Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health

Argumentation 32 (2):241-272 (2018)

Authors
Sarah Jackson
Deakin University
Jodi Schneider
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Abstract
Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin’s largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term “warranting device” to refer to an assembly of the rule plus whatever material, procedural, and institutional resources are required to assure its dependability. We present a case study on the Cochrane Review, a new method for synthesizing evidence across large numbers of scientific studies. After reviewing the evolution and current structure of the device, we discuss the distinctive kinds of critical questions that may be raised around Cochrane Reviews, both within the expert field and beyond. Although Toulmin’s theory of field-dependence is often criticized for its relativism, we find that, as a matter of practical fact, field-specific warrants do not enjoy immunity from external critique. On the contrary, they can be opened to evaluation and critique from any interested perspective.
Keywords Argumentation  Expert opinion  Health reasoning  Cochrane Review  Toulmin model  Field-dependence  Warranting device
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-017-9440-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
Rethinking Expertise.H. M. Collins & Robert Evans - 2007 - University of Chicago Press.
The Uses of Argument.STEPHEN TOULMIN - 1958 - Philosophy 34 (130):244-245.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-10-25

Total views
52 ( #171,989 of 2,289,855 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #44,877 of 2,289,855 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature