Advanced Topics in Macro Social Work

In popular parlance, the idea of argument often carries negative connotations, such as stubborn quarrelsomeness, petty difference and general unpleasantness. This course rejects this conception and deals instead with argumentation as the construction, presentation and evaluation of effective reasoning. Simply put, the major objective of this course is to teach students how to argue well in critical decision-making and advocacy contexts. To this end, the emphasis is on learning the basics of argumentation evaluation and production, and how argumentation theory can be used to analyze, produce and counter arguments in decision-making and advocacy contexts.

The course has two major foci. The first emphasizes learning the basics of argumentation theory – the difference between formal and informal logic, conditions engendering and ending controversies, the components of arguments, how arguments are structured, the effects of structure on argument evaluation, the role of unexpressed elements in argumentation, and how to evaluate the quality of argumentation, including consideration of common problems, i.e., fallacies, in argumentation.

The second focus is on applying basic argumentative principles in decision-making and advocacy contexts. Students will analyze arguments from the text and from everyday life (editorials, speeches, materials from other courses, etc.), with lectures, discussion, group work, and in-class debates forming the working structures for learning. Some attention also will be given to the role of persuasion and rejoinder in presenting arguments in decision-making and advocacy contexts. The major project for the course involves constructing a case, or a comprehensive argument supportive or critical of a particular decision or action, based on research for oral and written presentation.

Minimum competencies intended are for students: a. To identify, describe and analyze controversies, and the conditions under which they arise and are resolved; b. To describe and analyze argumentation not as a simple “flurry of words” but as reason-giving under conditions of uncertainty, which entails the risk of being proved wrong and of having to change beliefs; c. To describe and analyze argumentation as not seeking compliance but reflective judgment; d. To identify and analyze the logical fallacies of argumentation; e. To be able to construct a coherent, logical, sequenced argument, free from fallacy, supported by documentation and evidence; f. To become a more careful and critical thinker and communicator, both as a speaker and as a listener; g. To be able to analyze and critique arguments as they are presented, looking for flaws in logic, reasoning or evidence; and h. To identify, describe and practice ethical communication.