سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,228
تعداد مقالات67,753
تعداد مشاهده مقاله115,089,042
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله89,830,493
کمالی, یحیی, شیخ زاده جوشانی, صدیقه, کامیابی, کیانا. (1401). تحلیل استدلالی در سیاست عمومی: فرایند و کارکردها. , 8(3), 9-25. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.1401.89538
یحیی کمالی; صدیقه شیخ زاده جوشانی; کیانا کامیابی. "تحلیل استدلالی در سیاست عمومی: فرایند و کارکردها". , 8, 3, 1401, 9-25. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.1401.89538
کمالی, یحیی, شیخ زاده جوشانی, صدیقه, کامیابی, کیانا. (1401). 'تحلیل استدلالی در سیاست عمومی: فرایند و کارکردها', , 8(3), pp. 9-25. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.1401.89538
کمالی, یحیی, شیخ زاده جوشانی, صدیقه, کامیابی, کیانا. تحلیل استدلالی در سیاست عمومی: فرایند و کارکردها. , 1401; 8(3): 9-25. doi: 10.22059/jppolicy.1401.89538

تحلیل استدلالی در سیاست عمومی: فرایند و کارکردها

سیاستگذاری عمومی
دوره 8، شماره 3، 1401، صفحه 9-25    اصل مقاله (592.64 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jppolicy.1401.89538
نویسندگان
یحیی کمالی* 1؛ صدیقه شیخ زاده جوشانی2؛ کیانا کامیابی3
1دانشیار سیاستگذاری عمومی دانشگاه شهید باهنرکرمان، کرمان، ایران
2استادیار علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شهید باهنرکرمان، کرمان، ایران
3کارشناسی ارشد علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران
چکیده
هدف این مقاله معرفی رویکرد تحلیل استدلالی در سیاست عمومی و کاربرد آن است. رویکردهای مختلفی برای تحلیل سیاست‌های عمومی ارائه شده که هر یک دارای اهداف مشخص هستند و بر متغیرهای خاصی در تحلیل سیاست‌ها متمرکز می شوند. تحلیل استدلالی سیاست بر استدلال سیاستی و ویژگی‌های آن متمرکز است تا زوایای متفاوتی از تقابل طرفین یک استدلال را ارائه دهد. سیاستگذاران، استدلال‌های گوناگونی را برای اهداف مختلف از جمله توجیه سیاست مورد نظرشان یا برای اقناع مخاطبان و جلب حمایت عمومی بیان می‌کنند. در این مقاله اجزای تحلیل استدلالی سیاست بر اساس مدل تولمین شامل ادعا، داده، ضمانت، پشتوانه، انکار و تعدیل‌کننده تشریح شده است و در ادامه، کارکردها و نمونه‌های کاربرد تحلیل استدلال در تحلیل­ سیاست عمومی ارائه شده است که می تواند راهنمای مناسبی برای پژوهشگران سیاستگذاری عمومی باشد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
استدلال؛ استدلال سیاستی؛ تحلیل سیاست؛ سیاستگذاری؛ مدل تولمین
عنوان مقاله [English]
Argumentative Analysis in Public Policy: Process and Functions
نویسندگان [English]
Yahya Kamali1؛ Sedighe Sheikhzadeh Joshani2؛ Kiana Kamyabi3
1Associate Professor of Political Science at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
2Assistant Professor of Political Science at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
3Master of Political Science at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
چکیده [English]
 
This article aims to introduce the approach of Argumentative policy analysis &its application process. Public policy analysis has various approaches, that each of them has specific objectives &focus on specific variables in policy analysis. Argumentative policy analysis focuses on policy Argument &its characteristics in order to provide different aspects of confrontation between the parties of an argument. Policymakers make a variety of arguments for a variety of purposes, including justifying their policies or to persuade audiences &gain public support. In this paper, the components of Argumentative policy analysis based on Toulmin model including clime, data, warrant, Backing, Qualifier, Rebuttal are described, &In the following, the functions &examples of application of argumentative analysis in policy analysis are presented, which can be a good manual for public policy researchers.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Argument, Policy Argument, Policy Analysis, Policy Making, Toulmin Model
مراجع
  1. Abdollahi, Manijeh; Amal Saleh, Ihya (2012). "Investigation of the Argument Structure in Three Texts of the Qajar Period". Shiraz University's Boostan-e Adab Journal, Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 152-174 [in Persian].
  2. Afzali, parichehr. (2012). Globalization Now &Later. A Study of Interactive Argumentation among EFL Learners , Language &Culture in Europe , Master degree, Department of Culture &Communication , Linköping University.
  3. Al-Hosseini, Fereshte, Sajjadi, Seyed Mahdi, Sadeghzadeh, Alireza, Mehrmohammadi, Mahmoud (2015). "Philosophy of Islamic education in the light of practical perspectives: confronting work theory". Quarterly Journal of Research in Islamic Education Issues, 23 (28), 107 -130 [in Persian].
  4. Atkins, Judi (2008) “How Virtue-Theoretic Arguments May Be Used in the Justification of Policy” Politics, vol. 28, 3: pp. 129-137.
  5. Atkins, Judi (2010) “Moral Argument &the Justification of Policy: New Labour's Case for Welfare Reform” The British Journal of Politics &International Relations, vol. 12, 3: pp. 408-424.
  6. Attaran, Atena (2012) Speech Act of Argumentation: a Comparison of Articles, Teaching English, Master Degree, English Department, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
  7. Ball, William J. (1994) “Using Virgil to Analyze Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal Logic”Social Science Computer Review, vol. 12, 1: pp. 26-37.
  8. Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. (2012) Making health policy. Open University Press.
  9. Cano- Basare, Amparo Elizabeth; He, Yulan (2016) a Study of the Impact of Persuasive Argumentation in Political Debates. Proceeding of NAACL-HLT, Pp,1405-1413.
  10. Carr, Chad (2003) Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach Legal Argumentation, Visualizing Argumentation, Pp. 75-96.
  11. Carson, Marcus, Tom R. Burns, &Dolores Calvo (2009) paradigms in public policy: theory &practice of paradigm shift in the EU, Peter Lang.
  12. Chahar Sooghi Amin, Tina; Soltani, Ali Asghar; Hejazi, Mohammad Javad (2018). "Argument or sophistry: Rhetorical study of speeches for &against representatives of the Islamic Council". Social linguistics Quarterly, volume 2, number 4, pp. 68-80 [in Persian].
  13. Dunn, William (2013) Public policy analysis: an integrated approach. Routledge.
  14. Emmerink, R H M, Nijkamp, P, Rietveld, P (1995)” Is Congestion Pricing a First-Best Strategy in Transport Policy? A Critical Review of Arguments” Environment &Planning B: Planning &Design, vol. 22, 5: pp. 581-602.
  15. Fischer, Frank (2003) Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics &Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Fischer, Frank (2007) Deliberative Policy Analysis as Practical Reason: Integrating Empirical &Normative Arguments. In Fischer, Frank, Gerald J. Miller, Mara S. Sidney (2007) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics &Methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  17. Fischer, Frank (2013) “Policy Expertise &the Argumentative Turn: Toward a Deliberative Policy-Analytic Approach”, Revue française de science politique (English Edition), Vol. 63, No. 3-4, pp.95-114.
  18. Fischer, Frank &Gottweis, Herbert (2012) The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative Practice. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
  19. Fischer, Frank &John Forester (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis &Planning. Durham & London: Duke University Press. ISBN978-0-8223-1372-4.
  20. Foss, Sonja K; Al, Karen; Trapp, Robert (2002) Stephan Toulmin 5, Available at: www.msubillings.edu.
  21. Gasper, D R, George, R V (1998) “Analyzing Argumentation in Planning &Public Policy: Assessing, Improving, &Transcending the Toulmin Model” Environment &Planning B: Planning &Design, vol. 25, No. 3: pp. 367-390.
  22. Gasper, Des (1995) analyzing policy arguments.Chapter for Arguing Development Policy - Frames &Discourses, eds. R. Apthorpe &D. Gasper, London: Frank Cass, 1996, &a special issue of The European Journal Of Development Research, 1996 (June), pp. 36-62.
  23. Gilbert, Michael A. (1994) “Multi-Modal Argumentation.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 24, No. 2, 159-177.
  24. Gilson L. (1994) Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy &Planning. Vol. 9, No.4, pp353-70.
  25. Green, Mitchell (2016) Speech Act Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304410044.
  26. Greenwald, Alison Rose (2007) Learning How to Argue: Experiences Teaching the Toulmin Model to Composition Students, Art, Master degree, Lawa State University.
  27. Hall, Peter (1993) "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, &the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain". Comparative Politics, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp 275-296.
  28. Hayif Sameer, Imad (2017) Analysis of Speech Act Patterns in Two Egyptian Inaugural Speeches, SIELE Journal, Vol.4, No. 2, Pp 134-147.
  29. Hidayat, Agus (2016) Speech Act: Force behind Words, Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, Vol. 9, No.1, Pp. 1-12.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301660276_Argumentation_Political
  30. Jacquin, Jérôme, Zampa, Marta (2016) “Do we still need an army like in the First World War? An argumentative analysis of a television debate on abolishing compulsory military service in Switzerland” Discourse & Communication, vol. 10, 5: pp. 479-499.
  31. Jafari Tabar, Hassan (2019) "Implementation of Toulmin's Argument Model in Law". Quarterly of Private Law Studies, Volume 49, Number 1, pp. 35-50 [in Persian].
  32. Khoirunisa, Andini; Nur Indah, Rohamani (2017) Argumentative Statements in the 2016 Presidential Debates of the u.s: A Critical Discourse Analysis, JEELS, Vol.4, No.2, Pp 155-173.
  33. Krishna Rohit, Sakala Venkata (2019) Study of Argument Structure in Parliamentary Debates , Exact Humanities ,master degree, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad
  34. Lapintie, K (1998) “Analysing &Evaluating Argumentation in Planning” Environment &Planning B: Planning &Design, vol. 25, 2: pp. 187-204.
  35. Lasswell, Harold D. (1971) a Pre-view of Policy Sciences, New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.
  36. Levasseur, David G. (2005) “The Role of Public Opinion in Policy Argument: An Examination of Public Opinion Rhetoric in the Federal Budget Process” Journal of Argumentation &Advocacy, Vol. 41, No. 3, Pp 152-167.
  37. Liewellyn, Clare (2012) Using Argument Analysis to Define a Structure for User Generated Content, Philosophy, Doctor Degree, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.
  38. Mayer, Igor, Daalen, Els van, Bots, Pieter (2004) “Perspectives on Policy Analysis: A Framework for Understanding &Design” International Journal of Technology Policy &Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, Pp 1-23.
  39. Mazinani, Abolfazl &Nasiri, Sahar (2019). "Research method design for the application of Toulmin's Argument in stylistics, discourse analysis, &legal linguistics". Linguistic Studies, 10(3), 169-189 [in Persian].
  40. Mirjani, Hamid (2010). "Logical reasoning as a research method". Safa magazine, 20(50), 35-50 [in Persian].
  41. Morady Moghaddam, Mostafa (2012) Discourse Structures of Conddence Speech Act, Journal of English Language, No. 10.Pp 106-125.
  42. Nozari, Hamzeh (2015). "Analysis of reactions &arguments opposed to development strategies after the Islamic Revolution". Economic Sociology &Development, 4(2), 137-163 [in Persian].
  43. Nussbaum, E. Michael(2011) Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, &Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education, Taylor &Francis Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2 ,Pp. 84-106.
  44. Parsons, Wayne (2017) Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory &Practice of Policy Analysis. Translated by Hamidreza Malek Mohammadi, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. first volume [in Persian].
  45. Perumal, Thinagaran (2014) Research Methodology, Open University Malaysia, Digital Text Book Library, Available at: https://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tamop412A/2011-0021_22_research_methodology/adatok.html
  46. Poluzhgn, M.M; Vrabel, T.T (2005), Basic Problems of Speech Act Theory, English Department, Uzhhorod National University.
  47. Rieke, Ricard D; Sillars, Malcom O, Peterson, Tarla Rai (2012) Argumentation &Critical Decision Making. Publisher Pearson, 8 Ed.
  48. Ripley, M. Louise (2005) "Arguing For the Ethics of an Ad: An Application of Multi-Modal Argumentation Theory" in Hitchcock, David (ed.) (2005) The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University. Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
  49. Saad, Muhammad &tamma, sukri (2018) structure &forms of the argument analysis in the maing of the city government budget policy in makassar, Jurnal Politik Profetik, Vol. 6, No. 2, 174-197.
  50. Secchi, Leonardo (2016)Policy Analysis in Brazil: A Comparison of Rationalist &Argumentative Approaches, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research &Practice, Vo. 18, No. 1 , 88-101.
  51. Simon, Simona; Cartis, Deniel Djica (2015) Speech Acts in Written Advertisements: Identification, Classification &Analysis, Procedia &Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 192, No. 2, Pp. 234-239.
  52. Simosi, Maria(2003) Using Toulmin ’s Framework for the Analysis of Every day Argumentation: Some Methodological Considerations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Vol. 17,Pp. 185-202.
  53. Smith, Kevin &Larimer, Christopher (2017). A theoretical introduction to public policy. Translated by Behzad Attarzadeh. Tehran: Scientific &Cultural Publications [in Persian].
  54. Teglgaard Andersen, Karen Sofie (2017) an Analysis of Presentation in a Political Discourse, Trump &the Media, spring semester.
  55. Toulmin, Stephan E (2003) the uses of Argument, Published in The United States Of America By Cambridge University press, New York.
  56. Wang, Jianfang (2016) on Freeman’s Argument Structure Approach, Published at: http://ceur-ws.org.
  57. White, Hugh c (1988) Speech Act Theory &Biblical criticism, Published by Scholars Press, New York.
  58. Wildavsky, Aaron. (I979) Speaking Truth to Power. Boston: Little, Brown &Co. (Published in Britain as the Art &Craft of Policy Analysis, London: Macmillan I980).
  59. Wingate, Ursula (2012) Argument! Helping Students Underst&What Essay Writing is About, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Vol. 11, Pp. 145-154.
  60. Wodak, Ruth (2015) Argumentation, Political, Available at:
  61. Zittoun, Philippe (2015)” Analyzing policy failure as an argumentative strategy in the policymaking process: A pragmatist perspective” Public Policy &Administration, Vol. 30, No. 3–4, Pp 243–260.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 625
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 546


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب