Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer Supported Argument Mapping

Tim van Gelder
Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia; and Austhink


Summary
Tim van Gelder defines deliberation as "a form of thinking in which we decide where we stand on some claim in light of the relevant arguments." Although this is a common and important process, it is complicated and often conducted poorly. Gelder contends that deliberation can be improved by mapping out arguments, especially when the methodology utilizes the new computer tools available. An argument map is a presentation of reasoning in which the evidential relationships among claims are made wholly explicit using graphical or other non-verbal techniques. Argument mapping is producing such maps.

This fairly minimal or broad definition recommended by Gelder allows for enormous variety in argument maps. The point of an argument map is to present complex reasoning in a clear and unambiguous way, and mappers should use whatever resources work best. Currently, argument maps are mostly comprised of "box and arrow" diagrams. With technology expanding, other presentations are likely to count as argument mapping. For example, somebody may develop a way to present arguments in virtual 3D or through a virtual reality environment.

According to Gelder, at least four main factors explain the superiority of argument maps. These points concern the limitations of prose which are partly or wholly overcome by argument maps. 1) In prose, the reader has to figure out what the relationships among the claims are. In an argument diagram, in contrast, all relationships are made completely explicit using simple visual conventions. In practice, this relieves a huge burden. Readers can devote their mental energy to thinking about the argument itself rather than trying to figure out what the argument is. 2) Prose is a monochrome stream of words, sentences, and paragraphs. Prose does not use any color, shape, line, or position in space to convey information about the structure of the argument. We know, however, that our brains can process huge amounts of color, shape, and space information very quickly. In an argument map, color can be used to indicate in a matter of milliseconds whether a claim is being presented as reason or an objection. 3) Prose is sequential in nature. However, arguments are fundamentally not sequential. Arguments are more than just one thing after another; they are more complicated. 4) Using diagrams, we can to some extent take advantage of the way humans learn and understand. "We can place all the reasons over here and all the objections over there, or we can make stronger reasons bigger, or place them underneath (supporting) the conclusion."

Until now, argument maps have not really taken off as a practical tool for argument deliberation. Creating these diagrams by hand can be quite difficult. However, new computer software (both free and commercial) is making this method easier. New argument mapping pieces of software include Araucaria, Athena, and Reason!Able.

Argument Maps Improve Critical Thinking

Charles R. Twardy
Revised draft for publication in Teaching Philosophy
School of Computer Science and Software Engineering
Monash University, Australia

Summary
When Charles R. Twardy, a professor at Monash University, first heard about Tim van Gelder's Reason!Able argument mapping software, Twardy was quite skeptical about the effectiveness of the methodology. Rumors circulated that the new software had the ability to drastically increase the quality of critical thinking by van Gelder's students. Twardy contacted van Gelder and the two professors agreed that Twardy should visit van Gelder's university and teach one of his classes to see if students' critical thinking skills really do improve with the Reason!Able software (argument mapping) or whether the students benefit from the "founder effect."

The Reason!Able software for argument mapping amazed Twardy. He saw a significant improvement in the abilities of his students to think critically about arguments after taking a course on the Reason!Able software and the argument mapping methodology. Twardy concluded that "Computer-based argument mapping greatly enhances student critical thinking, more than tripling absolute gains made by other methods." (The gains, or scores, Twardy is referring to are those from the California Critical Thinking Skills Test)

The most significant advantage that argument mapping provides students is the ability to show precisely how students make errors in their reasoning, making it much easier for them to fix their errors. Specifically, argument maps help us to understand how arguments are structured. Typically, we do not make the distinction between two claims forming part of a single reason or whether they are parts of separate reasons. Prose does not force students to know the structure of arguments. Even if you understand an argument, you may not understand the argument's structure.

The second benefit to argument mapping is the methodology's versatility. Argument mapping is a general skill that can be applied to all kinds of arguments.

The major negative to Reason!Able and argument mapping is that users really need a class and significant practice to master the skill. Almost anyone who is asked to map a two-paragraph argument fails to do so correctly. Twardy argues that "practice is clearly important; argument mapping without practice would not much improve critical thinking."

Enhancing our Grasp of Complex Arguments

Enhancing our Grasp of Complex Arguments
By Paul Monk and Tim van Gelder
This paper was presented by Paul Monk as a plenary address to the 2004 Fenner Conference on the Environment, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 24 May 2004

Summary:

What argument mapping is used for:

• To structure, communicate, and correct arguments of any degree of complexity
• To govern deliberation, keeping it on task, target use of evidence, specify disagreements, and make the process more efficient
  

Verbiage tends to make people miss what is being said and asked and encourages people to grasp tightly to their own thoughts. Monk and van Gelder posit that the use of only language, writing processes, and mental cues are too primitive to completely understand the complex arguments that people are now faced with. They continue by stating, “We conduct complex arguments as if a combination of holistic apprehension, intuitive judgment and natural language were sufficient for handling them [arguments]. None of us, I think, would consciously make that claim. We do what we do by tradition and by default, not because we have thought through why we do it, how it works and whether it serves us well.”

Playing the game of tic-tac-toe (on a 4x4 grid or larger) without using actual gridlines is used to illustrate the point that our working memory struggles without the presence of a visual aid (the grid). Cognitive blind spots and biases, the methods used to record and communicate arguments, and separation of disciplines due to different idiolects all accentuate the problem of our limited working memory.

Just as maps and charts allow us to navigate land and sea with more ease than an oral explanation, a map can help us visualize and navigate through problems and arguments. To map an argument, you must start with a proposition, or chief contention – this contention is entered into a white box and placed at the top of an argument map. Supporting claims are color-coded green, while objections are coded red. Claims are organized in a pyramidal hierarchy to maximize the appearance of evidential and logical relationships. The first set of claims (top level) begs the question “what are the distinct arguments provided for the main point (the chief contention)?” Subsequent levels are asked, “Do they support all of these primary arguments with further evidence? [and] Do they countenance any objections to their argument and rebut them?

The authors use the article Coalition of the Willing? Make That War Criminals, which discusses whether or not a preemptive strike on Iraq would constitute a crime against humanity, to demonstrate how argument mapping is useful. (See Image Below)


Advantages of argument mapping over prose:

1. It makes explicit logical relationships that the linearity and abstractness of prose cannot help but obscure.
2. The map offers an instant and effortless scan-ability of the overall structure of the argument, which you simply cannot derive from prose.
3. There is an ease of movement from the detail to the overview that is far more difficult in the case of prose.
   
4. There are unambiguous visual clues as to the significance that particular details have, due to the hierarchical ordering of the structure, the color-coding of the individual boxes and the inferential relations between boxes.
5. A map offers a visual clarity as to the limits of a debate, whereas prose obscures these limits or labors to spell them out.
6. The cognitive burden imposed on us by the task of analyzing a piece of prose is drastically reduced in the case of a map, for the same reasons that it is reduced in moving from a prose description of London to a map.
7. For any given proposition, all claims are integrated into a single structure, instead of consisting of various component parts, which then have to be assembled by whoever happens to be trying to comprehend the argument in question.
   

*Author’s Note: Tim van Gelder has done extensive research in the field of argument mapping and is the leading mind behind Reason!Able, a computer program designed for argument mapping. Reason!Able has now evolved into Rationale. See Video Below.

Summary Findings: Dialectic And The Socratic Method (3 Stars Out Of 5)

Note: This post represents the synthesis of the thoughts, procedures and experiences of others as represented in the 12 articles read in advance of (see previous posts) and the discussion among the students and instructor during the Advanced Analytic Techniques class at Mercyhurst College on 25 MAR 2009 regarding Dialectics generally and the Socratic Method specifically. This technique was evaluated based on its overall validity, simplicity, flexibility and its ability to effectively use unstructured data.

Definition:

The Dialectic Method is an analytic technique designed to force the participants to re-examine their internal beliefs, biases, and conclusions through an open and directed dialogue.

The Dialectic Method uses questioning techniques with the intention of creating a better understanding of a problem or concept. In the realm of intelligence analysis, it should be used as an analytic modifier; i.e. a technique to reassess the validity of the analytic process, not as a forecasting method.

Strengths:

--The primary strength is the ability to identify and challenge initial assumptions about a target, and in effect, it reduces prejudice and bias.

--The dialectic method is also useful throughout the intelligence cycle from requirements, estimative conclusions, and feedback.

--Using dialectic demands the analyst think critically about the certainty of the analysis generated.

Weaknesses:

-- It does not provide an analytical forecast by itself.

-- The questioner needs to be highly skilled in managing the process.

-- As a cautionary note, thinkers caught in their own illogical concepts may become irritated or even angered by such an approach.

-- The approach can be time consuming, and should not be used under time constraints.

How-To:

-- The first step is to provide an initial, well-formulated question with group-wide understanding of the hypothesis at-hand.

-- After the initial hypothesis is presented, the group undetakes an opposing line of questioning to disect the hypothesis and its sub-components.

-- Use the discussion to synthesize arguements for and against the initial hypothesis to determine its truth and validity.

Experience:

We applied the Socratic Method specifically and the principles of dialectics generally to a variety of realistic intelligence situations. We explored how a formal questioning approach that assumes an antithesis, for example, could perhaps have impacted the estimate regarding the presence of WMD's in pre-war Iraq. Even if a Socratic approach to questioning the conclusions of that estimate would not have changed the overall finding, the group generally agreed that it would probably have altered the final level of confidence.

We also applied the method to the requirement phase where the decisionmaker who wants "everything" could be seen as establishing a thesis while the intelligence professional who knows that the decisionmaker doesn't need everything essentially establishes an antithesis. The ultimate intelligence requirement could then be seen as the synthesis of the two positions.

Socratic Method

Learn UNC, From The UNC School Of Education

Summary
Developed from Plato’s Socratic Dialogues, the Socratic approach challenges learners to develop their own critical thinking skills and engage in analytic discussion. “Socratic questioning is a systematic process for examining the ideas, questions, and answers that form the basis of human belief. It involves recognizing that all new understanding is linked to prior understanding.”

A group leader (or questioner) engages participants by asking open-ended questions that require generative answers. Ideally, the answers to the questions serve as a beginning for further analysis and research. The questioning process requires participants to consider how they rationalize about a particular topic.

The goal and benefit of the Socratic Method is to aid participants in processing information and engage in a deeper understanding of a particular topic. Most importantly, rather than engaging in a competitive debate, the Socratic Method allows participants to dialogue and discuss the topic in a collaborative and open-minded manner.

Unfortunately, the success of the Socratic methodology often depends on the quality of the initial question that initiates the investigative discussion. As a result, the first question posed by the questioner to the participants must:
*arise from the curiosity of the leader
*not have a single "right" answer
*be structured to generate dialogue that leads to a clearer understanding of the topic
*require participants to refer to concrete data or textual resources

The Socratic Method

Communities Resolving Our Problems, Western Carolina University

Summary
The Socratic Method is a chain of questions that seek the truth of some topic. Although the methodology may include summarizing ideas, in its purest form, the Socratic Method only includes questions. The questions allow users to utilize their critical thinking skills to find false paths and dead ends in the reasoning process. As a result, the Socratic methodology is a problem solving methodology.

To help develop the proper questions for a Socratic analysis, the discussion group should consider playing the game 20 Questions. This game allows players to see the value of some underlying analytical strategy.

The Socratic Method does not have a concrete methodology for generating the chain of questions. One person in the discussion group should serve as the lead questioner, engaged in analysis and in breaking things down into logical parts. Typically, the initial question must get at what the group already knows about the topic at hand. After this phase, there is the option of pausing to summarize the conclusions found once the group reaches a certain level of complexity. The lead questioner should formulate questions that will move the group into the next area of the topic that the group needs to know. Once the group becomes familiar with the process, all members can be free to pose questions and direct the process’s path.

Law schools often utilize this process to reveal contradictions to invalidate initial assumptions (a handy skill in legal cases). As a cautionary note, thinkers caught in their own illogical concepts may become irritated or even angered by such an approach. As a result, it is very important to develop an egalitarian attitude among all members of the group so that everyone feels comfortable with this process.

Dialectic and Method in Aristotle

Aristotle. Image via Wikipedia

http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/dialectic-and-method.pdf

Summary:

Aristotle's overall method is described as a philosophical inquiry beginning with appearances and undertaking to resolve apparent puzzles. Dialectic arguments originate from endoxa, or commonly held opinions. The enoxa serve as the first series of premises of scientific demonstrations. Arguements are classified according to their premises: some are in accordance with a particular art (field of study), i.e. rest on premises peculiar to that art, whereas others are general. It is the general arguements which are available for dialectic inquiry; the focus is on deriving the general truth as opposed to circumstancial truth.

Aristotle came to see the inadequacy of of the appeal to intuition for the justification of arguements and sought its replacement through dialectical proofs. To establish truth, a method allowing participants to syllogize from common beliefs needed establishment. This is known as the dialectic.

Since Aristotle believed everyone has a built-in grasp of the truth, the opinions of the many, as well as the wise are acceptable, although each needed clarification and correction. The dialectician is to collect the views from each type of person and use them to gauge the acceptability of premises to a particular opponent. However, not everyone's opinion is treated with equal weight.

When a general agreement is initially reached when attempting dialectic dialogue, it is acceptable in some instances to perpetuate false premises for examination. The false premise than can be argued for and against to establish truth in dialectic dialogue. The key property of dialectic is to examine completely the opinions presented on the topic from the truths contained therein.

DIALECTICS IN KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION: AN APPROACH

http://www.inf-wiss.uni-konstanz.de/infwiss/download/isi1998/1_isi98-dv-curras-madrid.pdf

Summary:

"Dialectics" comes from the Greek word "dialogue" which means "to converse between." Thus dialectics is the technique of conversing. Definitions of dialectics changed throughout the years to mean "the study of the theory of knowledge," as well as the art of "demonstrating a proposed thesis by means of the classification of concepts and the rigorous distinction between them.

In reality, dialectics is, in general, a means of organizing knowledge consisting of proposing ideas by putting forward their opposite and reasoning (in dialogue) to obtain a result which is assumed to be the truth. The process involves forming a thesis (what is), its antithesis (what could be), and the synthesis (what it becomes).

In our current age dialectics has been divided into two categories. Scientific dialectics deals with applying intuitive-rational knowledge, object-subject, and individual-society dichotomies against each other. Systems dialectics applies to all branches of science due to the ever increasing changes in our globalized world.

The act of thinking and thought is linked to dialectics insofar as the latter is a means of discerning between true and false (true thought, false thought or the wrong hypothesis) to understand things. The result is the subjective human truth.

What Is Dialectic?

Department Of Applied Mathematics And Theoretical Physics, University Of Cambridge, UK

Summary:
The article seeks to reassess the validity of the dialectic methodology following the collapse of Communism. The article addresses Karl Poppers 1937 critique of the Marxist Dialectic, which he characterized as "damaging to philosophy and political theory". Popper's critique gave the dialectic method a negative connotation, and the author hopes to rehabilitate the method as a valuable tool for scientific inquiry.
Among his criticisms, the author states that Popper focuses on only one of three "laws" of the dialectic: the law of negation of the negation. The other laws - the law of the unity and struggle of opposites and the law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa - are ignored by Popper. Thus he missed the fundamental aim of the dialectic, which is "to study things in their own being and movement via the connection of opposites". Through the study of connections we can postulate a theory of development, which is the central aim of the dialectic. This particular focus is specifically useful in the various scientific fields, where "the development of our scientific ideas and hypotheses...can only make sense if analyzed through the eyes of dialectic".
The author also finds fault with Popper's conclusion that the dialectic "is opposed to formal logic". The author counters that logical scientific inquiry is, by necessity, set outside the realm of formal logic. The author points out that in the realm of science, two hypothesis that can seemingly be logically proved or disproved are, in reality, not so simple at all. For instance:

• The sun is shining.
• The sun is not shining.

Although a peek out the window would seemingly instantly prove which hypothesis is correct, the scientific realities of the real world make the hypothesis much more difficult to prove. Although the sun shines in Erie, the sun does not shine on the other side of the world, in Beijing perhaps, where it is night. The author points out that there is a formal logic and then there is the dialectic, and the two must not be treated as replacements for each other; they are two different tools to be used for different purposes.
The author concludes the article by restating his belief that Poppers thesis unfortunately linked the dialectic to Communism, thus dooming it to be forever linked to that defunct system. This should perhaps be rethought, as the dialectic does provide a unique and useful method, specifically within the scientific realm. The author ends with an interesting point, stating, "It is important that theoreticians of dialectical materialism will do more to depoliticise it. In particular, they ought to convey that its application to the society and history, i.e. historical materialism, should not make any exact social predictions. In addition, the dialectical approach certainly suffers from its apparent applicability to 'everything', the problem that raised the most serious objections from Popper. Indeed, it should be clarified how dialectic classifies and differentiates different processes and types of connections in the world".

Using The Socratic Method And Bloom's Taxonomy Of The Cognitive Domain To Enhance Online Discussion, Critical Thinking, And Student Learning

Developments In Business Simulation And Experiential Learning, Vol. 33, 2006.

Summary:
The article investigates the use of educational techniques used in traditional classroom settings (TCS) and how they may be applied to virtual classroom settings (VCS). The Dialectical methodology, more commonly referred to as the Socratic Method, is one of the oldest teaching techniques. Developed by the Greek philosopher Socrates, the term "dialectic" means "discussion", and the methodology itself involved the presentation of a question, followed by an answer to that question, followed by a follow-up question or request for clarification of the answer. According to the article, "Through this process of dialogue, the initial response (e.g., definition) is destroyed (i.e., shown to be inadequate), requiring further thought and analysis by the interlocutor, and then leading to the submission of a new response by the interlocutor. The questioning continues, often using the 'technique of counterexample' (i.e., considering additional examples, cases, and/or particulars), ultimately seeking to obtain an adequate response, if possible".
The method is used to instigate questioning of the internal beliefs and presumptions of the student. "The Socratic approach is used to get one to re-examine what they believe; it is not an approach used to present absolute information". The method relies heavily on the expertise of the instructor as well, and his or her ability to guide the student down a meaningful path and provide a "disciplined, rigorously thoughtful dialogue". Thus the process is a helpful tool in developing critical thinking and analytic skills in and of themselves, and not a method to apply to an actual target.
A weakness of the method, however, is that if the dialogue is composed entirely of unknowns, how can the student develop any meaningful understanding out of the process ? The article postulates that a knowledgeable moderator of the dialogue should be able to guide the student through the process in a direction that takes them to a meaningful conclusion. Furthermore, the method should be the "finishing touch" to the process of learning; it should serve as the capstone to the process outlined in Bloom's Taxonomy.
A strength is that the method allows for an "intellectually open, safe, and demanding learning environment". This process may actually be better performed in the VCS as opposed to the TCS, where virtual anonymity allows students to truly feel at ease during the dialogue and explore the topic, whereas they may feel the peer pressure of "gazing eyes" in a TCS.

Author's Comment: The article explores the use of the Socratic Method and Bloom's Taxonomy in the VCS and TCS a bit more; for the purposes of this blog and topic I focused almost exclusively on the Dialectical methodology portion of the article.
As an analytic tool, the methodology is purely an internal, individual process. As a tool to engage with other analysts and experts to better understand a target, the Dialectical method may provide new and unique insight for the analyst. As an analytic process to develop an estimation, however, the methodology does not seem viable (save perhaps in some form reserved for the Humint realm).

The Socratic Method: Leveraging Questions to Increase Performance

The Socratic Method: Leveraging Questions to Increase Performance
by Maj. Norman H. Patnode, USAF

Summary:

Explaining the Socratic method:
Maj. Patnode describes the Socratic method as a means for “moving people along.” In essence, is a method that uses questions to challenge the beliefs, experiences, and paradigms that that people hold in an effort to reexamine the possibilities that may exist. The ultimate goal of this method is to achieve “greater understanding and increased performance.”

How to:
Maj. Patnode describes the Socratic method as having two elements:
1. Questions
2. Knowing where you want the conversation to go (or move)

Patnode states that the most important aspect of this method is to remain focused on your goal. The questions you ask must lead others to your desired end state. He suggests using a vision story as a way to “capture and communicate the desired outcome.” The most difficult part of this method is trying to figure out what questions are the right questions to ask. Once the questions are formed, it is important to remain quiet after you ask them – even if there is an awkward silence afterward. It is important to ensure that you do not answer your own questions – if someone is unable to answer the question, he suggests backing up and breaking the question into smaller bits.

Responses to the question will come in the form of answers and statements. Patnode states that both responses contain valuable information which should guide you in the next step: “Knowing where the group (or individual) needs to go next, and how big a step that group (individual) is capable of taking will help you form the question that will move them forward.” Patnode suggests that using Bloom’s Hierarchy of Learning will aid you in determining what the likely next step is. It is also helpful to have a understanding of the concrete data and facts to help guide your questions toward your goal.

What is the Socratic Method?

What is the Socratic Method?
excerpted from Socrates Café (pgs. 18-24) by Christopher Phillips

Summary:
Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and philosophy professor at Princeton, asserts that the Socratic Method (AKA the dialectics method or elenchus) is “among the greatest achievements of humanity…[it is] a common human enterprise, open to every man…[that] calls for common sense and common speech.” Christopher Phillips takes this assertion a step further by adding that the Socratic method goes beyond common sense through the examination of what sense is.

The foundation of the Socratic method is to seek out truth through the use of dialogue – commonsensible reasoning and fact seeking will ultimately strip out any prejudices and biases, leaving only truths and realities. It is designed to “reveal people to themselves.” The author suggests that this use of honesty would require us to constantly scrutinize our own convictions. In addition, Phillip posits that the use of a Socratic dialogue will reveal just how pluralistic people are. It will iron-out abstract concepts and bizarre questions, revealing the relationships between relevant human experiences. “What distinguishes the Socratic method from mere nonsystematic inquiry is the sustained attempt to explore the ramifications of certain opinions and then offer compelling objectives and alternatives.” Phillips compares this method to the scientific method, but unlike the scientific method, Socratic dialogue can investigate immeasurable beliefs like love, joy, suffering, and sorrow.

While the Socratic method is designed to reveal truth, oftentimes it leaves us with a sense of uncertainty that makes us question our original positions, and quite possibly, it leaves us more troubled than where we started.

*Authors Note: I believe the above statement points out both the pros and cons of this method. Using the Socratic method can apparently lead two parties to come to a common agreement about a subject or concept – or it can leave the parties both questioning their original viewpoints. The positive aspect is that questioning can leave one open to new possibilities outside the original frames they’ve constructed – thus limiting cognitive biases. In addition, the uncertainty will surely reduce analytic confidence, which can be a good thing if it reflects the true ambiguity of a concept or subject. However, the detriment is that this sense of uncertainty may ultimately confuse the analyst. If the analyst feels as if he/she is seeking one truth while ignoring the possibility that multiple truths may exist, an analysis may be further sidetracked after a time-consuming Socratic debate. In addition, using the Socratic method for purposes for forecasting is problematic in itself – if the Socratic method is to seek truth, truths of future events do not yet exist. It is for this reason analysts use (or should use) words of estimative probability. Alternative possibilities always exist in matters of predictive analysis and forecasting. Therefore it may be safe to say that this method would only be applicable to the examination of past and present concepts and subjects. If a truth is found, an analyst can then use that truth as a starting point for predictive analysis.

*There are also many forms of dialectics: Socratic, Hegelian, Marxist, Brahmin/Hindu/Vedic, Jain, Buddhist, etc.

Moral choice and dialectic failure.

Myers, Robert J.. Society, Jul/Aug94, Vol. 31 Issue 5, p37-42, 6p; (AN 9407251855)

Summary
Myers calls dialectics a "logical term, used today for abstract disputation, devoid of any practical value". Plato contributes its invention to Zeno of Elea, intended to resolve dilemmas through a series of questions and answers. Myers cites its use within the Socratic Dialogue to identify shortcomings in conventional wisdom, and its later use by Hegel to show the reality of history as only that of ideas--"every idea, as it is affirmed by its truth, brings with it the idea that is its negation." Marx extended this concept into the debate of economic systems. The major historical uses of the dialectic incorporate three important components, which Myers calls the trinity of dialectics:

1. Thesis
2. Antithesis
3. Synthesis

Myers published this paper in 1994, when the fall of the Soviet Union (and, to him, Communism in general) was still a new phenomenon. Thus, his main point of contention was the Hegelian dialectic versus Marxist dialectic. Myers is highly critical of the dialectic explanation of history and its use to forecast the future. Instead, he advocates for an empirical explanation. He flippantly closes the paper, suggesting that "it (dialectics) has come from nowhere and will return to nowhere, allowing the human mind and associated intelligence to continue the search for truth in the abstract and to sort out empirically the good from the bad, the better from the worse, and to construct an ethical scale, weighed with democratic values". It is his contention that the dialectic was "simply a mental construct" and it has reached the end of its importance in "democratic" thought.

Dialectics – a commentary to Singer: “Global business and the dialectic”

Sørensen, Asger. Human Systems Management, 2002, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p267, 3p; (AN 9330655).

Summary

Sørensen uses this commentary on dialectics to build upon a case previously presented by Alan Singer, which considers the use of philosophy, particularly dialectic reasoning, in developing business and political strategy. He believes that the use of dialectics to examine dilemmas, tensions, and contradictions has not been widely used, largely due to its "guilt by association" with marxists and totalitarians.

He begins by providing an overview of the development of dialectics in the realm of philosophy. The main focus of the historical overview is to examine the development and opposing viewpoints of dialectics, from Plato (ideas), Aristotle (deduction), Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Engels (dialectical materialism).

Sørensen further points out that Singer sided with Hegel and Engels, who advocated its application to nature and culture. While Singer endorsed its use as a scheme of thought, he did not fully commit to its necessity in examining tensions.

This examination of dialectics closes with a brief mention of its implications in the realm of business and political strategy. By nature, dialectics is concerned with the truth of reality in its entirety, and is therefore at odds with basing political decisions on the wants and needs of the individual. He adds to this by hypothesizing that "introducing dialectics into business strategy might signal a shift in focus from the market to the organization, i.e., from coping with universal competition outside the firm to handling internal affairs, just as it is relevant in an economy dominated by the monopolies of multinational corporations."

Fight The Power: The Limits Of Empiricism And The Costs Of Positivistic Rigor

Indick, William The Journal of Psychology, 2002, 136(1), 21–36

Summary

In this article the author makes a case for the usefulness of the dialectical method as opposed to empirical methods, for studying evolutionary and moral psychology.

The dialectic method is when a hypothesis is presented, and then a second opposite hypothesis is introduced. Through dialogue and argument a third hypothesis emerges and is eventually agreed upon. However, the method always leaves the door open for additional hypotheses; therefore there can be no absolute truth. Instead of facts there are better interpretations of evidence. An argument does not need quantifiable variables to be legitimate. It only needs to prove how it “logically integrates previous arguments while incorporating or addressing conflicting arguments.”

The dialectical method is especially useful in social sciences such as evolutionary and moral psychology, and sociology. The strengths of the dialectical method is that it allows for adjustments in thinking as long as long the arguments relate to the subject matter. Another strength is that it allows for non- quantifiable variables to be easily included in forming hypotheses.

From an intelligence perspective the dialectical method is likely to be useful in more long-term and strategic situations because it can incorporate potential paradigm shifts into the intelligence process. However, because the dialectic method is open-ended by its nature it is likely to not be a useful analytical method at the tactical level.

An Overview Of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy In The Treatment Of Borderline Personality Disorder

By Kiehn, Barry & Swales, Michaela

Summary

The theory behind DBT is that due to psychological factors during their upbringing or biological factors people with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) display abnormal behavior when responding to emotional stimuli. A dialectic approach accepts the current circumstances of a patient with BDP but also encouraging changes in patient behavior over time. Through regular sessions with a DBT therapist, patients with BPD identitify problamatic behaviour and discuss alternative forms of behavior that may have been better responses to emotional stimuli.

The strength of the method is that demands constant interaction between a patient and therapist. However, if there is lack of qualified therapists the strength can become a weakness duw to overwhelmed therapists not being able to give adequate attention to the patients.

Discussion

From an intelligence perspective DBT could be useful in addressing cognitive bias in analysts. Analysts because of religious upbringing, sheltered childhoods, or indoctriniation to a political ideology at university, may bring biases to their jobs that effect their analysis. By taking recent estimates that were proven to be wrong analysts and managers can following the DBT format by focusing on behaviors of the analysts and external stimuli they recieved while producing an estimate.

Summary Findings: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis -- 2 Stars Out Of 5

Note: This post represents the synthesis of the thoughts, procedures and experiences of others as represented in the 12 articles read in advance of (see previous posts) and the discussion among the students and instructor during the Advanced Analytic Techniques class at Mercyhurst College on 18 MAR 2009 regarding the SWOT technique. This technique was evaluated based on its overall validity, simplicity, flexibility and its ability to effectively use unstructured data.

Definition:

SWOT is the result of structured brainstorming on the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of an organization or, as an intelligence analysis technique, of a competitor, enemy or rival. While not designed to generate an estimative conclusion by itself, SWOT serves as a possible convergent-thinking technique in the early stages of strategy formulation.

Strengths:

• Easy
• Inclusive
• Familiar tool
• Informative
• Flexible
• An effective prelude to forecasting analysis
• No software necessary

Weaknesses

• The general concept is agreed upon, but sub-steps need to be more clearly defined
• Not a forecasting method
• Some validity concerns regarding the level of analysis
• Can consume resources (time consuming, lengthy lists, etc)
• Lacks strict guidelines on how to prioritize lengthy lists
• Threats and opportunities can oftentimes lead to guesswork
• Open to bias
• Too basic

How-To:

• Designate a team to conduct the technique
• Designate sub-teams for each matrix field
• Collect empirical and anecdotal data on the target
• Conduct a structured brainstorming session
• Sort data and place into relevant field in the matrix
• Prioritize and weight data for importance
• Cross-fertilize data and identify relationships across matrix fields
• Synthesize conclusions
• Disseminate

Experience:

Our experience with applying the method to the situation regarding the Mercyhurst College Institute of Intelligence Studies tracks very closely with the comments and observations in both the class and in the articles read. From thiis discussion and experience, the list of strengths and weaknesses emerged.

We did the exercise in class over a period of about 20 minutes. While we did not have adequate time to fully explore the nuances of the method, this exercise did give us a sense of the challenges inherent in applying this method. The final product, generated using the Mindmeister mind mapping program is below:

Six Steps To Better SWOT Analysis

http://www.scip.org/Publications/CIMArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2098

According to a 1998 survey of SCIP members SWOT analysis is “the third-most widely used intelligence analytic technique. Competitor profiling and financial analysis were the first two. Respondents to the SCIP survey also rated SWOT as the most effective analyst tool. Dale Fehringer who serves on the SCIP Education Advisory Committee, provides six suggestions for more effective SWOT analysis.
1. Start with a brainstorming session: A brainstorming session should be a place where participants feel free to share all ideas and suggestions.
2. Never brainstorm alone: SWOT is best done in a group setting with representation from multiple departments.
3. Rank order all quadrants: Contents of the SWOT analysis should be ordered by their significance to your company.
4. Match strengths with threats; weaknesses with opportunities: Match individual strengths with individual opportunity, and individual weakness with individual threat.
5. Use as a starting point for further analysis: The author cites several experts who are in agreement that SWOT should be the starting point to other forms of analysis.
6. Don’t show to your senior management team: Senior managers learned SWOT in business school. Seeing it up front in a report is too basic for a decision maker. A SWOT chart is best reserved for an appendix table.

The strengths of a SWOT analysis according to the author is that it “provides a framework for strategic decision making.” The weakness is that it is only a framework and cannot stand on its own as an intelligence mechanism. Also, if key information is missed in the collection phase or overlooked in the analysis phase a company risks moving forward with incomplete intelligence.

How To Do A SWOT Analysis

SWOT is a planning tool used to understand strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in a project or in a business. It involves identifying the internal and external factors that are supportive or unfavorable to achieving an objective. SWOT analysis can be graphically represented with a matrix or a grid. Although SWOT appears to be an easy model, an effective and meaningful SWOT analysis requires time and resources. One person cannot do this method effectively; it requires a team effort. SWOT is not an analysis; rather it is summary of a previous set of analyses (mini-brainstorming activities).

A SWOT analysis produces information that is helpful in pairing an organization’s goals and programs with the social environment in which it operates.

*Strengths—internal attributes within an organization’s control
*Weaknesses—within the organization’s control but detract from its ability
*Opportunities—external factors that present opportunities within the environment
*Threats—external factors that place the organization at risk

SWOT’s strength as a model lies in its flexibility and experienced application. For example, a SWOT analysis can be used for workshops, brainstorming, problem solving, planning, evaluation, and competitor evaluation. The analytic method aims to reveal a company’s competitive advantages, analyze prospects for sales, prepare the company for future problems, and allow for the development of contingency plans.

To conduct a SWOT analysis:
1) Collection information—list all strengths and weaknesses
2) List all opportunities that might exist in the future as well as all threats that may exist
3) Review the SWOT matrix to create an action plan to address the four areas.

Due to SWOT’s subjective characteristics, two people rarely draft the same final version of a SWOT analysis. In order to strengthen a SWOT analysis, be realistic about a company’s strengths and weaknesses, avoid gray areas, avoid complexity, and always analyze in relation to competitors. Other capabilities needed to complete an effective SWOT analysis include trust in group members, team diversity, and time.

http://www.rapidbi.com/created/how-to-do-a-swot-analysis.html

Compare Apples And Oranges For Robust SWOT Analysis

http://www.scip.org/Publications/CIMArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2150

Article Summary
This article from Competitive Intelligence Magazine discusses how a health insurance company (Company A) conducted a SWOT analysis on a competitor that was a healthcare conglomerate (Company B). At first Company A wanted to conduct a SWOT analysis on Company B’s health insurance division. This approach according the author was comparing apples-to-apples. The team hired by Company A instead, conducted a SWOT analysis on the elements of Company B’s entire conglomerate, such as smaller companies and a bank acquired by Company B, their medical databases.

Discussion
By using the SWOT technique Company A, expected to find “the secret sauce” of their competitor’s success in the market they were competing in. From a competitive perspective the SWOT analysis technique is suppose to give insight into a rival's position in the market. The strengths according to the article is an in-depth analysis of how a rival functions, the weaknesses can be that a company misses key elements of a rival's operation. Company A from the article wanted to only perform SWOT on Company’s B health insurance division and not its entire conglomerate. Although the article does not give a step-by-step approach to SWOT the author also emphasized the first step to conducting a SWOT analysis on a competitor should be to develop multiple hypotheses as oppose to simply gathering information about a competitor and then trying to put together a big picture analysis.

Case Study: SWOT Analysis In Action At Škoda

Škoda, a small car company originating in Czechoslovakia in 1895, needed to seek out a strong foreign partner to aid the company amid economic hard times. Škoda chose Volkswagen AG due to its reputation for strength, quality, and reliability. Volkswagen AG comprises Volkswagen, Audi, Škoda, SEAT, Lamborghini, Bentley, and other brands. To improve its performance, Škoda conducted a brand positioning examination (establishing a distinctive image) by obtaining market research data from both internal and external audits, allowing Škoda to conduct a SWOT analysis.

SWOT Analysis stands for:
*Strengths—the internal elements of the business that contribute to growth
*Weaknesses—the attributes that will hinder a business or make it vulnerable
*Opportunities—the external conditions that could enable future growth
*Threats—the external factors which could negatively affect business

Strengths
To identify its strengths, Škoda gathered research from customers and reliable independent surveys. Škoda found that the company excelled at satisfying its customers when it focused on the “owner experience” rather than on sales alone. Almost all of Škoda’s customers would recommend Škoda to a friend, meaning that Škoda had a clearly identifiable strength. As a result, Škoda manufactured cars that their customers could enjoy, which is different from simply maximizing sales. Škoda branded themselves as a quality product that satisfies its customers.

Weaknesses
Škoda’s analysis showed that in order to grow the business needed to address questions about how the small company (1.7% market share) fit into the highly competitive market. An out-dated perception of the Škoda brand, related to the company’s Eastern European origins, contributed to the business’ small size. By 1999, Volkswagen AG ownership changed this negative attitude about Škoda. However, Škoda still lacked a strong appeal. Škoda realized that the company needed to cease defensive campaigns illustrating what the brand was not and begin new campaigns illustrating what Škoda had to offer. The change was simple: Škoda new that its owners were happy with their cars.

Opportunities
Škoda realized that its competitors’ marketing approaches focused on the product (car) itself. Škoda, conversely, focused its attention on emphasizing the owner’s experience with their cars and the customers’ satisfaction with Škoda vehicles. This SWOT analysis helped Škoda to differentiate its product from its competitors.

Threats
In the UK market, there are 50 different car makers selling 200 models. In this large and competitive market, Škoda needed to ensure that its message would not be lost or drowned out within the crowded environment. As a result, Škoda manufactured seven different cars, each one appealing to a different segment of the market (city car, luxurious car, family car, etc) with subsequent levels of pricing.

Conclusion
Škoda’s SWOT analysis helped the company to discover that Škoda customers were happy with their cars, the brand was no longer seen as a poor, outdated car, the company was able to operate within a niche in the market, and that a change in public perception was vital to Škoda’s ability to expand within a highly competitive market.

SWOT analysis brings order and structure to random information. The SWOT model helps managers to look internally and externally. It examines that key internal weaknesses and focuses on strengths managers can utilize to seize opportunities and combat threats.

Author's Note: This case study simply provides a real world example of a company who used SWOT analysis successfully to redefine its market strategy. The case study did not provide a critique of the structured method.

http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/downloads/skoda/skoda_13_full.pdf

SWOT Analysis: Its Time For A Product Recall

Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 Issue 1, February 1997, 46-52.

Summary:
This article presents the findings of a study that investigated the use of SWOT analysis by 20 manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom. It states that SWOT analysis was originally developed with "the idea that good strategy means insuring a fit between the external situation a firm faces (threats and opportunities) and it's own internal qualities and characteristics (strengths and weaknesses)". Critics of the process, however, believe that the formalization of strategic decisions that SWOT analysis encourages is far too basic and that new insight into how people and organizations learn and think has made SWOT analysis outdated. Proponents of the technique argue that SWOT is more than just "list-making" and when done correctly (weighting and commenting on various factors on the list, testing assumptions) SWOT is still a valuable tool to the corporate world.

After interviewing real-world participants after they had engaged in their own SWOT analysis, the study comes to some interesting conclusions. "Our principal conclusion has to be that...SWOT as deployed in these companies was ineffective as a means of analysis or as a part of a corporate strategy review". The study further questions the validity of calling SWOT an analytic tool in the first place, as SWOT merely is a descriptive tool, and rarely adds any value beyond the bare descriptive terms of a situation. The greatest use of the SWOT analysis seemed to be to instigate discussion centered around various aspects of the matrix, and familiarize the company officers with various company issues. "In summary, there are other fundamental concerns about the intrinsic nature of SWOT analysis:

• The length of the lists;
• No requirements to prioritize or weight the factors identified;
• Unclear and ambiguous words and phrases;
• No resolution of conflicts;
• No obligation to verify statements and opinions with data or analysis;
• Single level of analysis is all that is required;
• No logical link with an implementation phase.

There is therefore a lack of rigour in SWOT because there is no inherent requirement to overcome any of these weaknesses".
The article sums up by referring to it's title, suggesting that academics never initiate a "product recall" of outdated tools. It suggests that perhaps SWOT analysis is one such tool that has become obsolete with the advent of better analytic techniques, and thus should be disregarded for future use.

SWOT Analysis: How To Perform One For Your Organization

YouTube White-Board Sessions

Summary:
Erica Olsen, VP of Marketing for M3Planning, presents a white-board session on how to develop a SWOT analysis matrix for competitive intelligence. The technique is used as an identification tool; businesses should develop a SWOT matrix to identify areas where they can capitalize on their strengths to neutralize weaknesses and match up these strengths with new opportunities.

A SWOT analysis is a matrix consisting of 4 elements: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. The goal is to discover how a business can capitalize on its strengths, "shore-up" or neutralize its weaknesses, invest in opportunities, and identify threats.

The first step to this method should be data collection. Too often the method is used in a vacuum; i.e. formed during a brainstorming session and based on no concrete data. The internal portion of the matrix (strengths and weaknesses) should be developed based on data derived from internal sources such as customer feedback, employee surveys, company resources such as capital and brand recognition, and company processes. The external portion of the matrix should be based on external collection, i.e. industry data, market data, and competitive data. With this data, a comprehensive SWOT matrix can then be developed.

A major weakness that this presentation associates with SWOT analysis is building the matrix and not doing anything with the insight that it provides. What the presentation recommends is to take the matrix and develop a list of ideas which can then be transformed into goal statements. These goal statements should be the final product, matching strengths to invest in opportunities and neutralize weaknesses. Furthermore, the goal statements should seek to ask what opportunities can offset the threats that have been identified.

The presentation sums up with re-iterating that the whole purpose of a SWOT analysis is to inform. Once informed, a business can use that information to develop goals to increase the productivity and success of their business.

Building balanced scorecard with SWOT analysis, and implementing "Sun Tzu's The Art of Business Management Strategies" on QFD methodology

The article serves as a methodological guide for conducting SWOT analysis. The article also provides broad topics for analysts to consider when assessing a SWOT matrix.

The article outlines a step-by-step process for producing a SWOT matrix. The article proposes organizing a standard 2x2 matrix where strengths is the top left field, weaknesses the bottom left, opportunities the top right, and threats the bottom right field.

• Assess strengths. List the target's unique strengths without modesty.
• Assess weaknesses. List the target's organizational weaknesses from a rival's viewpoint.
• Assess opportunities. List the target's areas where there is potential for growth.
• Assess threats. List the environmental and/or competitive threats.

Once the matrix is complete, an analyst can compare and contrast an internally focused field, either strengths (S) or weaknesses (W), against an externally focused field, opportunities (O) or threats (T), to derive analytic insight along the following broad guidelines:

• S-O: Maximize strengths to capitilize on opportunities
• S-T: Use strengths to minimize threats
• W-O: Conquer weaknesses by making the most out of opportunities
• W-T: Minimize weaknesses to avoid threats.

The article suggests avoiding comparing and contrasting both internally focused fields with each other, as well as both externally focused fields. Doing so potentially creates unfocused strategies.