Working scientifically and generating knowledge is very much about convincing other people that your claim is valid or ‘correct’. Do this by arguing academically.
When you, as a student, make a claim – either orally or in writing – you must be able to provide an academically acceptable basis for your claim. An academically acceptable basis can be subject-specific theory or an empirical study, for example.
In short, an argument is a claim that is justified. Toulmin’s model of argumentation is often used to understand and explain how arguments are connected.
The model consists of three fundamental parts: the claim, the grounds and the warrant. These three parts together make up the argument. There are three optional additional elements: the qualifier, backing and the rebuttal.
In an academic context, it’s usually also a good idea to give the argument some context. It’s important that the reader knows why the argument is relevant, how it contributes, what others have argued in relation to your argument, etc.
You can also use the Toulmin model to analyse the argumentation of others, e.g. when you need to compare or evaluate scientific articles and surveys, or if you need to provide feedback on other students' assignments or presentations.
The Six parts of an Argument | |
Claim | Your conclusion that you would like to prove to your recipient is “correct”. |
Grounds | The justification for your claim. |
Warrant | The underlying premise or assumption of your warrant, with which your recipient must agree in order to accept your grounds as a valid justification for your claim. |
Backing | Backing refers to any form of additional support for the warrant. In other words, a statement that supports the validity of the warrant and thereby the grounds. |
Rebuttal | The rebuttal is where you point out weaknesses in your argument – in the grounds, in the warrant or in the backing. If you point out any weaknesses in your argument, it will be more difficult to challenge the overall argument. However, the rebuttal should not undermine your argument, so remember also to point out why your claim is “correct”, despite the criticism. |
Qualifier | The qualifier indicates the certainty, scope or frequency of your claim and thereby affects whether your recipient will be persuaded by your argument. |
Quite a lot of scientific work is about communicating in writing. When you are a student, this is in assignments. In your academic assignments, argumentation is paramount and takes place at many levels – at sentence level, section level and overall level.
The overall level is the overall argumentation for the whole assignment. You can use Toulmin's model of argumentation to organise your overall argumentation. The model can thus be a tool to structure your assignment.
Examples of tasks that are structured around a single argument: The examples are from the programme in linguistics and from the Faculty of Science & Technology. They are good examples of how the components of Toulmin's argumentation model can be used in an academic assignment and in a scientific article.
You can also use the Toulmin model to analyse the argumentation in other people's texts, e.g. when you need to compare or evaluate scientific articles and surveys in connection with an assignment or a presentation, or if you need to provide feedback on other students' assignments or presentations.
Argumentation creates a common thread. Create a common thread throughout your assignment by organising it around a single argument. This structure will mean all sections of the paper are part of the overall argumentation and all sections point towards the conclusion.
The different sub-elements of the argumentation appear in different sections of an academic assignment. Below is a standard outline for academic assignments, showing which parts of the argument belong in which sections.
Remember that this is a template. In some assignments, it will make more sense to present the elements of the argument differently. For example, the rebuttal and backing can be presented and discussed on an ongoing basis rather than in a single section. Please note that some courses have their own requirements for the structure of assignments. However, the structure alone does not make an assignment academic. The argumentation does.
Structure | Argumentation | Function |
Introduction (including problem statement), motivation, objective, research overview, delimitation and short presentation of theory, method and approach. | The context of the argument. Brief presentation of the claim. | Why is the argument relevant, how does it contribute, what have others argued in relation to your argument, etc. |
Presentation of theory | Warrant and any backing | In order for the reader to accept your analysis as legitimate grounds for the claim, the warrant must be accepted. The warrant is therefore a justification for the legitimacy of the analysis; the analysis has been completed in a way (methodology) and by using some tools (theory) that are accepted within the academic field. |
Methods and philosophy of science | Warrant and backing | Backing refers to any form of additional support for the warrant. By incorporating grounds for your method and theory, e.g. by elaborating on the underlying philosophy of science and by referring to valid literature about your applied method, you will further strengthen your warrant. |
Analysis incl. presentation of empirical data and results | Grounds | Your claim is “correct” because your analysis shows it. This means that the analysis supports the claim. |
Assessment and discussion | Rebuttal and backing | If you point out any weaknesses in your argument, it will be more difficult for the reader to challenge the overall argument. In other words, the argument works better if you can criticise the grounds you use (point out the uncertainties and results of the analysis), your warrant (critique of method and theory) or your backing (criticism of the theoretical foundation). However, the rebuttal should not undermine your argument, so remember to also point out why your claim is “correct”, despite the criticism. |
Conclusion | Claim incl. qualifier. The claim is discussed in relation to the grounds, warrant, backing and rebuttal | Your conclusion is your claim that you would like to prove to your reader is “correct”. The qualifier indicates the certainty, frequency or scope of your claim and affects whether your reader will be persuaded by your argument. For instance, if you have analysed one case, you may not be able to convince your reader that you "with 100% certainty have demonstrated that the following always applies..." |
Perspectives | The context of the argument. | How could you continue the argument, how can others use your argumentation etc. |
Academic language should be easy to understand for professionals. Therefore, express yourself as precisely, unambiguously, clearly, correctly and transparently as possible. Avoid overly complicated and convoluted language. It is also important that your references are correct, as they help ensure that you don’t take credit for someone else’s work, and you use your language to clearly indicate when you yourself are making the argumentation.
In addition to academic language and argumentation, the language must also be subject-specific. This means using concepts and terminology specific to your subject. Subject-specific language also has linguistic norms that are particular to the subject. For example, some subjects do not use the first-person pronoun (I/we) but instead use more passive language. While in other subjects I/we is unavoidable.
n academic assignments, you should meta-communicate with your reader: It serves two important purposes: it gives the assignment transparency and it helps guide your reader.
Transparency centres on demonstrating each step you take and making sure you don’t make unfounded claims. You should make it easy for your reader to track how you reached your conclusions and what assumptions those conclusions were based on. For example:
“On the basis of what X writes, I assume that..." or "Firstly... because... Secondly... because....”
Transparency also means being careful to give source references when you include other people's knowledge. It must be clear to your reader when you’re using other people's knowledge and when you’re contributing with your own knowledge. Click here to read more about source references.
Guide your reader
Guiding your reader is especially necessary in larger sections. This kind of meta-communication is a linguistic road map that guides the reader through the text. Guidance can be in the form of a brief introductory section at the beginning of a large segment of the assignment. Guidance can also be between large segments or at the end of large segments. For example:
“In this section, I will..." or “I have now explained xx. In the following, I will therefore...”.
If you’re unsure about how to write academically using subject-specific language, you could ask your teacher or supervisor for examples from previous assignments.