Experience is one of the best known sources for people who decide to carry out a scientific investigation, trying to discover the most coherent answers to the questions that are posed. However, the wisdom of the experts in the different areas of knowledge, transmitted from one generation to another, is limited as a source of truth since it lacks a scientific method that supports it. One of the features that characterize the research process in postgraduate studies is the difficulty of determining the theorists who have the greatest authority to epistemologically base the research to be carried out.Most of the time, novice researchers face a series of obstacles, due to the disparity of criteria between advisers and tutors on the most appropriate content during the course of their work, which requires linguistic argumentation, understood as such. reasons that induce to use certain theories of some experts and not others, or why they provoke in me, adherence and conviction to validate my knowledge. Among the final considerations it was evident, in the epistemological positions used by the postgraduate participants, they focus their interest on the pragmatic purpose of achieving the acceptance of the linguistic contents by the evaluators. The conflicts presented by the research of postgraduate studies lack principles of construction, organization and use of argumentation.
Abstract
The experience is one of the sources more known by the people who decide to perform a scientific investigation, trying to discover the most coherent answers with the questions that consider. Nevertheless, the wisdom of the experts in the different areas from the knowledge, transmitted from a generation to another one, is limited like veracity source since it lacks a scientific method guarantees that it. One of the characteristics that characterize the research process in the postgraduate studies is the difficulty to determine the theoreticians who own major authority very epistemologically to base the investigation to develop. The majority of the times, the investigators novels confronts a series of obstacles, by the disparity of criteria between the advisers and tutors on the suitable contents more during the development of their work,which requires of the linguistic argumentation, being understood like so, the reasons that they induce to use certain theories of some experts and not of others, or why they cause in my, adhesion and conviction to validate my knowledge. Between the final considerations it was demonstrated, in the epistemological positions used by the postgraduate participants, center its interest in the pragmatic purpose to obtain the acceptance of the linguistic contents on the part of the evaluators. The conflicts that present / display the investigations of the postgraduate studies, lack principles of construction, organization and use of the argumentationadhesion and conviction to validate my knowledge. Between the final considerations it was demonstrated, in the epistemological positions used by the postgraduate participants, center its interest in the pragmatic purpose to obtain the acceptance of the linguistic contents on the part of the evaluators. The conflicts that present / display the investigations of the postgraduate studies, lack principles of construction, organization and use of the argumentationadhesion and conviction to validate my knowledge. Between the final considerations it was demonstrated, in the epistemological positions used by the postgraduate participants, center its interest in the pragmatic purpose to obtain the acceptance of the linguistic contents on the part of the evaluators. The conflicts that present / display the investigations of the postgraduate studies, lack principles of construction, organization and use of the argumentationorganization and use of the argumentationorganization and use of the argumentation
Introduction
For academics, it is known that those assertions of individuals who have experiences or who hold a high office in different spheres of society are treated as true. However, in the field of university institutions, specifically in the research process of postgraduate studies, the description represents, linguistically speaking, the events that occur in each of the moments experienced by the human being.
We express each aspect perceived by the senses through written, spoken and acted language, using symbols such as drawing, graphics, photographs, words and gestures. We must point out that the description, like the narration, is present from the beginning to the end of the investigation and, the appropriate ways for the organization of theories in the investigation are: (a) narration in discourse, (b) the description of the event, (c) the argumentation of the knowledge and (d) the explanation of the content in general.
For the purposes of this article, it was considered pertinent the complexity and breadth of the topic, reflecting on the art of arguing since it is associated with a type of discourse typical of certain social spheres, such as politics, jurisprudence or science; apparently, these linguistic fields of action seem to be subject to strict reasoning rules, which have little to do with everyday life.
But why do we initiate these reflections in the context of research, calling argumentation as an art? Simply because it comes from the Latin ars, encompassing all the creations made by the human being to express his creation in and for the world mediated by linguistic resources in order to express his ideas, perceptions and sensations of the circumstances that surround him.
In such a way, that from now on we will deal with linguistic argumentation in research in postgraduate studies since, we need to identify indicators, describe events, interpret expressions and explain results in a coherent way in order to maintain a relationship of understanding with the community scientific.
However, most of the authors trust, particularly, that the art of argumentation has similarities with universal or particular audiences; While each discussion is directed at a specific individual or group, the speaker will then decide which information and which approach will achieve their greatest adherence according to an ideal audience.
Description of the investigative reality in postgraduate studies
This article emerges from the tutoring experiences, in the field of postgraduate studies at different universities, revealing that in the epistemological positions of the investigations, the argumentation is one of the most confusing aspects for the participants.
That is to say, that argumentation, for some theorists that we will study later, has the pragmatic purpose of achieving acceptance or assent from the other party; It is also assumed as the theory of practical reasoning, it represents the models of textual linguistics and the analysis of communicative units that go beyond the limits of grammatical sentences.
For this reason, the study of argumentation is assumed, as a theory of practical reasoning in research, because it is based on the experience, values and beliefs of scholars who emphasize the dialogical nature of argumentative procedures and establish the categories of arguments. possible to gain the adherence of evaluators and juries, who must rely particularly on the information they read.
However, argumentative practice, with a greater or lesser degree of awareness and effectiveness, appears in the conflicts presented by the research of postgraduate studies, for this reason, it is convenient that new or training researchers know the principles of construction, organization and use of argumentation, because in the course of the investigations, they will face distant or antagonistic positions in relation to some subject and its implications.
In relation to the ideals of research in science education, Sarda and Sanmarti (2000) report that in “ epistemological positions, aspects that have to do with the importance of languages and, especially, argumentation in construction can be identified, justification and elaboration of knowledge ”(p.48).
Taking these criteria into account, it would be necessary to give more relevance, in postgraduate studies, to the construction of knowledge by combining rational and rhetorical arguments, as a previous step, so that participants use a formalized language typical of science, in all its meaning, to be able to apply it to your particular inquiries.
Faced with disagreements or conflicts of opinion during the investigation, there is a total absence of argumentation, as a means of negotiation, between the actors in the investigative process, despite the fact that this linguistic factor privileges the capacity for understanding and critical human reasoning over violence, authoritarianism or manipulation. It should be noted that different participants in postgraduate studies, in confidential conversations, have stated that they experience moments of opinion uncertainty regarding the theories used by the academics who are responsible for guiding them.
Methodology for the study
The study is based on reflective analysis (Guanipa, 2010) because argumentation and epistemological positions in research are developed in a context of mental processes in which the reflection of reality intervenes, for which linguistic memory is required, which consists of the ability of the human being to choose the words when constructing a spoken or written discourse, being one of the fundamental elements of the global process of language where a method of verification of information is not required, but rather of intuition of the researcher.
This categorization called linguistic memory, belongs to the Innatismo philosophical trend, and postulates the genetics of language represented mainly by the outstanding 20th-century American linguist and philosopher, Avram Noam Chomsky (2011).
For the methodological purposes of this research, the work of the aforementioned author, General Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life, is taken where he states that there is a genetic predisposition of the human being in all languages, rigorously explains the complexity of language and establishes a perfect coherence between intelligence and memory highlighting, the decrease in the speed of the human being when speaking if he immediately thinks and tries to express himself with greater precision.
It is noteworthy that when he speaks of reflection, the most elementary stage of knowledge is alluded to, which implies a sense of reality or common sense, and I try to sequentially facilitate investigations, seeking to obtain the product of the mental processes in which They have intervened the reflection of the realities lived by the university students in the classrooms.
Only in this way, the relationship between the sources of knowledge can be correctly determined since, with this, the reader is put on the alert, so that he can contrast and establish differences between social situations, the aspects derived from them and its relevance in research work.
The term reflection belongs to philosophy and consists of an analysis exercise that allows to value research in the university environment, trying to understand the methodology that allows us to arrive at clarifying explanations of social realities.
For the analysis-interpretation process, a reflection was carried out on the written contents related to the theoretical justification that the participants propose in undergraduate work and doctoral thesis.
The hermeneutical method allowed to understand the meaning of texts and interpret a human action in the research of the participants of postgraduate studies. Hermeneutics is a general method of interpretation, which consists of understanding a foreign social reality through spoken, written and graphic language, which allowed us to capture the life and contribution of the other. This experience of the researcher's questions and the researcher's answers imply the hermeneutical dialogical relationship.
The phenomenological method was also used, since the social reality was captured in an experiential way. The research focused on the study of phenomena as they were perceived. In this case, there was a relationship with key informants, interpreting their creative experiences in the natural context in which they occurred, clarifying theoretical assumptions or previous experiences.
With the results obtained, the meaning of these strategies was understood, being important to induce them in postgraduate participants, so that they put it into practice, internalize it, appropriate it until they are used independently and autonomously in the generation of new ideas.
Epistemological bases of research
In this study, the epistemological bases allowed to organize the knowledge on linguistic argumentation in university research, which consisted of the findings obtained by other researchers that, in the end, become the theoretical framework, referential theories, research background and studies prior to the investigative process.
Research Background
In line with the above, two investigations are presented. The first is represented by researchers Sarda and Sanmarti (2000) in a study entitled “ Teaching to argue scientifically: a challenge for science classes ” carried out at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, UAB, Spain, refers to the role of the argumentation, in scientific learning, in the various theories and in science teaching practices, there are different ways of understanding what science is, how it is generated, and what its purposes are. They argue that a certain vision of science, its construction and the characteristics of scientific language, can guide a didactic transposition a little different from the usual one in science classes.
Another related study is the one carried out by Henao and Silvia, (2008) "Science education and argumentation: Toulmin's perspective as a possible response to contemporary demands and challenges for the teaching of experimental sciences".
In their final considerations, they emphasize, among other aspects, that in today's world, that of science, technology and information, it is essential: training in participatory and deliberative democracy, in line with teaching based on argumentation processes in which are articulated, on the one hand, the epistemic and cognitive operations that allow the reasoning to be qualified; and on the other, the issues of the sociological field
However, it is reiterated that the teaching of argumentation cannot be reduced to the use of heuristic strategies, it must go much further, if its aim is to train citizens who are interested in scientific and technological studies and debates.
Linguistic argumentation theorists
The reflection begins with the presentation of Thomas S. Kuhn, quoted by Sánchez (2011), who maintains that each scientific theory has its own lexical structure made up of concepts or standard terms, which are a function of it. The product of each revolution is a new lexical structure, with some standard terms that have new references superimposed on the old ones.
The cited author points out that communication, through the line of revolutionary division, is necessarily partial, which becomes a difficulty of communication that occurs because scientists, attached to rival paradigms, apply terminology to the nature of differently, and therefore, the superiority of one theory over another cannot be proven in debate. This means that there are no common basic statements that are understood in the same way and accepted by the scientific traditions separated by a revolution.
Among the philosophers and writers of science, Stephen Toulmin, born in England (1922-2009), nationalized in the United States, specialized in the analysis of moral reasoning, worried about the development of practical arguments that can be used to evaluate the ethics. One of his most outstanding works is the argument model, where he establishes six types of statements: the thesis, the evidence, the guarantees, the support, the reservation and the moral qualification. This idea, I assume, when I affirm that the researcher must present a thesis exposing the series of logical reasons that must lead to the conclusions in a confirmatory or emergent way of the thesis that was initially proposed.
In the same way, it can be pointed out, regarding the learning of science exposed in Toulmin's discourse, that the inquiring individual must appropriate the cultural heritage, share the meanings and, at the same time, have the ability to critically reflect in order to take positions scientific. In Toulmin's evolutionary theory referred to by Harada, (2009), he points out that although our thoughts are individual, they become the property of the scientific community.
In this framework of linguistic argumentation, we also assume the approach of Karl Popper (1994) who considers that standard logic should be the guideline as the only valid perspective to observe any communication process and the research in graduate study programs is framed in this context.
As it has been observed, the use of the argument as a sequential function of the texts, discourses and theories can persuade or convince the reader and the scientific community about the veracity of the researcher's ideas, as reported by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2000) when they affirm that the argumentation has the objective of establishing, in a secure way, its readers or followers, the specific cognitive currents that are disseminated.
Argument models
The argumentation model for organizing the theories devised by Adam, J. cited by Guanipa (2010), who highlights as fundamental elements of the argumentation, is considered relevant to be used in research: the object, speaker, character and objective;
- The object: refers to any problematic topic, situation or description, which admits different ways of treating it and can be formulated as a question. In research, this aspect is called problem formulation and is represented by a question.
- The announcer: must manifest a way of seeing and interpreting reality, a position taking. He expresses his opinion through moralized and axiological expressions.
- The character: it is controversial and markedly dialogical. The statements are formulated in relation to other statements expressing opposition and contrast.
- The objective: it provokes adhesion, convincing, persuading an interlocutor or a public of the acceptability of an idea, in a way of seeing the subject under investigation.
While the linguistic models represented by Van Dijk (1998) allude to the usual model of propositional logic, used in semantics, articulating the content in predicate and arguments. This proposal is generated from the assumption of the global structure of a theory stemming from the ability to summarize and remember a text, to reduce its meaning to the essential. Along with the referential content, to achieve a summary that includes the total semantic and pragmatic significance of the discourse in the research, the purpose of the communicative event, the participants and the intention to be produced must be incorporated
In this broad spectrum, Baker (1999) establishes that “a theory is a proposed explanation to give direction to coordinated or interrelated events,” (p. 45), this means that the fundamental theories in the investigation of postgraduate studies, They become logical arguments that are used to prove the relationships and assumptions on which this investigation is based, contrasting them with the empirical evidence.
It also affirms that the dialectical model is useful to account for the basic structure of argumentative interaction, which, moreover, will not always occur strictly in real interactions, such as, for example, those that are they perform in university contexts.
It postulates that the dialectical dimension, from the theoretical point of view, is strictly argumentative, since it defines the interactions and as such, it must be complemented, in the case of empirical research, with the rhetorical dimension, that one, which considers the cognitive effects of the argumentation in the participants; the epistemological dimension, which is oriented to the nature of the knowledge involved; the conceptual dimension, centered on the form of cognitive representations; and the interactive dimension, whose axis is the co-construction of meaning and knowledge.
It should be noted that in the argumentative text of the research in postgraduate studies at universities, there may be descriptions, narrations and explanations that function as arguments. I assume the criteria of Cuenca, M. (1996), who postulates that in the linguistic and discursive resources characteristic of argumentation, the use of sentence modality is evident, especially the connectors that articulate written discourse and give fluidity to discourse during the dissertations of the degree works.
In this sense, Caballero, F. and Larrauri, M. (1996) propose more common types of connectors in philosophical discourse, pointing out the functions of each one (See Table 1), other elements can be cited to introduce the researcher's opinion, both in the text and in the dissertation, such as: I understand, I think, I believe, from my point of view, in my way of seeing.
Source: Caballero, F. and Larrauri, M. (1996)
Toulmin's argumentative model cited by Harada, (2009), is related to the rules of an argumentation in steps that can be specified in any type of discipline or space open to dissertation, to debate. Using this model, researchers can motivate participants in postgraduate studies to find the evidence supporting an assertion.
It follows from this statement that the excellence of an argument in a scientific investigation will depend on a set of relationships that can be specified and the language of reason that must be present in all kinds of discourse. The author cited in the previous paragraph, created an adequate model to analyze any type of argumentation in the framework of social discourses, it is assumed in this study for its suitability for scientific research.
It reflects that an "argument" is a complex structure of data that involves a movement that starts from evidence and leads to the establishment of an assertion. The movement from evidence to assertion is the best proof that the line of argument has been carried out effectively and they are expressed below:
Assertion or thesis: refers to the results of the research that. It is the point of view that the researcher presents in front of a studied topic
Evidence: are the data or information obtained through observations, surveys and / or interviews during the investigation, on which the analysis, interpretation, discussion and conclusion are based.
Guarantee: they justify the relevance of the evidence on the conclusion, in the form of rules, principles, research norms, patterns, however, if the researchers have previously manipulated the data, this guarantee may be lost because the originality of the data could not be demonstrated. content of scientific production.
The other three steps in the model are backup, modal qualifier, and reserve.
The support, yes the guarantee that was discussed in the previous paragraph, has a support in the theories of studies carried out by experts on the behavior of variables based on statistical data, oral testimonies, life stories, among others, wants To say that there could be a reliable scientific backing or reliability on the data and information obtained. Support guarantees that the guarantees are reliable and applicable to the present context.
The modal qualifier: is an objection, rebuttal or exception to the proposed thesis. It is worth highlighting in this aspect the criterion of Popper (1994) who lets see that a contrast based on particular observations, although they are very numerous, the only thing that does is not to refute the theory, but it does not demonstrate that it is true, because the theories do not they are never empirically verifiable. Therefore, the modal qualifier is based on a possibility.
Reserve: talks about the possible objections that may be raised to the investigation. The reservation is an objection, rebuttal or exception to the proposed thesis. However, according to Herranz Castillo, (2011) the term «Conscientious Objection» has, in the literature that has dealt with the subject, some fairly precise features, which can make it difficult to apply it to the environment of research and scientific activity. If we understand that, as a general rule, a researcher assumes a project, based on her personal and academic interests, it would be difficult to speak of a possible objection to duties imposed on her in the course of her research.
Argumentation in the veracity of textbooks in research
In the research process, regarding linguistic argumentation, where do the theories come from that will allow me to argue my epistemological bases?
To answer this question, it is necessary to reflect on Kuhn's Invisibility of Scientific Revolutions, due to the role played by textbooks, peer-reviewed journal publications and philosophical works that are still considered as sources of authority in research. carried out in postgraduate studies.
It should be noted that novice researchers should avoid simplifying the language of theorists to avoid misinterpretations of the content, likewise, pay attention to the citation of sources as it is a resource that gives reliability and authority to the words of experts. For this reason, the researchers include in their own discourse, that of other writers who are knowledgeable about the subject matter being discussed.
It is important to highlight that in all kinds of verbal broadcasts, both pedagogical, investigative, literary, colloquial or journalistic, what Reyes, G. (1994) calls polyphony, refers to a notion that questions the uniqueness of an issuer because it allows the diversity of voices in the texts. Direct, indirect and covert citations are analyzed within a framework that unites pragmatic and grammatical analysis. The quote is the discursive resource that the researcher incorporates into another discourse indicating in paraphrase or textually the amount of the text used that belongs to a specific author
Special care should be taken with misconceptions that obviously do not lead to raising or solving a problem.
Results of the investigation
Taking Stephen Toulmin's model of linguistic argumentation as a point of reference, the following was evident in the research analyzed:
D = Data in investigations
Both in investigations with a quantitative and qualitative approach, the facts or factual information, which are invoked to justify and validate the claim, are linked to the questions raised in the Investigation.
C = The Conclusion in the investigations
It was detected that the thesis or opinion of most researchers is established in accordance with the data and information obtained through the techniques and instruments developed and applied by the researchers. The thesis is established and the objectives set in most of the works are achieved.
G = Justification in investigations
These are reasons (rules, principles…) that are proposed to justify the connections between the data and the conclusion, however, in the researches analyzed it was shown that this precept is not achieved, on the contrary, the researchers confuse the justification with importance Of the investigation; with the scope, with the contribution they can provide as follows:
- The results of this study will have a relevant social and academic impact, - The research, would allow to guide the teaching action of the teachers
- It would fill a gap that exists today
- An attempt is made to visualize possible gaps and propose innovative teaching and learning strategies
F = Foundations in research
It consists of the basic knowledge that allows us to ensure justification, however, in the analyzed works the following aspects are displayed:
- The results of this study will have a relevant social and academic impact, - The research, would allow to guide the teaching action of the teachers
- It would fill a gap that exists today
- An attempt is made to visualize possible gaps and propose innovative teaching and learning strategies
Q = Modal qualifiers in investigations
They provide an implicit comment on the justification; in fact, they are the force that justification confers on the argument, however the following was obtained:
- The research will be considered as a documentary source to contrast with the findings found in the study in question.
- The antecedent is important because it considers the same study event
- It follows that this work has some common elements, which serve as valuable antecedents for the research it develops
- It constitutes a reference to consider in this research since it was developed in the same physical space
R = Refutators in investigations
They also provide an implicit comment on the justification, but point to the circumstances. The research background was analyzed and these are the results:
- It represents an important contribution because within the lines of action that have emerged are three related to the development of thought
- It was considered as an important antecedent for the research carried out by the author because it gives validity and relevance to the theories
- The importance of managing both the specific content of the discipline and the innovative strategy is highlighted
- The previous investigation contributes some elements for the interpretation and discussion of the results of the present study, since they have some indicators in common.
The previous research provides a clear and precise vision of the role of the teacher in the stable.
Final thoughts
It was evident in the research that the postgraduate participants focus their interest on the pragmatic aim of achieving acceptance of the linguistic content by the evaluators of their work, which is not assumed as the theory of practical reasoning in epistemological positions., nor do they represent the models of textual linguistics, therefore, the analysis of communicative units does not go beyond the limits of grammatical sentences
Consequently, the conflicts presented by the research of postgraduate studies lack principles of construction, organization and use of argumentation, since in the course of the investigations, they face distant or antagonistic positions in relation to the research topics. and its implications.
The disagreements of opinion during the development of the investigations and the quality of the epistemological positions cannot be overcome because there is a total absence of the teaching of argumentation, as a way of negotiation, between the actors of the investigative process, in such a way that when At the time of presenting a thesis, novice researchers cannot state the logical reasons that must lead to the conclusions in a confirmatory or emergent way.
Bibliographic references
Adám, J and Revaz, F. (1996). (Proto). Types: the structure of the composition in the texts. Texts of language and literature teaching. Paris, Seoul.
Adám, JM and Ulbadina Lorda, C. (1999). Linguistics of narrative texts. Barcelona, Spain. Linguistics Ariel.
Armero, Julio César (1997) the linguistic arguments of kuhn. UNED, Madrid. Éndoxa: Philosophical Series, n ^ 9. Consultation 10-16-11
Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and Constructive Interaction. In Pierre Coirier & Jerry Andriessen (Eds.), Studies in writing. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Berta Lucila Henao1 and Maria Silvia Stipcich (2008) Science education and argumentation: Toulmin's perspective as a possible response to contemporary demands and challenges for the teaching of Experimental Sciences. Electronic Journal of Science Education Vol. 7 Nº1. Check 10/23/11
Gentleman, Francisco. and Larrauri, Maite (1996). The analysis of philosophical texts. Texts of language and literature teaching.
Cuenca, Maria. (nineteen ninety six). Linguistic and discursive mechanisms of argumentation. Communication, language and education. Barcelona, Spain. Empúries.
Berta Lucila Henao1 and Maria Silvia Stipcich (2008) Science education and argumentation: Toulmin's perspective as a possible response to contemporary demands and challenges for the teaching of Experimental Sciences. Electronic Journal of Science Education Vol. 7 Nº1. Check 10/23/11
Chomsky, Avram Noam (2011) General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life. http://www.molwick.com/es/libros/biologia.html. Consultation 11/06/11
Guanipa, María (2010) Basic Reflections on Research. Maracaibo. Venezuela: Editorial Fund. Dr. Rafael Belloso Chacín University. First edition.
Harada, E. (2009) Some clarifications on Toulmin's argumentative “model”.. Consultation 10/24/11
Herranz Castillo, Rafael. (2011) Conscientious objection and scientific research. http://www.madrimasd.org/informacionIdi/analisis/analisis/analisis.asp?id=21497 (consulted 06/11/11)
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2000) Treatise on argumentation. The new rhetoric, Hispanic Romance Library. Gredos, Madrid. Spanish translation by Julia Sevilla Muñoz.
Popper, K. (1994) In search of a better world, Barcelona: Paidós.
Reyes, G. (1994). Appointment procedures: direct style and indirect style. Madrid Spain. Arch books.
Sánchez Campos, M., (2011) Thomas S. Kuhn, in Fernández Labastida, F. - Mercado, JA (editors), Philosophica: On-line philosophical encyclopedia. Consultation 10/23/11
Sarda Jorge, Anna and Sanmarti Puig, Neus (2000) TEACHING TO SCIENTIFICALLY ARGUMENT: A CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE CLASSES. Department of Didactics of Mathematics and Experimental Sciences. UAB.
Van Dijk, TC (1998). Text and context. Semantics and pragmatics of discourse. Madrid Spain. Graphic arts. Third edition.
Spanish language. Discursive varieties: The argumentation.
