As part of a PhD class, I was tasked to do an article review. I attempted to use Toulmin's model to that paper and deconstructed the main claim along with its warrants, backings and empirical observation. I was able to point out certain backings and warrants which were not considered in the paper but were in the literature giving a different perspective to the empirical observation. It made the article review manageable and engaging at the same time. Thank you Professor Ketokivi!
@MikkoKetokivi3 ай бұрын
I have had similar experiences when I applied the Toulmin model. Grounds and claims have always been salient to me, but warrants and backings haven't. Yet, they are just as central in the argument structure, for a simple reason: without warrants (and backings), there is no claim!
@joaofernandorossimazzoni6173 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@mohammadrezamehrpour77243 ай бұрын
Thanks a lot for the great content. Please talk about introduction section and how do you recommend motivating and problematizing study.
@MikkoKetokivi3 ай бұрын
The Locke & Golden-Biddle article (which I discuss in the Session 1 recording) does a stellar job of discussing this topic! If you familiarize yourself with the two key processes discussed by Locke & Golden-Biddle (Structuring the Intertextual Field and Problematizing the Situation), you are well on your way.
@suhailsinna3 ай бұрын
In dissertations, students usually declare the -ologies and -isms in the methodology section. Examiners may even expect to see this. I agree with your point five but how do I overcome this in my dissertation?
@MikkoKetokivi3 ай бұрын
Yes, I have seen students "declare their isms" in the introductions of their dissertations; as a pre-examiner and committee member I have seen these passages. The problem is I learn nothing by reading them. However, I have also seen numerous dissertation manuscripts that do not include these sections, so I am not entirely convinced they are required. My first recommendation is to speak with your dissertation adviser about this.