Using reflective argument to design human systems

Abstract

This paper presents an argument centered approach to defining new large projects which focuses on the fundamental of human social activity, thinking and dialogue. Specifically, the approach makes explicit certain pragmatic attributes of both argumentation theory and reflective thinking; it can therefore be seen as an extension of Ulrich's boundary critique and Mason and Mitroff's surfacing strategic assumptions approaches. The paper identifies these attributes of argumentation theory and reflective thinking which are then used to enhance small and large group project development discussions. This is done to support the argument that these attributes are pragmatic. The dialectic of argument and the a priori of participants are seen as significant resources which allow avoidance of the pretence of an idealistic search and quantitative evaluation of all issues and options when designing large organizational projects.