Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory in Didactics, Education, and Training

Guidelines on the Standards of Argumentation in the Social Sciences

The guidelines presented on this page are available as a PDF file: here.

Argumentation is a process through which individuals construct, justify, question, and/or evaluate claims (which may express viewpoints or emotions, draw on knowledge, and so on). Argumentation can be viewed as a social practice that is inherently dialogical and based on a set of norms.

1. General Standards for Argumentation

Argumentation is governed by standards that define what constitutes a sound argument. These standards may be general in nature or specific to the context in which the argument is developed. Three general standards are particularly important and deserve to be addressed in an educational setting: justification, consideration of others, and critical inquiry.

1.1. The standard of proof

Every claim must be supported by justifications, which are reasons for accepting the claim. These justifications can take many forms: reliance on empirical data (experiments, observations, etc.), consistency with established knowledge, reference to a source, alignment with values, testimonials, and so on. Justification is essential for transforming a simple claim into a valid argument.

1.2. The standard of “consideration for others” 

Argumentation is a dialogic process in which the arguments and viewpoints of other participants must be taken into account. This involves developing, refuting, or qualifying the viewpoints of others, which helps to enrich the argument.

1.3. The Inquiry 

Questioning and challenging claims—whether they come from others or from oneself—is a driving force behind argumentation. It is what prompts us to examine the justifications put forward and to consider counterarguments, in order to strengthen or adjust our position.

2. Standards specific to the context of socio-scientific issues (SSI)

We can distinguish between purely scientific questions and socio-scientific questions (SSQs), the latter of which can be defined as societal issues that involve science and/or technology. These two types of questions draw on specific standards of argumentation. In the case of the experimental sciences, two standards prevail: justification through empirical evidence and consistency with established theories, models, or laws. SSQs call for other types of justifications, incorporating ethical, social, political, or other dimensions. Here are some examples of SSQs: Should new nuclear power plants be built? Should electric cars be made mandatory? Should we ban glyphosate in agriculture? Argumentation on these questions must adhere to three specific norms: complexity, uncertainty, and openness.

2.1. Standard complexity 

QSS encompasses multiple dimensions—not only scientific and technical, but also axiological (related to values), economic, educational, environmental, experiential, political, health-related, and social. An argument that integrates and links these various dimensions provides a comprehensive understanding of QSS.

2.2. Uncertainty standards

The knowledge used in QSS involves uncertainties. It is important to distinguish between two types of uncertainty: knowledge-related uncertainties, which concern what science does not yet know or what remains to be discovered, and uncertainties related to global change, which refer to future changes in areas such as climate, society, or technology, which cannot be accurately predicted. Both types of uncertainty are expected in high-quality reasoning.

2.3. Standard opening

QSSs are open-ended questions that allow for multiple perspectives and possible answers. The argument must acknowledge the diversity of legitimate viewpoints, which reflect the values and interests of various stakeholders in society, such as business leaders, representatives of organizations, parents, and so on.

2.4. Interconnection of Specific Standards

The three specific criteria (complexity, uncertainties, openness) are interrelated. The complexity of a QSS reinforces its open nature, as societal stakeholders may prioritize different dimensions (for example, the environmental dimension or the economic dimension). Similarly, the uncertainties inherent in QSSs make alternative perspectives acceptable, which further reinforces their open nature.

For more information:

Bächtold, M., Pallarès, G., De Checchi, K., & Munier, V. (2023). Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 761–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21816

Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216

Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 29–45). Springer Science + Business Media.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–28). Springer.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035

Pallarès, G., Bächtold, M., & Munier, V. (2020). Can digital debates help develop students’ argumentative skills on socio-scientific issues? Research in Science and Technology Education, 22, Online article. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdst.3573

Pallarès, G., De Checchi, K., & Bächtold, M. (2023). What teaching approach for “critical thinking”? An approach based on the norms of critical argumentation regarding socio-scientific issues. Research in Science and Technology Education, 28, Online article. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdst.5221

Plantin, C. (2016). Dictionary of Argumentation: An Introduction to the Study of Argumentation. ENS Éditions.

Polo, C. (2014). “Mouth-watering: Students’ Argumentative Resources and Strategies in Socio-Scientific Debates on Drinking Water” [Doctoral dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2].