Analysing argumentation in planning and public policy: assessing, improving and transcending the Toulmin model

Planning and public policy endeavors are argumentative. We explore issues in analyzing and learning about planning/policy argumentation, by considering the use and misuse of Stephen Toulmin's method of argument representation. We first outline Toulmin's heuristic and its contributions, then discuss the dangers of converting it into 'The Toulmin Model'. From examples in published literature and from classroom experience, we suggest there is widespread misuse of the model, including: 1) oversimplification of complex argumentation by trying to squeeze everything into a single simple diagram; 2) much mistaken identification of components; 3) treatment of the introductory Toulmin diagram as if it could be a layout equally suitable for every argument; and 4) possible discouraging or misleading of users due to an unwieldy and perhaps counter-intuitive visual presentation. We suggest the following as practicable ways by which effective use can be raised: 1) employment often of multiple linked diagrams rather than a single one; 2) a more systematic, multi-stage, coding process to identify argument components; 3) more flexible handling of layout, responsive to the specificity of particular arguments; 4) use sometimes of tables rather than diagrams. In addition, going beyond the Toulmin model, we advise attention to more flexible general approaches for specifying argument structure, to approaches with more policy-analysis and planning content, and to other aspects of argumentation analysis.