Critical Analysis - DEVELOPING A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT

6. DEVELOPING A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT

6.1. Critical Analysis

A student once said to me that they weren’t interested in knowing if their writing style was accurate, instead they just wanted to know if the content of their work was “right”.

At university level, especially in social sciences, when writing an essay or report it is generally not a matter of having the right or the wrong answers – there rarely are any right or wrong answers. It is all about how well you argue your case for the answers, or position, that you have chosen to support – it is about how well you argue for your thesis. And that is one major reason why your writing skills are so important. At the heart of most academic assignments is an assessment of how well you can argue a case for your particular point of view, or your thesis, using as evidence the theoretical academic literature, and examples and data if appropriate, to support your case.

Just imagine that you are an attorney on The Practice or Law and Order, or if you go back that far, Perry Mason. The marker or the reader of your paper is the jury. You have to convince the reader/the jury that your position is the very best one to hold.

With academic writing, you do that by way of what is called critical analysis, not description.

When I say description, I am referring to the practice of quoting from, and paraphrasing, the paper under discussion – merely describing the situation that the paper under discussion is talking about. Now it is true that you need to include some description to set the stage, to provide context. However, most of your marks will be given for critical analysis, not for description. Description merely demonstrates that you are

able to regurgitate something that someone else has written to support your case. You are not telling the reader anything that they cannot find out for themselves by reading the original paper. By contrast, critical analysis demonstrates your creativity, insights, and ability to go further than just what one author/paper says. Critical analysis demonstrates your ability to compare and contrast, or look at the commonalities or similarities and the differences, the pluses and the minuses, of a number of different positions in an attempt to convince the jury/the reader that the position you have chosen is the best one on this occasion. The strength of your argument will be determined by the persuasiveness of your evidence to an unbiased, clear-thinking person (Seech, 1993:2).

The first step in developing a persuasive argument is to decide on a point of view, the position that you are going to argue for. Using the courtroom metaphor, you find a client – a topic – and decide whether you will play the part of the defence attorney or the prosecutor. In other words, what is your position, do you support the theory, or are you against the theory. Your decision as to the position you will take generally comes to you as you familiarise yourself with the various aspects of the topic through lectures, reading your text book, tutorial preparation, general discussion, and general reading on the topic.

The next step in developing a persuasive argument is to critically analyse the literature on the topic. And a critical analysis involves more than just reading a couple of papers that support your point of view. How would the people from Law and Order go if they just went into the courtroom and said; ‘Our client is innocent because his/her Mum says he’s a good boy, or she’s a good girl’. That is certainly not a strong enough case to keep the defendant out of jail.

For every point of view there will normally be many writers who support it, and normally many who oppose it – writing in great detail why they believe that point of view is flawed. Consequently, your research must include the reading of just as many papers written by people who object to your opinion, as those who support you. Within reason, the more literature you read, covering a whole range of views relating to your topic, the stronger your argument will become.

However, the critical analysis does not come by just descriptively listing the views of the various writers. Instead, you need to break down the various arguments. You must look for the strengths and the weaknesses in each argument – just as each witness for both the defence and the prosecution are cross examined to find the strengths and weaknesses in their testimony. If you have read widely, many of those strengths and weaknesses will be highlighted for you in the academic papers you read.

Whilst there are many ways you can structure your analysis, one way is to present it in the following form:

1. You present your point of view, complete with a rationale, and then support that opinion by citing one, two, or more authors with the same opinion, discussing all the reasons why they believe that your thesis/position is valid. Putting it another way by continuing with the courtroom metaphor, the defence attorney presents their case.

They deliver an opening statement to the jury stating that their client is innocent and they give the reasons why they believe this to be so. They then call some witnesses to support their case.

2. Next, you argue against your own opinion, by citing the work of people who object to your thesis, giving the reasons that they proffer. In other words, you then either play Devil’s advocate, or pretend you are the prosecutor and cross-examine the witnesses for the defence in an attempt to find holes in their testimony.

3. Then, if you want to persuade the reader of your paper that your opinion has merit you must overcome all the objections stated and any others that come to mind by citing some more writers. Again, as defence attorney, if you want to get your client a not-guilty verdict, you now must overcome all the objections the prosecutor raised.

You must be able to argue that the flaws that the prosecutor raised in your original position are completely without foundation, or your client goes to jail.

4. To this point, all you have done is examine the arguments and debated your thesis.

To complete the analysis you have to answer the questions: “So what?”; “What does all the evidence mean in relation to my point of view?” To answer those questions you must think about the debate you’ve just presented – think about the analysis so far – and based on that analysis make some logical conclusion/s. Without presenting some logical conclusion – without answering the “so what?” question

– you have not completed your analysis. In the case of the courtroom metaphor, after all the evidence has been presented the attorneys present their final summation to the jury. The defence attorney ties all the pieces of evidence together, and highlights how all this evidence demonstrates that their client is innocent. Thus, to the defence attorney, the “so what?” at the end of all of the courtroom argument is that their client is innocent.

No matter how you ultimately structure and write up your analysis, the four points above are the basic components required to develop your argument. It is a bit like a four-step dance. (1) You argue for a substantiated position; (2) find the flaws in that position – argue against that position; (3) then overcome those objections using credible evidence to substantiate your claims; and finally (4) tell the reader/marker/jury what all this debate means. Tell them the conclusion that they should make as a result of reading/hearing the debate.

This might all be done within one small paragraph, or this four-step process might be extended over many pages, depending on the size of the paper, and the importance to your thesis, of the argument in question.

Below, is a simple example of a small section from a short paper, demonstrating a number of things that we have covered so far in this handbook. You should be able to identify the introduction, the body, and the conclusion to this section, and examples of linking and flagging. You should also be able to identify the four-step process described above. However, to ensure that there are no misunderstandings, I shall present the piece twice – once without comment for ease of reading, and then a second time in which I shall comment on each of the processes. But first, see how many of the above characteristics you can identify in the following unmarked piece of writing, which commences about four pages into a 2000 word essay.

Why do Boards Fail?

John Pound (1995: 89) indicates that, what he refers to as the “managed corporation” is akin to the current new trends in corporate governance, as has been discussed above – characteristics similar to the recommendations found in the Cadbury Report. Further, he suggests that these changes, of merely moving the source of power from one party to another, are not the answer to successful

versus the “governed corporation” to differentiate between the current new trends in corporate governance similar to the Cadbury style board, and the board which focuses on an effective decision-making policy. The “governed corporation” will be discussed shortly, however initially, it is important to address some of the superficialities of Pound’s argument.

For Pound’s argument to be sound, then the downfall of all corporations would have to be due to poor decisions. Yet as we are all too aware, with the cases such as Maxwell, Skase, et cetera, mentioned above, the demise of the company was due to the criminal intent of the CEO/Chairperson. As such, one must ask to what extent a strong board, with an independent NED as Chair, minimum executive involvement in the board, audit committees, and so on, would have been far more effective than a good decision-making policy.

But setting aside any criminal intent, boards can fail, due to numerous reasons as highlighted by Thain and Leighton (1995), who offer six key “signs and symptoms of problems in board effectiveness” – legitimacy and power; role definition; board culture; competence; board management; and board leadership. In addition, Sir Adrian Cadbury (1995: 58) suggests that failings are due to “ ignoring the interests of the shareholders, being self-perpetuating, … and drawing their membership from too narrow a section of society” as well as plain incompetence. Further, as previously stated, many boards just do not want to “rock the boat” (Patton &

Baker, 1987). Now it could, rightly, be argued that at the heart of all these problems an original decision had to be made, and thus the decision-making process is the real problem. Nevertheless, it could also be equally submitted that many of these problems could be prevented, or at the very least curbed, by the new trends of an empowered board.

Consequently, as demonstrated, a good decision-making process is not necessarily the only answer to effective corporate governance. Many other issues are involved, all of which could be explored at great length. However, due to the word constraints, as the aim of the paper is to discuss Pound’s proposition concerning the differences between the “managed corporation” and the “governed corporation”, I shall move onto the issue of decision-making and Pound’s “governed corporation”.

Decision-Making and The Governed Corporation

Pound (1995) argues that the key to a successful corporation and good corporate governance is for the board to focus on a good decision-making process which he describes as the “‘governed corporation”.

I shall now repeat the section, and in a different font which is underlined, I shall comment throughout.

Why do Boards Fail?

The introduction, the body, and the conclusion for the section are clearly identifiably. The introduction is contained in the first paragraph, where the

t section is introduced or set up. It is giving you an idea of what John Pound’s argument is all about in prepara ion for the critical analysis of Pound’s argument, which is contained in the body of the piece. Paragraphs two and three form the body and con ain the critical analysis. The final paragraph draws the argument together in a concluding paragraph and links that section to the following section. Now let’s look a paragraph one.

In essence, Pound is arguing that poor corporate governance is due to poor decision-making processes. Using the four-step critical analysis process described above, I am now going to challenge that argument and suggest that there might be other things as well that should be considered.

To challenge, or find a hole in Pound’s argument that poor corporate governance is due to poor decision-making, I have used two examples of very well known cases, at the time, which were discussed in greater detail in a previous sec ion

As such, one must ask to what extent a strong board, with an independent NED as Chair, minimum executive involvement in the board, audit committees, and so on, would have been far more effective than a good decision-making policy.

I have now offered a counter position to that of Pound – that “a strong board ...[e cetera] would be more effective ...”. In the next paragraph, I proceed to supply more evidence to support my position. We are still a step one, presenting and supporting my position.

But setting aside any criminal intent, (here I am saying, okay, in case you don’t like my criminal intent argument, I’ll presents some other evidence to support my claim) boards can fail, due to numerous reasons as highlighted by

t t

board effectiveness” – legitimacy and power; role definition; board culture;

competence; board management; and board leadership.

I am now presenting my first piece of referenced theoretical evidence to suppor my claim tha there are many reasons for poor corporate governance, other than poor decision-making.

In addition, Sir Adrian Cadbury (1995: 58) suggests that failings are due to “ ignoring the interests of the shareholders, being self-perpetuating, … and drawing their membership from too narrow a section of society” as well as plain incompetence.

A second piece of referenced theory from the literature to suppor my position.

Further, as previously stated, many boards just do not want to “rock the boat”

(Patton & Baker, 1987).

And a third piece of evidence supporting my position.

Now it could, rightly, be argued that at the heart of all these problems an original decision had to be made, and thus the decision-making process is the real problem.

This is step two of the four-step p ocess where I argue against my own arguments. I play Devil’s advocate and ask myself; ‘what would Pound say at this s age in defence of his position that I am arguing against?’

Nevertheless, it could also be equally submitted that many of these problems could be prevented, or at the very least curbed, by the new trends of an empowered board.

The above sentence is step three in which have rebu ed the counter argument. I haven’t denied that the counter position might have some merit, but again I have raised other possibilities

Consequently, as demonstrated, a good decision-making process is not necessarily the only answer to effective corporate governance. Many other issues are involved, (step four – the conclusion. As long as there is a possibility that there are other reasons for poor performance, the decision-making position cannot stand-alone) all of which could be explored at great length. However, due to the word constraints, as the aim of the paper is to discuss Pound’s proposition concerning the differences between the “managed corporation” and the “governed corporation”, I shall move onto the issue of decision-making and Pound’s

“governed corporation”.

In these las few lines I have done a number of things; (1) acknowledged that I have only presen ed a very superficial argument with regard to this aspect of the paper; that there is a lot more that could be said if I had more space to play with, but my challenge is just a side issue and so doesn’t war ant any more space. (2) I have linked back to the aim or

f , t t

theme o the paper which is decision-making and how i relates to Pound’s version of the governed corpora ion. (3) This is also the link flagging the next section

Decision-Making and The Governed Corporation

Pound (1995) argues that the key to a successful corporation and good corporate governance is for the board to focus on a good decision-making process which he describes as the “‘governed corporation”.

In beginning this next section, I haven’t just launched into a discussion, but I have used an introductory statement reiterating Pound’s position in preparation for what is to follow.

In this chapter – 6.1 – the first stage in developing a persuasive argument, the critical analysis, has been explained in some detail. It should be noted, however, that the four-step dance described above is the most basic form of critical analysis. You can critically analyse any statement or proposition at ever deepening levels by taking into account such things as the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders, and their relationships to each other and to the proposition; by discussing the vast array of short- and long-term consequences of actions that are associated with the statement or proposition; and so forth. Whilst a simple analysis was performed in two paragraphs, in the superficial demonstration example, above, it would be quite possible to devote 40, 50, or even 100+ pages to an in-depth analysis of the self-same proposition. But if you

In document UQBS Assignment Writing Guide (Page 57-64)