This article proposes a measuring instrument that can establish to what extent either sound
arguments or power are to be found in scientific and political discussions. By way of illustrating
this measuring instrument, an account is given of a research project that investigated the relation
between the quality of evaluation research and the quality of discussion in policy-making
processes in which this evaluation research was used
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahonen, P.1985. Public policy evaluation as discourse. Helsinki: Finish Political Association .
2.
Alexy, R.1978. Theorie der juristischen argumentation, die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
3.
Banner, D.K., S.L. Doctors, and A.C. Gordon.1975. The politics of social program evaluation . Cambridge: Ballinger.
4.
Caplan, N., A. Morrison, and R.J. Stambaugh.1975. The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level: A report to respondents. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
5.
Cronbach, L.J.1980. Toward reform of program evaluation San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Damer, T. E. 1980. Attacking faulty reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
6.
Dunn, W.N.1981. Public policy analysis, an introduction,. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Prentice-Hall
—. 1986. Practical discourse in policy argumentation. In Policy analysis: Perspectives, concepts, and methods, edited by W. N. Dunn, 315-32. Greenwich/ London: JAI.
14.
Garland, D.1985. Politics and policy in cnminological discourse: A study of tendentious reasoning and rhetoric. International Journal of the Sociology of Law13:1-33.
15.
Gilbert, M.A.1979. How to win an argument. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
Govier, T.1985. A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
17.
Graham, G.J.1986. Ethics, rhetoric and the evaluation of public policy consequenses . In Policy analysis: Perspectives, concepts, and methods , edited by W. N. Dunn, 301-14. Greenwich / London: JAI.
18.
Grice, H.P.1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, edited by P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, 41-58. London : Academic Press.
19.
Habermas, J.1973. Wahrheitstheorien. In Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, edited by H. Fahrenbach, 211-65. Pfüllingen : Nerke Verlag.
20.
—. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp (2 Bände).
21.
Hamblin, C.L.1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
22.
Hoogerwerf, A.1979. Politicologie: Begrippen en problemen. Alphen a/d Rijn , the Netherlands: Samsom.
23.
—. 1986. Vanaf de top gezien. Amsterdam : Sijthof.
24.
House, E.R.1977. The logic of evaluative argument. Monograph Series 7 in Evaluation. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles
25.
Larrabee, H.A.1952. Benthams's handbook of political fallacies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press .
26.
Lukes, S.1974. Power: A radical view. London : Macmillan.
27.
Machiavelli, N.1961. The prince. Translated by G. Bull.Middlesex: Penguin Books .
28.
Martel, M. (1983). Political campaign debates, images, strategies, and tactics. New York: Longman .
29.
Meehan, E.J.1981. Reasoned argument in social science: Linking research to policy. Westport/ London: Greenwood.
30.
Milligan, D.1980. Reasoning and the explanation of action. Sussex: Harvester.
31.
Mitroff, I.I. , R.O. Mason, and V.P. Barbara.1982. Policy as argument—A logic for ill structured decision problems. Management Science28 (12): 1391-1404.
32.
Naess, A.1978. Elementaire argumentatieleer. Baarn , the Netherlands: Ambo.
33.
Palumbo, D.J. , and D. Nachmias1984. The preconditions for successful evaluation. Evaluation Studies Review Annual9:102-14
Pirie, M.1985The book of the fallacy. A training manual for intellectual subversives. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
36.
Posner, R.1974Diskurs als Mittel der Aufklärung, zur Theorie der rationalen Kommunikation bei Habermas and AlbertLinguistik und Sprachphilosophy . 280-303
37.
Pröpper, I.M.A.M.1989. Argumentatie en machtsuitoefening in onderzoek en beleid . Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente.
38.
Schellens, P.J.1985. Redelijke argumenten: Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
39.
Van de Vall, M.1980. Sociaal beleidsonderzoek: Een professioneel paradigma . Alphen a/d Rijn, the Netherlands: Samsom.
40.
Van de Vall, M., and C. Bolas.1980. Applied social discipline research or social policy research: The emergence of a professional paradigm in sociological research. American Sociologist15: 128-37.
41.
Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst .1983. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
42.
Van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and T. Kruiger.1986. Argumentatieleer 2: Drogredenen. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters Noordhof .
43.
Vedung, E.1982. Political reasoning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
Weber, M.1971. Gesammelte politische Schriften. Tübingen , Germany: Mohr.
45.
Yearley, S.1986. Interactive orientation and argumentation in scientific texts. In Power action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge , edited by J. Law, 132-57. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
46.
Yin, R.K., and M. Gwaltney.1981. Knowledge utilization as a networking process. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization2 (4): 555-80.
