ABSTRACT
I want to make the strongest possible case for nurturing PhD students’ capacity for argumentation. To do so, I turn to Jurgen Habermas, the influential social theorist for whom hope for modern society lies in argumentation. Making arguments is central to his theory of communicative action: where there is a possibility of influencing the public political sphere, citizens’ capacity to make arguments and to accept ‘the persuasive force of the better argument’ (1990: 159) provide grounds for hoping that right and just decisions will be made in accordance with the general will (1984; 1987). Many have argued that Habermas’ vision of communication free from the constraints of power relations is utopian. Yet, if there is an everyday model of reasoned argument and open, reciprocal communication surely we would find it in a university. Indeed, Habermas (1989) argues that universities and modern democratic societies are connected by a shared necessity for the processes of critical argumentation to ensure their health. So, from this perspective, it is not far-fetched to propose that doctoral education is the acme of the human capacity to ‘raise claims to validity that we are prepared to defend against criticism’ (Habermas 1990: 56) as a form of participation in the direction society takes. The doctoral thesis is a part of the discourse of a field or discipline, in which a com-
munity of enquirers operates relatively coherent modes of argumentation. A doctoral thesis is written to contribute to scholarly arguments that are already under way. Watson (1987: 24) emphasises the importance of argumentative communicative in research: the topic ‘is a response to the climate of opinion one lives in; and that it necessarily [ … ]
depends on some acquired sense of other minds-their puzzles, preoccupations and fears.’ For this reason, the place of argument in doctoral work is to convince others – who are part of the relevant arguments – of an interesting, new and worthwhile point of view. The intention of this chapter is to take a practical approach to what convincing
arguments might look like. Its structure is:
1. An outline of general features of doctoral argument 2. A discussion, with illustrations, of the central importance of sequencing in making an
argument at all textual levels: sections within chapters, chapters and the whole thesis 3. Some comments on what distinguishes good and bad arguments 4. A discussion of argumentative writing conventions and styles 5. Suggestions of some comparatively simple practical exercises towards writing the
thesis as an argument; and 6. A conclusion that summarises the main points as a basic check-list and repeats the
claim for the importance of doctoral argument for society.
