Abstract

I undertake a study of the suitability of the Toulmin Model of Argumentation as a tool for policy inquiry . Beginning with an introduction to Toulmin's basic ideas and a history of the development of the TMA, I proceed to a review of the use of the TMA within the policy sciences to date. In the context of four other existing approaches within the policy sciences that can be broadly classified as argumentative, I then proceed to evaluate the philosophical and methodological foundations of the TMA in terms of its suitability for use in the policy sciences. Rejecting some critical views, I conclude that the TMA has the basic theoretical properties required to serve as a useful tool for policy inquiry, provided that it is appropriately interpreted and extended. I propose a number of extensions to the basic TMA, which I believe will make it a suitable tool for application within the policy domain. I call this the policy-specific, extended TMA . I then take up the related issue of the policy sciences as a field of argument in Toulmin's sense. I discuss the issue of defining policy fields and explain how the policy sciences can be defined as a field of argument . I also take up the issue of a policy-relevant visual representation of the PETMA. I develop a visual technology that modifies and extends the basic Toulmin Diagram and incorporates a number of the theoretical and methodological concepts and features that characterize the PETMA. Finally, I undertake a case study of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 applying the PETMA. I use this case to illustrate and concretely assess the model and diagrams developed. I conclude that a prima facie case for the use of the PETMA in policy inquiry stands as made. I end by describing the additional work that must be done to complete and establish the PETMA as a frontline tool of policy inquiry