Argumentation, discussion and critical reflection

Explanation

To explain means that you describe or account for a matter in your own words. The explanation should show that you have understood what you are writing about. This means that you have made the subject matter "your own" by choosing what you think is most important and most relevant to the issue.

Argumentation 

An argument is a reasoning (a line of thought) where you start with a claim (viewpoint) that you argue for and against.

Arguments are statements that strengthen or weaken a claim. The arguments must be justified scholarly (with references to academic literature (oslomet.no)) and you must clarify the relevance of the argument in relation to the claim.

Example of argumentation

Claim: User participation is good.

Argument for the claim: Among other things, user participation can contribute to increased accuracy in the design and implementation of general and individual services (Helsedirektoratet.no, 2015).

Argument against the claim: Even though the user is familiar with the problems personally, it is the helper who has the professional knowledge. In cases where the helper thinks that the user's viewpoints are against professional assessments, one can question whether user participation is appropriate (the best way to substantiate this argument is to refer to academic literature that deals with this. It is also possible to bring in examples from practice).

Further in the argumentation, one can problematize the claim.

More about argumentation: Structuring an argument (sokogskriv.no).

Discussion   

To discuss is to have a conversation with yourself. A discussion consists of an argumentation where you examine a phenomenon from several sides.

Discussion is commenting and questioning what you have accounted for. Discussing is not just listing what various authors say, but showing that there are different interpretations and understandings of what they write about. By evaluating the different interpretations, you conduct a discussion.

More about discussion: Discussion: look for a difference (sokogskriv.no) 

Example of a discussion 

1. An assignment is about good class management. 
2. The student accounts for theory about what good class management means, and includes a quote that "A teacher must have authority" (author X, year, p. ..). 
3. Then the student asks the question: What does it mean to have authority? This question is an example of how you can start a critical reflection on the material you have accounted for. 
4. Then the student brings in an author Y who writes about being "authoritarian" and how this affects students' motivation to actively participate in class. Here, the student uses author Y to problematize "authority" by illuminating a possible interpretation "of 'authority' that is not positive in relation to getting students to actively participate. 
5. Through point 4 the student are now able to claim that: "If authority is associated with an authoritarian leadership style, then it is not a good way to lead classes in my eyes". 
6. The claim in point 5 is argued for by the student by referring to author Y in point 4 who writes that "the authoritarian leader is not very interested in listening, does not recognize others' competence and is rarely open to discussion" (year, p…). 
7. To make the quote in point 6 relevant for the claim in point 5, the student brings in theory (author A and B, year) which claims that students learn best by actively participating in the learning process. 
8. Then the student comes with their own conclusion: "I believe that with an authoritarian leader, as author Y (year) describes, the students will not be encouraged to speak or otherwise actively participate in learning. Such a leadership style is not an example of good class management in my eyes". 
9. In the previous points the student has started a discussion by looking at an aspect of good class management, critically reflecting on 'authority' and arguing that 'authority' perceived as 'authoritarian' is not positive for students' learning. Further, the discussion could have brought up that authority does not need to mean that one is authoritarian."

Critical reflection 

"To think critically means to use reason and knowledge to think about various academic matters in an independent, investigative, and systematic way" (Greek et al. 2014, p. 5,6).

You are curious, ask questions and want to understand: 

• Who, what, why, how, which?

You are critical of the "validity" of knowledge:

• Is it as the author writes? Is the claim correct? How has the researcher arrived at the result/finding?
• Overview / different perspectives
• Are there other ways to understand this? Have I experienced something other than what the author means? Is there academic literature that explains the topic differently?

You should not only understand, but also think about the academic material and arrive at a justified assessment.

Critical reflection also involves problematizing; asking questions to the material so that contradictions and different ways of seeing the same phenomenon are revealed.

Problematize

Matters are rarely as straightforward and simple as they are presented at first. When you problematize, you ask questions beyond what has first been written about the phenomenon.

For example, many can probably agree with the viewpoint: "User participation is good". One way to problematize "User participation is good" is to ask if user participation is always good - regardless of the user or challenge? What about cases when the user has a low cognitive function level? Or when the next of kin have other agendas than those that are most beneficial for the user? Whose suggestions should be given most consideration?

In addition, one can problematize "good" - what does it mean that user participation is "good"? For whom, in what way?

One can also problematize the concept of "participation" - what does it mean to participate? Is it to get through with one's suggestions, or is it just to get to say one's opinion/be heard, but not to necessarily take part in decision making?

Furthermore, one can comment that even though one thinks that user participation is good, it is not certain that one manages to implement it. This can be because user participation presupposes good communication and this is not always easy to achieve, among other things because such communication processes can be very time-consuming.