The role of argument mapping in structuring policy

The role of argument mapping in structuring policy

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions  

The role of argument mapping in structuring policy

 

Another way to represent problems is to use the argument mapping methods introduced earlier in this chapter (Figure 1.3). The role of argument mapping in structuring policy discourses may

be illustrated by Graham Allison’s well-known study of foreign policy decision-making during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962.55 Showing how different explanatory models yield

different conclusions, Allison argues that government policy analysts use implicit conceptual models to think about and make policy recommendations. These conceptual models explain the

behavior of governments in terms that assume the rationality of political choices (rational actor model), the inertia created by organizational processes (organizational process model), and the

effects of bureaucratic politics (bureaucratic politics model). Each of these models provides its own explanation of policymaking.

 

In 1962, the policy alternatives open to the United States in responding to the crisis ranged from no action and diplomatic pressure to secret negotiations, invasion, surgical air strikes, and

blockade. Among the several claims made at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, let us consider the policy actually adopted by the United States: “The United States should blockade Cuba.” In

this case, the policy-relevant knowledge (I) is “The Soviet Union is placing offensive missiles in Cuba.” The warrant states that “the blockade will force the withdrawal of missiles by showing the

Russians that the United States is determined to use force.” In providing reasons to accept the warrant, the backing (B) supports the warrant by stating that “an increase in the cost of an

alternative reduces the likelihood of that alternative being chosen.”56 The backing (B) represents a general theoretical proposition, or law, within the rational policy model. After the objection (O)

has successfully challenged the warrant, the qualifier (Q) changes from absolutely to doubtful.

 

Allison’s account shows how the use of multiple competing explanations can facilitate critical thinking. The use of multiple competing models moves the analysis from a simple uncontested

argument (Figure C1.3.1) to a new argument which is complex, contested, and dynamic (Figure C1.3.2). This change occurs because a serious objection has been raised about the warrant and

the backing of the claim. The objection states: “But Soviet leaders may fail to convince their naval units to depart from established organizational routines.” The warrant for this objection is: “The

bulk of research on organizations shows that major lines of organizational behavior tend to be straight. Behavior at time t + 1 differs little from behavior at time t.57 The blockade will not work.”

The warrant for the objection is again a general proposition or law within the organizational process model, otherwise known as the disjointed incremental theory of policy change.

 

Simple uncontested maps of arguments about the OPEC oil embargo are presented alongside arguments about the Cuban missile crisis (Figures C1.3.1[a] and [b]). The comparisons show that

the simple argument maps tend to result in uncritical thinking. By contrast, the complex, dynamic, and contested maps of the same crises (Figures C1.3.2[a] and [b]) illustrate what is meant by

critical thinking.

 

Figure C1.3.1 Simple Argument Maps Are Static and Uncontested

 

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow The role of argument mapping in structuring policy

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!