.
Since the systems of linkages and differentiations and valuations are ambiguous and flexible
they are always liable to evolve (p.21): a particular link or a particular value-ranking may
become contested and unstable; a new comparison and contrast may be made; and so on.
(…“poststructuralism is not only ‘structure’ but also ‘post’, p.20).
Look for the picture of identities used in a discourse
A discourse’s differentiations of Self and Other are often spatial, sometimes temporal, and
typically also ethical. The relevant Other is often (from) far away, sometimes situated in the
past or future, and ethically included or, more typically, excluded from the sphere of the Self.
‘We’ language, the language of a shared humanity, tends to imply mutual responsibilities;
‘they’ language tends to entail rejection of responsibility to them. The language of ‘the

5. 5
national interest’ is a powerful framework (for trying) to legitimise rejection of direct
responsibilities to others, as well as for downgrading interests of particular individuals within
the nation.
To specify a discourse’s picture of identities, Hansen suggests:
 “…begin by identifying those terms that indicate a clear construction of the Other, such
as ‘evil’, ‘dictator’, [etc.]” (Hansen p.41). This exemplifies a basic method of meaning-
search in policy discourses: to seek out condemnation terms (typically applied to the
opponent) and praise terms (often applied to ‘us’).
 Try to understand terms as part of systems of linked terms (see earlier)
 Build a picture of contrasting Self-Other systems of terms
Post-structuralism claims that we learn much through this from investigation of meanings, but
not that there is one proper way of answering such questions.
Identify the ‘basic discourses’ in a field (pp.51-54)
Next, Hansen advises that we seek to characterise a small set of major discourses present in a
field of debate and practice, as follows:
I. Read widely in the chosen field
II. Construct a picture of a few sharply distinct discourses (‘ideal-types’) that each involves a
particular set of identity constructions (e.g. via spatial, temporal and ethical
differentiations, as mentioned above). Real positions of political actors may involve
mixed and blurred positions rather than use pure versions of these ideal-types.
III. Focus on key issues, and on divergent stances on those key issues.
IV. Draw out the different policy implications of the different discourses.
V. Trace the history of these basic discourses
The task here is the same as in the ‘frame analysis’ that Yanow discusses from the work of
Schőn, Rein and others (Schmidt, Linder, Swaffield), which focuses on authors’ inclusions/
exclusions, the generative metaphors that are used, etc. It is also the same task, though in
refined form, as in ‘orientation’ during reading, seeking to identify and characterise the
intellectual framework used by an author, and it faces the same dangers of reductionism, of
creating oversimplified and overly rigid pictures.
Trace the influence of earlier texts
Texts relate to, rely on, and react against other texts. Sometimes the use of previous texts is
explicit – they are cited. Sometimes it is not explicit – the earlier texts have entered, and
helped to make, the writer’s world in a way that the writer may not be aware of when writing,
or even when later thinking about his/her writing. Often the previous texts are interpreted and
selected from according to the current context of the reader, and parts that do not fit that
current context or perspective are often ignored. Tracing the patterns of citation, non-citation,
use and misuse then becomes a specific and important task, which Hansen discusses with
care.
Design – choosing the scope of the investigation:
Hansen highlights four aspects here: What range of sources?; What range of Selves?
(meaning ‘how many states, nations or other foreign policy subjects one wishes to examine’;
p.75); What time period?; Examination of one event or multiple events? She discusses options
in each of these respects, and their pros and cons. These ‘four dimensions of poststructuralist
research design’ (Hansen p.80) are familiar to any historian or intellectual historian; the
choices faced are not unique to poststructuralist research. Similarly when she asks which
specific sources should be investigated (‘key texts’ and/or general material?; contemporary
and/or preceding (and subsequent)?), the criteria for selection are standard and unsurprising.
When we come to how exactly should the particular selected sources then be investigated
different post-structuralists may part company. Some rely simply on their native and trained
intelligence. Some insist on use of a heavy armoury of tools; but different schools and authors
select differently from within linguistics, philosophy, psychology, literary theory, etc.

6. 6
Table 2: Themes and approaches in the study of politics and policy as the allocation of
identities (derived from Hansen 2006)
THEMES APPROACHES / METHODS ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
[Interpretive research]
Investigation of identities and
conflict looks at a particular zone of
meanings in human interaction
- Investigate key terms as parts of
systems of contrasted categories
- Identify the picture of identities (the ‘set
of parts’) used in a discourse
- Identify the ‘basic discourses’ in a field
- Trace the impact of key earlier texts
Hansen on the Bosnia crisis,
1991-5
[Interpretive research process]
[Identify interpretive communities]
[Category analysis]
Investigate key terms/concepts as
parts of systems of contrasted
categories
1. Find the linked set of characteristics
that constitute the term
2. Observe the contrasts that are used to
give meaning to each of these
characteristics
3. Observe the hierarchical valuations
within these contrasts.
The concept of ‘woman’ in 19th
century Europe
Exercise: specify the systems of
linked terms in The Economist’s
globalization supplement, for 1.
globalization and mainstream
globalizers, and 2. the so-called
‘sceptics’ and their ideas.
[Trope analysis (incl. of metaphors)]
[Analysis of the character and
selection of examples/cases used]
Identify the picture of identities
(the ‘set of parts’/’cast of
characters’) used in a discourse
 “…begin by identifying those terms
that indicate a clear construction of
the Other, such as ‘evil’, ‘dictator’,
[etc.]” (Hansen p.41).
 Try to understand terms as part of
systems of linked terms (see above)
 Build a picture of contrasting Self-
Other systems of terms
Example: the mainstream
discourse of ‘European-ness’ in
presentday Georgia (Ref: E.
Meskhi, 2006 ISS research paper)
[Frame analysis]
Identify the set of basic discourses
in a field
[frame-evaluation: ‘value-critical
policy analysis’]
I. Read widely in the chosen field
II. Construct a picture of a few sharply
distinct discourses (‘ideal-types’)
that each involves a particular set of
identity constructions (e.g. via
spatial, temporal and ethical
differentiations). Real positions of
political actors may involve mixed
and blurred positions.
III. Focus on key issues, and on
divergent stances on those issues.
IV. Draw out the different policy
implications of the different
discourses.
V. Trace the history of these basic
discourses
Hansen proposes two basic
contemporary discourses in
Western governments’ reactions
to the Bosnia war of 1992-5: ‘the
Balkans discourse’ (‘ancient
hatreds’), and ‘the genocide
discourse’ (‘we have to prevent
this’). Plus two earlier discourses
which leave residues: a 19th
century Romantic discourse about
heroic charming (‘unpolluted’ but
martial) Christians (and others)
who struggled for freedom
(against the Ottomans); and a
discourse of the potential spread
of civilisation: struggling Slavs
(et al.) needed help to become
more civilised/developed, but had
the potential to progress.
Trace the influence, use and misuse,
of preceding texts
Study the original text – how it
constructed identities and proposed
action; compare this with the ways in
which the original text has been
interpreted and used by others.
Exercise: Identify and discuss the
sources that have been explicitly
or implicitly used for the
Economist supplement on
globalization – as background, as
support, or as targets.
[Choice of methods]
Research design
1. What range of sources to cover?
2. What range of ‘Selves’ to cover?
3. Cover one event or multiple events?
4. What time period to cover?
Hansen contrasts a number of
foreign policy studies
Overall, Hansen proposes a rich and useful methodology, with some rigidities. It highlights
only one model of meaning(s), that of contrasted ranked sets. It works in terms of ‘basic
discourses’, supposedly as ideal types but with the danger that people will presume these are

7. 7
real descriptions; often the prevalent discourses may be more fluid and diverse. And it
highlights its own distinctiveness and fails to show its great overlaps, and complementarity,
with other approaches in policy discourse analysis. I would like to present a complementary
methodology, that gives a somewhat more open-ended and more integrative way of pursuing
the interpretive policy analysis project outlined by Yanow and others.
3. An open approach to working with texts
The activities which Yanow and Hansen call for require an interest and facility in working
with words and with systems of words, texts. Are this interest and facility automatic?
Unfortunately, no. Even where interest can be presumed, it does not automatically generate
facility. But both can be fostered. I will suggest as one method a type of structured close
reading, based on Michael Scriven’s classic textbook Reasoning.
Macro-textual investigation tries to identify, interpret and evaluate macro-structures (systems
of ideas, of values, and of power) that are reflected in (or lie behind) a whole text or set of
texts, for example a book, a series of newspaper articles, or even a set of books by the same
author or a group of similar authors. Such analysis seeks a ‘big picture’. Micro-textual
investigation tries to identify, interpret and evaluate the meanings in a text or texts, through
detailed micro-study of the exact choices made: of focus, of words and sequence, etc. etc.
Typically, such detailed analysis is done on relatively limited texts or selected passages of a
text, because the work is intricate, complex and time-consuming. Both types of inquiry are
necessary. Micro-analysis which is not informed by macro-thinking can miss or
misunderstand the most important aspects and meanings. Macro-argumentation which is not
backed by careful micro-textual analysis is unreliable and often crude, reductionist,
preconceived and incomplete.
Some discourse analysts consider a close focus on texts to be a dead end: texts are deceptive,
in fact instruments of deception. But texts almost inevitably reveal much more than their
authors wanted. In addition it is important to identify and analyse the inconsistencies between
what people say and what they do. Even when—in fact perhaps especially when—arguments
are a smokescreen for other intentions, they need to be clarified and tested, in order to
understand and improve them, and to choose more intelligently, effectively and
democratically. Hidden assumptions or judgements need to be made explicit, and compared
with alternatives. Evasions of systematic, consistent and acceptable argumentation need to be
identified and made public.
We have thus a number of fundamental reasons for working closely with texts:- language
gives vital clues; we are in danger of missing these clues because of lack of curiosity and tacit
mental ‘scripts’, including both personal scripts and dominant societal scripts; and the
commitments given in texts give one line for seeking accountability in society.
First then, verbal language provides vital clues, in a similar way to ‘body language’. Verbal
language involves so many choices that people tend to reveal more than they intend. Close
reading hunts out verbal language’s ‘body language’ – the things that people seek to hide but
reveal through their word choice, sequencing, omissions, repetitions, euphemisms, emphases
and de-emphases. As with body language, one interprets elements in clusters and in context,
not in isolation, and looks for examples of congruence or dissonance (Pease and Pease, 2004).
Second, close reading makes us less thoughtless and more self-critical in relation to our tacit
mental ‘scripts’. We miss errors when proof-reading our own work, for our minds operate in
terms of familiar patterns and often we see only what we expect to see. Howard Becker warns
likewise that we usually have mental ‘scripts’ too readily available in our minds and use these
to superficially ‘explain’ cases of which we have little or no knowledge. Detailed description
of an observed case ‘helps us get around [this] conventional thinking. A major obstacle to

8. 8
proper description and analysis of social phenomena is that we think we know most of the
answers already’ (Becker 1998: 83). In a similar way, detailed specification of a text, of its
components and the structure of the arguments it contains, is a counter-measure against
prejudgement concerning the content and quality of the argument.
Third, the search for an accurate, thoughtful picture of texts leads us to think independently in
relation to existing power hierarchies and dominant societal ‘scripts’. Becker again warns that
often we do not look in a close, fresh, independent way at a situation, because we have been
assured by the people in power that there is no need to look at many aspects. Close attention
to a text helps us to see the choices involved in making the text; the alternative choices that
could have been made and their possible effects on meanings and conclusions; and the factors
that may have influenced why they were not chosen. It highlights alternatives, and the roles of
fields of influence and power; and thus helps to build the power of alternatives.
Table 3: Preliminary themes in discourse analysis
THEMES (overlapping) METHODS (overlapping) CASES
Text and/in Context
- context of people
- context of previous texts
- context of other contemporary texts
(e.g., those one argues against) …
Emphasis on text or context varies,
according to: - theoretical tradition
- the case one is studying
Ask:
Who is the author?
Who is the intended audience ?
Who is the actual audience?
We need methods to examine both text &
context, & their interrelations.
The significance of plagiarism
The Economist supplement on
globalization
Phillips & Hardy’s survey of
work by themselves and others, to
show such variation
Pragma-dialectical perspective
- who is trying to do what in relation
to whom?
- … (van Eemeren et al.)
E.g.: Classical rhetorical analysis of,
besides logos, also pathos, and especially:
ethos; examining how the author attempts
to profile self, and profile the audience,
and profile others.
Identification of and reflection on the
overall structure of a text.
The potential power of irony
The Economist supplement on
globalization
The Economist supplement
Tacit Communication
- its inevitability
- its power and even primacy
for several reasons (Tannen)
- Interpret elements as clusters, not in
isolation
- Look for congruence or dissonance
- Interpret in context
- Seek unstated assumptions, unstated
conclusions: e.g. by use of SGTG method
(Scriven-Gasper-Toulmin-George)
Body language (Pease & Pease)
Villagization case: overt
confidence, but if genuine
confidence then why say it?
Economist supplement: layout;
sequence, cartoons, visuals; …
Reading as an investigative tool
- different types of reading
- orientation without closing one’s
mind, repeating one’s ‘script’, falling
into reductionism.
- survey reading, etc
- close reading (five ways: de Beer)
- detached reading
Economist supplement
‘Discourses’ as persistent
structures of thought and practice.
Hence a danger of getting stuck in
one’s own frames when asserting
what are other people’s frames.
Analysis to identify which sources were
used.
Frame analysis,
based on systematic stakeholder analysis /
component analysis matrix,
and systematic text/argument analysis
[Exercise on Economist
supplement]
Examination of discourses must be
empirical not by a priori assertion
Close reading
In particular, close reading is the essential balancing factor to thinking in terms of ‘basic
discourses’. As part of reading for initial orientation, as when deciding whether to read a text
in detail, one usually does a quick reconnaissance of the text to get an idea of an author’s
background, standpoint, intellectual framework, intended audience, etc. One looks at the
details on the author and sponsors, the preface and acknowledgements, any summary,
introduction and/or conclusion, and the list of references. While invaluable, this initial
characterization done before detailed study also brings dangers of reductionism and induced
blindness. Preliminary ‘locating the text on the map’ is meant to help us study and interpret it,

9. 9
giving us a set of questions to ask, and not substitute for open-minded and careful
interpretation. It should not declare definite conclusions about the text in advance of
examining its detailed content; nor assume that an author is necessarily limited to only the
ideas that the reader has already seen him or her using or to their typical partners. ‘Package
deal’ pictures of the intellectual alternatives available are like restaurant ‘fixed menus’: ‘if
you have soup then you cannot also have dessert’. They assert that if you use idea A then you
must also hold ideas B through Z, so that we do not even need to check what ideas you in
actuality use. Such pictures assume that only a few intellectual alternatives are available or
worth considering. Often more relevant are ‘pick-and-mix’ (/ ‘à la carte’) pictures of the
available intellectual alternatives; these show many combinations of elements as possible and
tenable.
One danger thus concerns reductionism regarding particular texts: over-simplification of their
meanings, including perhaps ignoring internal plurality and contradictions. A sister danger
contributes to the first and concerns reductionism about schools of thought, underestimating
the depth of thinking behind viewpoints with which one disagrees. People flatter themselves
by underestimating others. Gasper (1996) gives a detailed diagnosis of these forms of
reductionism. To counter the danger of reading a text with a strong feeling of superiority rather
than with respect, Klamer & McCloskey (1989) propose, two principles: the Maxim of
Presumed Seriousness and the Principle of Intellectual Trade. Such principles need
embodiment in working procedures. Close reading and micro-textual analysis are two
important means to reduce these dangers.
Just as Hansen looks for basic discourses in fields of international relations and foreign
policy, so the various types of standard methodology in policy analysis—such as results-chain
analysis or cost-benefit analysis—can each be seen as a distinctive standardized pattern of
argumentation which brings in some things and leaves out others (Gasper 2006). Policy
arguments can be examined not just as exercises in developing conclusions from various
proposed data, assumptions, theories and values, but typically as parts of one or other way of
thinking about the world, each of which tends to use its own images and concepts. To
recognise the mixtures, innovations and evolution of such ways of thinking, that are found in
practice, and also to intelligently select from, combine, or diverge from standard approaches,
requires skills of independent thinking. Section 4 argues that these can be promoted through a
structured form of close reading and argument analysis.
4. Argumentation Analysis as an integrative procedure
The approach I present here consists of:
1. An adaptation of the analysis-and-evaluation procedure presented by the Australian-
American philosopher and theorist of evaluation, Michael Scriven. I convert the
procedure into user-friendly worksheet formats: a text analysis worksheet (‘analysis
table’) which leads on to a worksheet to specify and test argument structure (‘synthesis
table’). For both tables a family of variants exists, for selection according to need.
2. Connection of Scriven’s procedure to the Toulmin format for examining argument
structure (Toulmin 1958), which has been widely used in fields like speech
communication, planning and policy analysis (see e.g. Dunn 1981, 1994, 2004) and
through the best-selling research methodology textbook The Craft of Research (Booth et
al.). The Toulmin format has a ready accessibility, and a focus on the testing of an
argument as both a logical/intellectual and public activity through its categories of
(potential) Rebuttals and Qualifiers to a Claim. While results in the hands of ordinary
users (including academics) have often been unfortunate (Gasper & George 1998 gives
examples), it can be converted into a more flexible, reliable and user-friendly synthesis
table format, which builds from the results of the analysis table.
3. Connection of the worksheet formats to supplementary methods, for examination of
categorisation, value language, figurative language, generation of alternatives, etc.

10. 10
The Scriven and Toulmin formats
Scriven’s Reasoning gives a seven step procedure for examining a text as a pattern of
argumentation.
Argument specification Argument evaluation
1. Clarify meanings (of terms) 5. Criticize inferences and premises
2. Identify conclusions, stated and unstated 6. Consider other relevant arguments
3. Portray structure 7. Overall evaluation
4. Formulate unstated assumptions (Any step can lead back to earlier steps.)
It is worth somewhat elaborating Scriven’s formulation, as follows.
0. Identify components (in a preliminary way)
1. Look at meanings; including by considering language choices and alternative possible
formulations
2. Identify conclusions, including unstated conclusions (focus on the main conclusion[s])
3. Portray structure (components’ connections to each other); several alternative formats are
possible; elaborate this synthesis later, in light of steps 4 and 6
4. Identify unstated assumptions, the connections to ideas and situations outside the text;
(these connections vary from more to less definite)
5. Evaluate premises and inferences (i.e. ‘criticism’ in the more neutral sense)
6. Consider other relevant arguments and counter-arguments
7. Overall judgement on the text.
The points in italics in the list are my additions to Scriven’s approach (Gasper 2000).
Preliminary identification of conclusions (step 2) – including deciding which is the main
conclusion and which are the intermediate or peripheral conclusions – must come before we
attempt a picture of argument structure, the picture of how a conclusion is reached (step 3).
From a picture of structure, the set of linkages which lead to the conclusion, we can then look
in detail at individual linkages and see what are the assumptions on which they rely (step 4).
Toulmin’s model is a way of presenting argument structure (Scriven’s step 3), by identifying
some standard roles/components:- Claims or conclusions; for which specific Grounds, or
data, are provided in support; Warrants – the more general and/or theoretical ideas which are
used to make the logical link from Grounds to Claims; and Qualifiers, which are limitations
on the strength of the Claim, reflecting the presence of counterarguments (possible Rebuttals),
exceptions, and so on. One key role of the Toulmin model is to make us think about the, often
unstated, more general ideas – the warrants – upon which a claim relies. A second key role is
to make us think about possible counter-arguments (rebuttals) and limitations (qualifiers) to
the claim made.
While the Toulmin model has been and continues widely popular, certain weaknesses recur in
use. Distinguishing between grounds and warrants can be problematic. More important, the
model is usually presented in the format of a single flow-chart, which can mislead readers into
oversimplifications when they describe real arguments, and into mis-describing them by always
imitating the exact layout of the illustrative flow-chart in the textbook which they studied. (For
details and examples, see Gasper & George 1998.) Toulmin himself never proposed his flow-
chart format as a working methodology or template. But it became widely used as such, because
it can be understood by non-specialists and can usually help them to do better than without it.
(For example, Booth et al’s The Craft of Research relies heavily on a version of the Toulmin
flow-chart.) If we combine Toulmin’s ideas with the flexible, empirical, Scriven approach, and
with a more helpful presentation format—not a single flow-chart, but a table, with if necessary
different rows for the different steps in an argument—we can benefit from Toulmin’s insights
without being trapped by his original format.

11. 11
Turning Scriven and Toulmin’s ideas into more user-friendly work-formats
To make the ideas of Scriven and Toulmin more helpful in use, we convert them into a pair of
work-formats: the analysis table and the synthesis table. The analysis table (or Scriven-Gasper
format) is for component-by-component examination of a text. In a first column one places and
considers each component of the text. Subsequent columns provide reflections on meanings,
conclusions, assumptions, and possible alternative formulations. The table has a number of
versions; choice between them depends on the priority focus in a particular exercise (see
examples in Gasper 2000, 2002, 2004). For example, we can include a column to consider
alternative wordings of the text; and this often helps in Scriven’s steps 1 (examine meanings),
2 (identify conclusions, including unstated) and 5 (identify unstated assumptions), as well as 6
(consider alternative arguments).
Let us consider a simple worked example. Table 4 analyses the following statement by a
government minister in Zimbabwe.
TEXT: “My Ministry is resolved to phase out [the] haphazard and scatter-based settlement
pattern prevailing throughout the country and establish properly planned villages. The
households and their councillors must accept the concept of centralised villages.” (Deputy
Minister Marere, Zimbabwe, 1987)
Restatement of the text, as in the table’s third column, helps to bring out possible concealed
messages. My rephrased version (especially the italicized variant) is more openly tendentious
and controversial. It brings to the surface aspects half-hidden in the speech: that some people
in power declare that they have such great authority and so much more understanding than
ordinary rural residents, and even than the (district) councillors, that they can instruct the
residents, as an order, to move their residences and settle in new places chosen and designed
by outside experts. Language is used to express and reinforce this claim to authority, to
superior knowledge, and to power.
One could also rephrase the text so as to make it more polite and less authoritarian, as one
student did: “My Ministry is committed to develop the villages in such a manner that
everything is in place so as to be convenient for the villagers. With the cooperation of
villagers and the elected local representatives such development will become a reality.”
In both cases the rephrasing helps to make clear the choices and meanings in the original text,
but by different routes. In my version it does this by using less polite, more direct, language:
intensifying and slightly crudening the message. The more polite version provides a contrast
and gives a quite different overall message, ‘just’ by changing the tone through some key
changes of emphasis.
Many additional insights, hypotheses, or issues were raised by students when examining the
text through the analysis table format.
 Use of ‘My Ministry’ not ‘the/your/our Ministry’ conveys a paternalist authoritarian tone;
 ‘resolved’ suggests that the Ministry is resolute and will press ahead even if it faces
resistance and costs; ‘resolved’ is an impressive and emphatic way of saying ‘decided’,
and perhaps suggests a right to make the decision, so may give a favourable slant in
support of the message that government has decided in favour of villagization.
 ‘phase out’ reflects the massive ambition of the policy: it is too big to be done
everywhere at once; the term also suggests a measured, scientific approach, smooth and
under control; and, compared to saying ‘replace’, it suggests replacement of something
obsolete, which will never return.
 ‘Establish’ is more imposing and permanent- and solid-sounding than ‘start’ or ‘set up’. It
conveys a quasi-urban image of future village life, perhaps with completely new
settlements not upgraded existing ones.

12. 12
Table 4: Illustration of use of an analysis table
THE TEXT
(Scriven’s step 0:
break the text into
components)
COMMENTS ON THE CHOICES
OF WORDS AND THE
RESULTING MEANINGS
(Step 1: clarify meanings)
THE TEXT REPHRASED
(in two variants) TO SHOW
HOW THE CHOICES
AFFECT THE MESSAGE
(Step 1, meanings, & step 6:
consider alternative views)
IDENTIFICATION
OF CONCLUSIONS
AND
ASSUMPTIONS
(Steps 2 and 4)
“My Ministry
is resolved
to phase out
[the] haphazard
and scatter-based
settlement pattern
prevailing
throughout the
country
and establish
properly planned
villages.
The households
and their
councillors must
accept the concept
of centralised
villages.”
A natural phrase; but it gives an
impression of great authority to the
speaker, almost as if he owns the
Ministry, and as if it is a monolith, a
unified single actor. The phrase is
more potent than ‘I’ or ‘I, as
Minister’.
This is stronger than ‘proposes’ or
‘would like’, and even than ‘has
resolved’, which just records a
decision; here ‘is resolved’ suggests a
fixed determination and leaves little
or no space for discussion.
As if the Ministry is dealing with
something under its close control and
authority; like when a bus company
phases out a bus route: a precisely
calculated, timetabled, action
concerning one of its own activities.
‘haphazard’ (and perhaps ‘scatter-
based’) suggests carelessness - lack
of thought and co-ordination; and that
a more urban-style layout is required.
Villages are to be established by the
Ministry, not by villagers.
‘Planned’ and ‘properly’ convey
praise; ‘properly planned’ implies
that existing settlements are not
properly planned, and that the
Ministry knows better than the
residents and so has to instruct them.
‘must accept’ suggests there may be
penalties if they do not. Not all rural
people, including councillors, agree
with the Minister; for if they did then
this sentence would be unnecessary.
‘Properly planned’ has become
specified as: ‘centralised’.
We in the Ministry of Lands
insist
/ have made up our minds
that rural households should
leave
/ to terminate
the dispersed and locally
chosen rural settlement
patterns
and move to centralized
villages set up and planned by
my Ministry.
This will be done regardless
of what local people think.
The Ministry knows best.
Households and councillors
must accept what we say (or
face the consequences).
Stated Conclusion:
We are determined to
replace the present
rural settlement pattern
Unstated Conclusion:
the present rural
settlement pattern
should be phased out
Stated Assumption:
the present settlement
pattern is unplanned
and unacceptable by
standards of proper
planning
Unstated Conclusion:
We will go ahead even
if local people do not
agree.
Unstated Assumption:
Proper planning means
centralised villages
 For the term ‘properly’ to do its praise-work here, the verb it qualifies/describes
(‘planning’) must also be one considered as favourable or potentially favourable (i.e.
when ‘properly’ done).
 For a term like ‘planned’ or ‘unplanned’ we should ask ‘(un)planned by whom?’.
 The term ‘households’ suggests that people here are conceived first as residents of
houses, rather than as people/citizens/producers/migrants/…; so that where they live has
to be planned on the basis of efficient provision of services for these houses, rather than
in terms of their traditions, culture or work.

13. 13
 ‘must accept’ suggests that people have not been asked or have not given clear
agreement, which establishes a tension with the technocratic confidence of ‘phase out’;
the phrase ‘should come to see’ would be less authoritative/authoritarian.
 ‘centralized’ is often a term of criticism; but here, for the Minister and his advisers, it is
not, instead ‘properly planned’ has been equated to ‘centralized’, with a connotation of a
permanent settlement with modern facilities.
 ‘The households and their councillors’: why not say ‘villagers and councillors’? The
phrase ‘their councillors’ serves to downgrade the opinions of the councillors, by
designating them as chosen by (presumably poorly-educated and ‘haphazard’) villagers
who are unable to plan properly - rather than as elected representatives with their own
independent legitimacy as political leaders.
 The text uses no metaphors. The language is forceful and strongly disciplinary.
 No reference to punishments is included: perhaps it is not needed if households and
councillors tolerated being spoken to like this, and accepted that the government knows
far better than they do. Unlike for some behaviour, location of rural residence is difficult
to hide; effective surveillance is possible. But while the phrase ‘must accept’ (phasing out
of ‘haphazard settlements’) is so peremptory that it suggests a very dominant government,
an instruction in such a tone would probably not be necessary if acceptance were
guaranteed and resistance inconceivable. In contrast to the technocratic confidence of
‘phase out’ and ‘properly plan’ it implied that many people did not agree with the policy.
The authoritarian style of the speech could be precisely an attempt to override opposition.
In reality Zimbabwe’s authoritarian government still ultimately held back from
compulsory villagization.
The synthesis table or logic table (or Toulmin-George format) presents the structure of an
argument or argument system. This corresponds to Scriven’s step 3, modifiable by the later
steps. It is RV George’s modification of Toulmin’s format, and starts (for a Western reader)
with the claimed conclusion, on the left hand side.
Table 5: Toulmin-George synthesis table
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
Claim, Because of this
Data
and this
Warrant;
Unless those conditions &/or Despite those
counter-points
A synthesis table encourages one to look for logical links, including looking for warrants, e.g.
the normative warrants that are required for normative conclusions. It can help us to find and
show any ambiguities and tensions in a text. Column 4, the ‘Unless’ column, matches Scriven's
step 6 (‘Consider other relevant arguments’). In my usage it covers both (a) recognized
limitations and qualifications of the argument, e.g. indication of situations in which the Claim
does not hold good -- these link to Toulmin’s ‘qualifier’ category; and (b) counter-arguments
which more strongly dispute the argument’s validity (these match Toulmin’s ‘rebuttal’
category). Sometimes a text holds that its argument is still valid despite a recognized possible
counter-argument; so, if and when useful, one could add a separate ‘Despite’ column.
If we try to represent the illustration text as an explicit argument, Table 6 gives one plausible
version. The first claim is supported by the data and warrants 1 and 2. However it is potentially
vulnerable to attacks on (a) the data and warrants, and also still to attacks on (b) the inference.
Thus rebuttals 1, 2 and 5 all propose that the claim may not be sufficiently supported by the data
and warrants, even if those are valid. They all concern additional factors not covered by the
text’s argument.

14. 14
Table 6: Illustration of use of a synthesis table
I PROPOSE THAT
[CLAIM],
GIVEN THAT
[DATA]
AND THE
[WARRANTS]
PRINCIPLES THAT,
UNLESS [REBUTTAL]
(for example)
The existing pattern of
settlements must be
phased out and
replaced by centralized
villages
[SC: We are
determined to replace
the present rural
settlement pattern…]
SA: the present
settlement pattern is
unplanned and
unacceptable by
standards of proper
planning
1. UA: Proper planning
means centralised
villages, centrally planned
and suitable for providing
modern services.
2. UA: People must live
in a modern manner.
1. There are production-
related reasons too for the
current village locations
2. [There are other values:]
People care strongly about
their traditions.
UC: We will go ahead
even if local people do
not agree, and will be
right to do so.
3. UA: Central
government knows best
4. UA: Central
government has the
authority and right
3. Central government does
not know best; [e.g. see
rebuttal #1 above]
4. And does not have the
right.
5. Attempts to enforce
centralization will produce
severe problems.
As with the analysis table, alternative formats are possible for the synthesis table. The version
in Table 7 makes clear what each counterargument objects to. Some counterarguments object
to particular proposed data/grounds; some object to particular proposed warrants; and some
object to the conclusion because of a consideration that is not related to the data or warrants.
Table 7: An alternative format for the synthesis table
This column contains the central elements of an
argument
This column shows possible counterarguments, in
relation to the data provided, or to the warrants;
or counterarguments of other types
[CLAIM: ] I PROPOSE THAT …. (But not if:)
 …
 …
GIVEN THAT [DATA]
1….
[2. …
3. …. ]
 …
 …
 …
AND GIVEN THE RULE(S)/PRINCIPLE(S)
[WARRANT(S)] THAT
1. ….
[2. ….. ]
 …
 …
This alternative format is a substitute for any one row in the type of multi-column synthesis
table that we normally use, as in Table 6. Against its advantage of making exactly clear what
parts of an argument are opposed by possible rebuttals, it has the disadvantage that we lose the
normal table’s ability to present together the pattern of a whole set of arguments (as a set of
rows) that together form a position, in which the various conclusions form steps on the road
towards a main conclusion.

15. 15
Roles of micro-analysis and an argumentation analysis format
Firstly, detailed and systematic investigation typically reveals much more than one finds by
ordinary reading. Scriven’s and Toulmin’s methods contain elements, which – by extending
the principles seen in ‘close reading’ and ‘far reading’ (skimming or reading for orientation) –
help us to see differently and more than by routine reading only. Analysis formats and
formalised language make one go slowly and systematically, and allow one to combine (i)
keeping a mental distance from a text, so that one gets beyond one’s preconceptions and
becomes more likely to find the unexpected, and (ii) getting close to a text, not ignoring parts
of it, and considering its subtler connotations and resonances. This combination of mental
distance and close involvement is extremely important and productive.
Such an approach is not only focused on ‘logic’. But its attention to logic gives it a way of
thinking structurally and systematically. The Scriven method looks centrally at meanings, in
context, and it thus also covers many aspects which are not written. When it then looks at how
conclusions/messages are conveyed, it asks how far this is done logically or illogically. It is
an effective method for bringing out possible ambiguities, tensions, inconsistencies and
multiple messages in a text, and for thinking more clearly about possible debates and
disagreements within society.
There are certainly dangers of over-interpretation, and serious needs for nuance, qualification,
and proper representation of the ambiguities and tensions in a text. Appropriate nuance and
qualification can be provided in many ways. We can explicitly distinguish between definite
implications and assumptions and, on the other hand, possibles, suggestions and hints.
Scriven highlights the danger of creating ‘straw-men’: excessively weak versions of argument
that are too easy to criticize. He advocates use of the principle of charity in interpretation, as
both tactically wiser and intellectually more productive. A weak representation of an
argument is much easier to deny—‘But of course we did not mean that’—even if it were
accurate originally; whereas formulating and assessing a strong version of an argument
identifies a position’s potential, which is also where it is likely to evolve under pressure of
debate.
Secondly, the extension and integration of the Scriven and Toulmin formats presented above
(a Scriven-Gasper-Toulmin-George approach; SGTG) operationalises a number of principles
of constructive thinking. All six of Edward de Bono’s popular ‘Thinking Hats’ have a
presence. In broad terms, the approach distinguishes key activities and provides separate
guaranteed space for each of them (one of the roles of de Bono’s ‘Blue Hat’). Attention to
each activity is then assured and also becomes more fruitful, for each involves different skills
and benefits from the more exclusive attention. Specifically, our approach separates argument
specification (cf. Black Hat) and argument evaluation (cf. Yellow, Black, and Green Hats), as
in the Scriven procedure; it provides separate space for generation of alternatives (Green Hat);
and provides space to explore feelings and intuitions about a text (Red Hat), allowing them to
be stated, while only later and separately turning to analyse them.
Thirdly, our sort of approach provides a framework and some tools with which to carry out and
connect many of the discourse analysis tasks which are identified by authors like Hansen and
Yanow. For example, the procedure of trying out alternative formulations of a text, to see by
contrast the exact significance of the formulation actually adopted, applies what Scriven calls
‘the contrast theory of meaning’: that we develop our understanding about what something
means by considering the contrasts with what it is not. Or as put by Hansen, language is “an
inherently unstable system of signs that generate meaning through a simultaneous
construction of identity and difference” (p.17). Table 8 summarises how a number of basic
themes in discourse analysis are attended to through our approach. They are not only attended
to, they are linked as parts of the stages-model for analysing texts as arguments.

16. 16
Table 8: Basic themes in discourse analysis
THEMES METHODS CASES
Reading analytically not
discursively [i.e.: identifying
components and functions, not (only)
immersing oneself in a unified story]
- looking for meanings, and silences
Scriven method; early parts  Analysis
table. To enforce thorough, fresh
attention, and provide a space & basis for
many other types of analysis (e.g. those
covered by Yanow).
Look for key messages:
- maybe in key sections: introdn., concln,
abstract, title, headings,…
- check praise/criticism/blame language
- look for metaphors
In Gasper 2000 and villagization
cases.
Economist supplement
The contrast theory of meaning Compare with meaning of alternative
formulations; even in a separate column
Relational concepts.
In Gasper 2000 and villagization
cases
Understanding terms as imperfect
social constructions
- Vector analysis
- Etymological analysis
Gasper 1997 on decentralisation
‘Sceptics’/’Critics’
Essentialism: oversimplification of
categories; endowment of categories
with inherent performative features,
or even inherent (un)desirability
Look for use of prioritising/simplifying
adjectives like ‘real’, ‘true’, ‘essential’,
‘inherent’,‘proper’, .. and interpret them
Cases in Gasper 1996
Investigation of logic (and illogic) as
a method of examining relationships,
and so of further examining
meanings, identifying gaps, puzzles,
etc.
Toulmin format;  synthesis table.
To enforce thorough, fresh attention.
 check for unstated conclusions &
unstated assumptions
Look for tensions within a text.
In Gasper 2000 and villagization
cases.
The contrast theory of acceptability Compare with counter-arguments.
Use Rebuttals column, to force attention
Fourthly, the approach provides a workable entry point to more complex treatments. My
colleague Jan Kees van Donge presents an approach to discourse analysis which, like
Hansen’s, combines ideas of (macro-)‘discourses’ (‘underlying worldviews’) with an interest
in examination of individual texts. For not only do macro-discourses have diverse potentials,
people do not adopt only one, and they continue innovating and improvising. To actually
apply the sort of approach outlined by van Donge (Table 9) will benefit from, indeed require,
skills that can be built up by using Scriven’s method.
Table 9: How more complex discourse analysis builds on simpler foundations
Van Donge’s approach Links to Scriven’s method
1. Examine a key concept, in societal context. [Scriven step 1: clarify meanings]
2. Compare it with related words. Same. [Consider alternative possible wordings.]
3. See when the concept was introduced;
understand it in historical context.
Same.
4. Examine the underlying world-view. [Scriven step 2: formulate unstated assumptions]
5. Compare it with alternative world-views. [Scriven step 6: consider other relevant arguments]

17. 17
5. Conclusion and preview
More needs to be said, to elaborate the approach presented in Section 4. Some other papers
(Gasper 2000, 2002 and 2004) go further in explication and illustration. Scriven’s Reasoning
is still perhaps the best source for detailed discussions of certain aspects. In relation to how
one can use a micro-analysis approach when tackling larger texts, and as a central part of a
multi-method study of identity discourse, the appendix to this paper presents the summary of
a Master’s student’s research paper on the recent debates on revising the electoral and
citizenship laws of the Philippines. It includes also one of her representations of key
documents, as an example of a synthesis table done for an extended text.
The annex supports the following points that have been central in this paper:
o An SGTG framework provides a systematic entrée to policy discourse analysis that is
accessible for students without prior specialisation in philosophy, linguistics or logic.
While widely accessible, it offers significant gains in understanding, even in simpler
versions.
o It gives a purposeful structured family of activities that allows students to see roles
for and connections between many component activities in interpretive policy
analysis, such as category analysis, metaphor analysis and frame analysis.
o It provides a space for concentrated, successive attention to diverse aspects of a text,
which can otherwise be muddled, rushed or elided.
o It helps to build skills required for successful engagement with texts and with more
complex methods: notably the skill of combining an alert, observant, absorbed micro-
analysis with a more distanced and comparative macro-perspective. Skills for more
incisive reading contribute also to more effective communication.
o It provides a good entry point to, and partner for, various more complex approaches.
‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (CDA) is one such more ambitious stream in current analysis of
discourses employed in the public arena. It is unified by its intentions more than by use of a
single agreed method (Wodak 2001). The intentions include: (a) to examine social relations
through the lens of language use, and see how the two mutually condition each other; (b) to
study language use methodically and in thorough detail, going beyond the level of general
claims about how discourses structure and steer behaviours; paying close attention to such
theorising but seeking to compare and test claims; (c) to ‘star[t] from prevailing social
problems, and thereby [choose] the perspective of those who suffer most, and critically
analyse those in power, those who are responsible, and those who have the means and the
opportunity to solve such problems’ (van Dijk, cited in Wodak & Meyer, eds., 2001, p.1); and
(d) to be self-critical, including by being explicit about the methods and methodology used.
The combination of objectives makes it appealing to many students.
Yet even to understand the distinctiveness and relationships between different currents in the
CDA stream requires considerable care. Table 10 compares self-descriptions of their
methodologies by three prominent exponents of CDA. Van Dijk’s lucid, tidy presentation
centres on the sort of micro-analysis of selected key texts, and of context- and/or person-
specific mental models, that we have touched on in Section 4. This type of analysis still faces
criticisms from some commentators as being too narrow. In contrast, Fairclough, perhaps the
best known author in the field, presents the most ambitious, demanding, and least elaborated
of the three descriptions. He seeks to examine how major social change is implemented
linguistically. Relative to some other authors he gives more attention to macro-social theory
and posited large-scale and extremely persistent standard discourses, more than on building
up from micro-level analyses. He is then more exposed to criticisms of pre-judgement. The
third leader of CDA, Wodak, appears to link effectively between the contrasting stances of
Fairclough and van Dijk.

18. 18
To engage effectively in this ambitious, complex endeavour of critical discourse analysis,
including with the requisite capacity for self-criticism, requires considerable skills. Students
who essay the CDA path can easily become lost. The extended Scriven approach then gives a
valuable prelude and partner to such attempts.
The extended Scriven approach can perhaps fulfil in addition other desirable roles for an
argument analysis method for interpretive policy analysis:
o It provides an arena for public sharing, testing and evolution of views.
o It helps in surfacing values and other important presumptions.
o It contributes to constructing coherent alternatives and not only to critique.
Maintaining a similar agenda to the CDA movement, it is more immediately accessible and
perhaps more connected to creative counter-argumentation not only critique. Imitating
Critical Discourse Analysis’s self-capitalisation, we might then speak of Critical Creative
Argument Analysis.

19. 19
Table 10: Three leading versions of Critical Discourse Analysis (from Wodak & Meyer eds.)
VAN DIJK (2001: 111 ff.) WODAK (p.93) FAIRCLOUGH (p.125)
For investigating a key text For investigating a key text Investigating an entire social
problem
1. Focus upon a social problem
which has a semiotic aspect
1. Sample information about
[content] and context (incl.
historical) of the text, to
estimate its genre and discourse
2c.i – Structural analysis of the
discourse [We use Fairclough’s
own enumeration of points.]
2. Sample more ethnographic
information in this genre and
discourse, and examine
intertextuality &
interdiscursivity
2c.iii – interdiscursive analysis
3. Formulate precise research
questions, including through
exploration of relevant theory
4. Operationalize the research
questions into linguistic
categories
1. Identify central (‘global’)
meanings in the text
5. Apply these linguistic
categories sequentially onto the
text while using theoretical
approaches to interpret the
meanings resulting: using (p.73)
- category analysis
- analysis of labelling
- argumentation analysis
- frame analysis
- study of modulation strategies
2c.iv – linguistic and semiotic
analysis [of selected text(s)]
2. Examine detailed ‘local’
meanings throughout the text
3. Examine unconscious style
choices
4. Examine local and global
contexts and how people
mentally model them (their
‘context models’)
6. Draw up the context diagram
(including historical context) for
the specific text and the fields of
actions
2. Identify obstacles to the
social problem being tackled:
2a – examine the network of
practices in which it is located
5. Examine how people
mentally model the specific
events/situations (‘event
models’)
7. Make an extensive
interpretation while returning to
the research questions and the
problem under investigation.
3. Consider whether the social
order ‘needs’ the problem
4. Identify possible ways past
the obstacles
5. Reflect critically on the
analysis
Bottom-up strategy. Focus on
key texts, that need no special
justification in selection; so no
need for stress on sampling
Focus on key texts. Within a
balanced overall methodology.
Less belief than Fairclough in
stable mega-Discourses.
Starts with big Discourses,
rather than building up from the
micro-level. More open then to
criticisms of pre-judgement.
Special interest in individual
cognition.
These features may fit his main
work -- on racism.
Special interest in historically
locating and interpreting key
texts
Special interest in (large-scale)
social theory and in examining
how major social change is
implemented linguistically.
All can be complemented by standard research methodology criteria for testing interpretations.

20. 20
APPENDIX, from Rose-Ann Espiritu: The evolving Filipino perceptions of citizenship
Institute of Social Studies M.A. Research Paper (2004)
1. From Ch. 5 (Conclusions)
2. Illustrative investigation of an important political speech: (a) the speech, (b) synthesis table
From Ch. 5:
Widespread international migration among Filipinos – with migrants now equal to
10% of the population in the Philippines – has led to two new claims concerning
citizenship: for overseas absentee voting and for dual citizenship. The demands for
these policy changes generated a major debate in the past few years.
The main objective of this research was to explore the evolving perceptions of
citizenship that has emerged in light of migration among Filipinos. These
perceptions are explored as they developed in the policy discourse on overseas
absentee voting and dual citizenship…. Its questions were: What are the policy
arguments of Filipinos overseas and Philippine political leaders on absentee voting
and dual citizenship? How do they perceive citizenship in their arguments?
To answer these, the policy discourse on overseas absentee voting and dual
citizenship was analyzed as chains of arguments traced back to the essentially
contested concept of citizenship. A survey of conceptions of citizenship in general
and theoretical literature was done. These conceptions were analysed using the
framework of ‘essentially contested concepts’ by Connolly (1993) to understand how
and why these different conceptions of citizenship surfaced…
In choosing the cases to be studied, a survey of Philippine literature on
absentee voting and dual citizenship was conducted. This included advocacy
websites, speeches and articles. Individual interviews and discussions with some
Filipinos in the Netherlands were conducted for this purpose. They are asked about
their views on absentee voting or dual citizenship. Open-ended questions are used,
with occasional probes or follow-up questions whenever needed, to keep the
discussion conversational and to allow the interviewees’ perception of citizenship to
surface (Wood and Kroger 2000:72-74).
Among these literature and interviews, six texts were chosen based on their
relevance to the discourse and to this research.
The structural approach to argument analysis (Gasper 2003; 2004b) was used
to analyse the arguments of chosen texts and the perception of citizens in it. This
approach is composed of two parts: investigating meanings and specifying structure
and logic. Through an analysis table, investigating meanings is done by examining
each sentence of the text, commenting on meanings of key words and phrases in it
and identifying the conclusions and assumptions. The second part, specifying the
structure and logic of the text, is done using the synthesis table. Based on the analysis
table, the central and supporting arguments of the text are specified and structured
in the form of claims, data, warrants, and rebuttals.
This research traces the chains of arguments in the absentee voting and dual
citizenship policies from where it begins: the concept of citizenship…. ‘Citizenship’
originally referred to the legal status conferred to certain members of a city-state.1
Not all members of a city-state were citizens. Citizens had exclusive rights and duties
1
[From Ch.3.1] ‘Citizenship’ originally referred to the legal status conferred to certain members of a
city-state. “The word ‘citizen’ derives from the Latin civis or civitas, meaning a member of an ancient
city-state, preeminently the Roman republic; but civitas was a Latin rendering of the Greek term
polites, a member of a Greek polis” (Smith 2002:106).

21. 21
that make them full members of the community (Dagger 2002: 149). They were the
only ones entitled and expected to take part in the government of the community (Ibid;
author’s emphasis).
The concept of ‘citizenship’ eventually developed as a basic foundation of the
emergence of powerful nation-states (Isin and Turner 2002:5). It is within this context
that different dimensions of citizenship rights and duties were formed. Early theories
view citizenship primarily as a legal status conferred by the state, with equal rights
and duties. Contemporary theories view citizenship as a status and as an active
practice.
Why are there different interpretations of ‘citizenship’? Why is it evolving?
Using the framework of ‘essentially contested concept’ by Connolly (1993), there are
four reasons why:
First, ‘citizenship’ is internally complex in that the criteria associated with it
are weighed differently by opposing parties. Early thoughts on citizenship recognize
the political rights of citizens but they emphasize different bearers and aspects of
these rights. Even now that most states have a shared recognition of political rights,
civil rights and social rights, the combination and depth of such rights vary from one
state to another.
Second, each criterion for ‘citizenship’ refers further to other contested
concepts, leading to its cluster complexity. For instance, Although both
communitarians and republicans recognize ‘community belonging’ as a criterion of
‘citizenship,’ the former interpret it as citizens’ source of identity while the latter
interpret it as citizens’ commitment to common affairs. Hence, the republicans’
concept of ‘citizenship’ has an added notion of duties. But then, “why do differences
in interpretation of a key concept so often become disputes over its proper meaning?”
(Connolly 1993: 20; author’s emphasis). In other words, why is a given concept
‘essentially contested’? The third and fourth reasons answer this.
Third, it is partly because differences in interpretation reflect differences in
theoretical perspective. “Citizenship is historically and etymologically connected to
the city and then to the state…but the historical connection has always been made
from the perspective of not the excluded (strangers, outsiders, aliens) but the
included (citizens)” (Isin and Turner: 5). Based on this perspective, traditional
theories associate ‘citizenship’ with liberties, rights and belonging. But what about
the women, slaves and resident aliens and outsiders who were not considered
citizens by the city-state? What about those who are not considered citizens by
nation-states? What are their liberties and rights? Where do they belong?
Fourth, conceptual dispute arise also partly because often a given concept
characterizes an event or practice from a moral point of view. The criteria of a given
concept not only describe an event or practice, they also sanction shared moral
judgments or commitments regarding that event or practice. The ideal of citizenship
is invoked by people who claim for recognition and inclusion. Isin and Turner (2002)
point that new economic, social and cultural conditions have provided space to
articulate new claims to recognition and redistribution as claims to citizenship.
International migration of Filipinos created new claims concerning
citizenship: for overseas absentee voting and dual citizenship. The policy arguments
of the Filipinos overseas and Philippine political leaders are presented in the
synthesis tables in Chapter Four. Analysis of the policy arguments of some Filipinos
overseas and Philippine political leaders reveals that underlying these claims are
varied and also new perceptions of citizenship.
Citizenship is perceived [in these groups] as one or more of the following:

22. 22
 a national status that entitles individuals to a specific set of
rights granted by the state
 the activity of actively participating in national affairs
 a community identity
 a link to ethnic origins
 a symbol of one’s values
 individual obligation to communal affairs
 a social identity produced by a sense of belonging
 flexible, transnational status held for the economic
convenience of immigrant
 a tool to link sending countries and migrant workers, to
reward and ensure loyalty and economic support from the
migrants
 flexible, transnational identities assumed for personal
satisfaction
 flexible, transnational practice done for the political and
economic convenience of the state.
These different perceptions link to the moral viewpoint of the concept of
citizenship. The ideal of citizenship is invoked by people who claim for recognition
and inclusion. These perceptions reflect the varied forms of recognition and inclusion
that Filipinos overseas and Philippine political leaders seek in light of migration.
This, in turn, implies the variety of exclusion[s] caused by migration.
This is illustrated by the flexible transnational conception of citizenship re-
cast in three different forms for three different purposes. It is constructed: as a status
for the economic convenience of immigrants; as identities for personal satisfaction;
and practice for the political and economic convenience of the state. It demonstrates
how the moral viewpoint of the concept of citizenship allows different parties to
construct it according to their interest and purpose.
The last three [bullet] points are new perceptions of citizenship that underlie
the claim for absentee voting and dual citizenship. Interestingly, two of these new
perceptions, e.g. citizenship as a tool and as a flexible practice, are constructed from
the perspective of the state. And the latter is constructed based on the flexible
conception of citizenship, which is a theoretical perspective of the ‘excluded.’ This
suggests that the international migration of Filipinos caused political and [socio-
economic] exclusion not only for the migrants but also for the state. Hence, the state
is also creating new meanings of citizenship as it struggles for political and economic
claims to citizenship.
Examination of these different perceptions of citizenship revealed by the
policy discourse can lead to the question of whose perception dominates the policies
that have resulted. To answer that question would be the topic for a further study.
The next step would be to analyze in depth the arguments and perception of
citizenship in the policies that have resulted on absentee voting and dual citizenship,
with attention to each of: the stated policies, the resource allocations, and the actors,
processes and results in implementation; and compare the implicit arguments and
perceptions of citizenship with those of the actors explored in this research.

23. 23
Sponsorship Speech on Dual Citizenship Bill
Senator Francis Pangilinan
May 19, 2002
Senate of the Philippines, Manila
Mr. President2
, I rise today to sponsor for this Chamber’s consideration Senate Bill No. 2130,
a consolidated version of Senate Bill Nos. 1354, 1340, 903, 100 and 64, entitled “AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR THE RETENTION OF CITIZENSHIP BY PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO
ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH
ACT NO. 63, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
The sponsors, Mr. President, of this particular measure are Senators Angara, Flavier, Pimentel
Jr., Barbers, Legarda Leviste, Drilon, Revilla, de Castro and myself. This is under Committee Report
No. 46.
Mr. President, it was Aristotle, the great Greek political thinker who, in the Third Century
B.C., first defined the concept of citizenship. For Aristotle, citizenship was defined as “membership in
a political community, as well as active participation in the administration of justice and the conducts
of public affairs.” This was how the Greeks, the forerunners of modern day political systems,
operationalized citizenship. Active participation and involvement defined citizenship.
During the feudal and medieval era, citizenship was not understood as membership in a
political community as Aristotle would have it but, rather, as a subject’s relation with his sovereign
rulers. The subjects, therefore, were deemed as properties of the ruler, pledging services to their
supposed “superiors,” and getting state protection from them.
Over time, however, the concept of citizenship, and by extension, allegiance to one’s country,
has evolved and has been given different interpretations. The onset of the highly globalized economy
of the 21st
century has necessitated a paradigm shift, Mr. President, in our understanding of citizenship.
Indeed globalization and the revolutionary advances in the areas of information and
telecommunications technology have transformed relationships among people and countries to a degree
never witnessed before in the history of human civilization.
Text and other technological advancements in media, communication, and transport have, in
fact, eroded traditional state boundaries and enabled people to have greater access to goods and
services, capital and information, and allowed an increasing number of people to live and work in
countries other than their own.
According to the 1999 UN Report, the Philippines ranked fifth among countries with the
highest rates of emigration. In fact, as of December 2001, the Philippine government has estimated that
there were about 7.38 million Filipinos working and living abroad, and roughly 10% of the total
Philippine population. Of this number, 3 million are overseas Filipino workers, 2.5 million are
permanent residents mostly in the United States of America, Canada and European countries, while
1.84 million are irregular migrants.
In countries where there are large concentrations of Filipino OFWs such as Canada, USA, the
United Kingdom, and the Middle East, Filipino immigrants have intimated to this representation that
they have undergone the process of naturalization to enjoy employment and welfare rights and
privileges.
It should be noted that majority of the Filipinos who have migrated abroad did so for better
academic and employment opportunities not only for themselves but for their families and relatives as
well. Those who eventually became naturalized citizens of their host countries have done so mainly for
economic reasons, widening their career options, and maximizing their social security through state
protection.
Despite these, however, their continued allegiance to the Philippines is manifested by their
links to the homeland, their desire to visit the country at every available opportunity, as well as in their
2
This refers to the Senate President.

24. 24
contributions to the economy through investments and dollar remittances. According to recent data,
remittances from Filipino overseas through official banking channels alone from 1990 to April 2001
have amounted to at least US 43.6 billion, enough investments pumped into our economy that have in
fact kept it afloat in times of severe financial crisis such as the one that shook Asia in 1997. No mean
contribution. Our Filipino workers abroad have put their money where their mouths are not. Self-
sacrifice of the highest degree. There is no doubt that our economy, our country owes them much.
Especially since it is decades of corruption and fiscal and economic mismanagement that have driven
them to seek employment away from their motherland, torn apart from the families and provinces that
they once held so dear. In all too many cases, we gave them no option but to leave. Ultimately, we are
all accountable.
Indeed, in spite of our kababayans3
having stayed and lived abroad for decades on end without
the benefit of a law allowing them to retain or at the very least, reacquire their Filipino citizenship, they
have remained Filipinos in heart and in mind.
Mr. President, given the overwhelming number of Filipinos overseas and the extent of their
contributions to the economy, it is the intent of this bill to allow for natural-born Filipinos to retain or
reacquire their Filipino citizenship. As it is, the restrictive and inflexible provisions of Commonwealth
Act No. 63 automatically applies (sic) with respect to the procedure by which Philippine citizenship is
lost through naturalization in a foreign country.
Hence, by operation of this law, many Filipinos have been stripped of their Philippine
citizenship without regard to the reasons that have compelled them to acquire foreign citizenship.
Worse, this is done without any effort on the part of the Philippine government to inquire whether or
not it was the real intention of our kababayans to renounce their Philippine citizenship in the process.
But times have changed, Mr. President. The advent of a highly globalized economy has
redefined and reinvented the whole concept of citizenship. Sixty-five years after the passage of
Commonwealth Act No. 63 on October 21, 1936, this representation believes it is high time that we re-
examined the effectiveness of the law and determine whether its content and the procedures it
prescribes are in keeping with the demands of a highly globalized economy.
Mr. President, there have been arguments that the Constitution prohibits dual citizenship.
Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides that: “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to
the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”
That is dual allegiance, Mr. President, and not dual citizenship.
However, the Supreme Court in the case of Mercado vs. Manzano in 1999 distinguished dual
citizenship from dual allegiance. The court ruled that dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose
parents are citizens of a state, which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born to a state which
follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto¸ and without any voluntary act on his part, is
concurrently considered a citizen of both states.
To illustrate, one who is born of Filipino parents in the U.S. is considered a U.S. citizen under
U.S. law but is considered a Filipino citizen under Philippine law.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition.
With respect to dual allegiance, during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of
the 1987 Constitution, then Commissioner, and now Senator, Blas Ople explained the constitutional
provision prohibiting dual allegiance as follows, and I quote:
3
Kababayan means fellow countryman.

25. 25
I want to draw attention to the fact that dual allegiance is not dual citizenship. I have
circulated a memorandum to the Bernas Committee according to which dual
allegiance is larger and more threatening than that of mere double citizenship which
is seldom intentional and perhaps, never insidious. That is often the function of the
accident of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. And so, I do not question
double citizenship at all.
Mr. President, after listening to the stakeholders who have articulated their positions during
the committee hearings and technical working group sessions, it is this representation’s position that
mere naturalization in a foreign country should not be construed as “dual allegiance.”
Moreover, so long as it does not endanger national security and contributes immensely to the
domestic economy, countries that have accepted the benefits of free trade and globalization have
increasingly recognized the practicality of allowing dual citizenship, or at the very least, retention or
reacquisition of citizenship, so much so that mere naturalization in a foreign country does not
automatically mean loss of one’s citizenship or origin.
During the committee hearings, Mr. President, this representation was furnished copies of a
document entitled “DUAL CITIZENSHIP POLICIES OF SELECTED COUNTRIES.” It was
forwarded to us by the Department of Foreign Affairs. And if I may enumerate some of them, these
countries include France, New Zealand, Israel, Mexico, Argentina, Cambodia, Colombia, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Northern Ireland, among other 75 countries that allow for
some form of retention of citizenship or reacquisition of the same. Can anyone dispute the proud and
fierce nationalism, for example, of the Israelites or the French? Going by the rules and regulations we
have from this wide representation of countries, this representation believes that the same can be used
as legislative inputs and points of reference as we in the Upper Chamber debate on the pros and cons of
this proposed measure.
In view, however, of recent global demographic trends that point to an increase in the number
of Filipinos overseas, the Philippine government should consider the findings of the United Nations’
Population Division which say that in the next 50 or so years, the capitalist economies of Europe, the
United States, Canada and Northeast Asia, will need a substantial number of Asian migrants to
maintain their population levels and avoid declines in their labor force. If this bill is approved into law,
this will enable the Philippine government to respond to global demographic trends and realities, lessen
immigration restrictions for Filipino nationals wishing to take permanent residence abroad, and
introduce a more liberalized citizenship policy by countries like the Philippines that sends its skilled
human resource abroad.
It is hoped that with the approval of this proposed bill, Mr. President, our own concept of dual
citizenship will be reinvented and allowed to see the light in keeping with the demands of a global
economy. The Filipino is already in virtually every pocket and corner of the world. Let us give him a
reason to keep his heart of hearts at home.
Thank you, Mr. President.

26. 26
Synthesis table for the sponsorship speech of Senator Francis Pangilinan (2002) on the dual citizenship bill.
(Source: R.A. Espiritu, ISS MA Research Paper, 2004, Table 4.6)
PANGILINAN PROPOSES
THAT
(CLAIM)
GIVEN THAT
(DATA)
AND GIVEN THE
PRINCIPLE THAT
(WARRANT)
UNLESS
(REBUTTAL)
C1 Filipino immigrants are
“compelled to acquire
foreign citizenship.”
D1 “Filipino immigrants
have undergone the
process of naturalization
to enjoy employment and
welfare rights and
privileges.”
W1 Unstated assumption:
People need employment
and welfare rights and
privileges.
W2 Unstated assumption:
Employment and welfare
rights and privileges are
exclusive for citizens.
R1 To C1: Foreign
citizenship cannot be
acquired without the
consent of the
applicant.
C2 ‘Filipinos who become
naturalized citizens
remain loyal to the
Philippines.’
D2 ‘They maintain their links
to the homeland.’
D3 ‘They desire to visit the
country at every available
opportunity.’
D4 ‘They contribute to the
economy through
investments and dollar
remittances.’
W3 Unstated assumption:
People remain loyal to
their home country by
maintaining ties to it.
R2 To W3: They
maintain ties to the
Philippines only
because their family
is there.
C3 Dual citizenship is
involuntary, while dual
allegiance is the result of
an individual’s volition.
D5 The Supreme Court ruled
that dual citizenship
arises when, as a result of
the concurrent application
of the different laws of
two or more states, a
person is simultaneously
considered a national by
the said states.
D6 Dual allegiance refers to
the situation in which a
person simultaneously
owes, by some positive
act, loyalty to two or
more states.
W4 Citizenship is provided by
the state while allegiance
is created by the people.
R3 To C3: Availing of
dual citizenship,
through re-acquiring
original citizenship,
is a voluntary act.
C4 “Naturalization in a
foreign country should
not be construed as ‘dual
allegiance.’”
(C1) Filipino immigrants are
“compelled to acquire
foreign citizenship.”
(C2) ‘Filipinos who become
naturalized citizens remain
loyal to the Philippines.’
(C3) Dual citizenship is
involuntary, while dual
allegiance is the result of
an individual’s volition.
R4 To C4: It is possible
to be loyal to both
countries.

27. 27
PANGILINAN PROPOSES
THAT
(CLAIM)
GIVEN THAT
(DATA)
AND GIVEN THE
PRINCIPLE THAT
(WARRANT)
UNLESS
(REBUTTAL)
C5 Semi-stated claim: The
Constitution does not
prohibit dual citizenship.
D7 Section 5, Article IV of
the 1987 Constitution
provides that: “Dual
allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt
with by law.”
(C4) “Naturalization in a
foreign country should not
be construed as ‘dual
allegiance.’”
R5 To C4: Citizenship
always requires
allegiance from
citizens.
C6 Semi-stated suggestion:
The Philippine
government should
“respond to global
demographic trends and
realities.”
D8 “According to the 1999
UN Report, the
Philippines ranked fifth
among countries with the
highest rates of
emigration.”
D9 “As of December 2001,
the Philippine
government has estimated
that there were about 7.38
million Filipinos working
and living abroad, and
roughly 10% of the total
Philippine population.”
D10 “Recent global
demographic trends point
to an increase in the
number of Filipinos
overseas.”
W5 Unstated assumption:
National economies rely
on global demographic
trends and realities.
R6 To C6: The
Philippines is not
affected by global
trends and realities.
C7 Unstated suggestion: The
Philippines should allow
dual citizenship.
(C6)The Philippine govt.
should “respond to global
demographic trends and
realities.”
(C4) “Naturalization in a
foreign country should not
be construed as ‘dual
allegiance.’”
W6 Semi-stated assumption:
Countries benefit from
free trade and
globalization by allowing
dual citizenship.
R7 To W6: Some of
these countries do
not allow dual
citizenship.

28. 28
References
Becker, H., (1998) Tricks of the Trade – How to think about your research while doing it. Univ. of
Chicago Press.
Booth, W., et al., 2003, The Craft of Research, Univ. of Chicago Press (2nd
edition).
de Beer, C.S., 1999. ‘Reading Texts and Understanding Meaning’, in Reflective Public Administration:
views from the South, eds. J.S. Wessels and J.C. Pauw; Cape Town: Oxford Univ. Press.
Dunn, W.N., 1981, 1994, 2004. Public Policy Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Economist, The, 2001. ‘Globalisation and its critics – a survey of globalisation’, Supplement, Sept. 29th
.
Fairclough, Norman, 2001. Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Pp.
121-138 in Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, M., eds.
Fairclough, Norman, 2003. Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.
Fischer, F., 1980, Politics, Values and Public Policy, Boulder: Westview.
Gasper, D., 1996, ‘Essentialism in and about Development Discourse’, European J. of Development
Research, 8(1), 149-176.
----, 1997. ‘Decentralization', ‘Coordination', ‘Integration' - Reflections from Zimbabwe in the 1980s.
Pp.51-71, Locality, State & Development, eds A. Helmsing, J. Guimaraes, The Hague: ISS
---- 2000a: Structures And Meanings - A Way To Introduce Argumentation Analysis In Policy Studies
Education. Africanus 30(1), 49-72; and at http://adlib.iss.nl/adlib/uploads/wp/wp317.pdf
---- 2000b: Anecdotes, Situations, Histories -- Reflections on the Use of Cases in Thinking about Ethics
and Development Practice. Development and Change, 31(5).
----, 2002: Fashion, Learning and Values in Public Management, Africa Development, 27(3), 17-47.
----, 2004: Studying Aid: Some Methods. Pp. 45-92 in J. Gould & H.S. Marcussen (eds.),
Ethnographies of Aid – Exploring development texts and encounters, Roskilde University,
Denmark. And as ISS Working Paper 382, 2003, http://adlib.iss.nl/adlib/uploads/wp/wp382.pdf
----, 2006: Policy Evaluation – From managerialism and econocracy to a governance perspective. Pp.
655-670 in International Development Governance, eds. A.S. Huque & H. Zafarullah. New York:
CRC Press / Taylor & Francis.
---- & R. Varkki George, 1998: Analyzing Argumentation in Planning and Public Policy: Assessing,
Improving and Transcending the Toulmin Model. Environment and Planning B, 25, 367-390.
Hansen, Lene, 2006, Security As Practice – Discourse Analysis And The Bosnian War. London:
Routledge.
Hood, C., 2000. The Art of the State – Culture, Rhetoric and Public Management. Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Klamer, A., and McCloskey, D., 1989. The Rhetoric of Disagreement. Rethinking Marxism 2(3), 140-161.
Lynch, Cecelia, 2006. ‘Critical Interpretation and Interwar Peace Movements: challenging dominant
narratives’, pp.291-9 in Yanow & Schwartz-Shea (eds.).
Linder
Pease, Allen,& Barbara Pease, 2004, The definitive book of body language, London: Orion Books.
Phillips, N., and Hardy, C., 2002. Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schmidt, Ronald, Sr., 2006. Ch.17, ‘Value-Critical Policy Analysis – The Case of Language Policy in
the United States’, from Yanow & Schea-Schwartz (eds.) pp. 300-315.
Scriven, M., 1976, Reasoning, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stillwaggon, Eileen, 2003. Racial Metaphors: Interpreting Sex and AIDS in Africa, Development and
Change, 2003, vol. 34(5), 809-832.
Swaffield
Tannen, Deborah, 1992. That’s Not What I Meant! London: Virago.
Toulmin, Stephen, 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
van Dijk, Teun, ‘Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity’, pp.95-120 in Wodak & Meyer, eds.
van Eemeren, Frans, et al., 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory – a handbook of historical
backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wodak, Ruth, 2001. What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its
developments. Ch.1 of Wodak & Meyer, eds.
Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, M., 2001, eds. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Yanow, Dvora, 1996. How Does a Policy Mean? Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Yanow, Dvora, 2000, Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Ch.1, pp. 10-23
Yanow, Dvora, 2003. ‘Accessing Local Knowledge’, pp.228-47 in Hajer, M. & Wagenaar, H. (eds),
Deliberative Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press.
Yanow, Dvora, and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, eds., 2006. Interpretation and Method – Empirical
Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. New York & London: M.E. Sharpe.