Switch‐SideDebatingMeetsDemand‐DrivenRhetoricofScience

GordonR.Mitchell

ABSTRACT

U.S.governmentagenciesarecollaboratingwithoutsidescholarstountangle

disparatethreadsofknottytechno‐scientificissues,inpartbyintegratingstructured

debatingexercisesintoinstitutionaldecision‐makingprocessessuchasintelligence

assessmentandpublicpolicyplanning.Theseinitiativesdriveupdemandfor

rhetoricianswithskillandexperienceinwhatProtagorascalleddissoilogoi—the

practiceofairingmultiplesidesofvexingquestionsforthepurposeofstimulating

criticalthinking.Inthecontemporarymilieu,dissoilogoireceivesconcrete

expressioninthetraditionofintercollegiate"switch‐sidedebating,"aformof

structuredargumentationcategorizedbysomeasa"culturaltechnology"with

weightyideologicalbaggage.Whatexactlyisthatbaggage,andhowdoesitimplicate

planstoimproveinstitutionaldecision‐makingbydrawingfromrhetoricaltheory

andexpertise?Explorationofhowswitch‐sidedebatingmeetsdemand‐driven

rhetoricofsciencenotonlyshedslightonthisquestion,butcanalsocontributeto

theburgeoningscholarlyliteratureondeliberativedemocracy,inform

argumentationstudies,andsuggestnewavenuesofinquiryinrhetoricaltheoryand

practice.

KEYWORDS:rhetoricofscience,argumentation,evidence,switch‐side

debate,EPA,intelligence,Isocrates.

2

Switch‐SideDebatingMeetsDemand‐DrivenRhetoricofScience

U.S.IntelligenceCommunitydirective205on"AnalyticOutreach,"signedinto

effectbyDirectorofNationalIntelligenceJohnMcConnellinJuly2008,aimsto

improveintelligenceanalysisbyborrowingcoreprinciplesfromthefieldof

rhetoric.Specifically,theoutreachprogramseeksassistancefromexpertsoutside

theintelligencecommunityto"closelyreviewanalyticalassumptions,logicand,

whereappropriate,evidence"inintelligenceassessments.1Thedirectiveindicates

thatoutsideexpertsalsomaybe"commissionedseparatelytoexaminean

alternativevieworapproachtoanissue;toarguetheprosandconstoajudgment

involvinguncertainty,ambiguity,ordebate."2Thisdescriptionevincesamarked

sensitivitytothevalueofrhetoric,sinceasDavidZarefskyobserves,"rhetoric's

responsibilityistoenablepeopletojudgewhetheraclaimisreasonableandjust,"

especiallywhencalled"tomakedecisionsunderconditionsofuncertainty,whenthe

rightcourseofactionisnotself‐evidentbutweneverthelessmustact."3Indeed,it

appearsthattheintelligencecommunityisattemptingtorefurbishitsanalytic

tradecraftbyhitchingitswagonstotheheuristicenginesofrhetoricalpractice.

1JohnMcConnell,"AnalyticOutreach,"IntelligenceCommunityDirective205(July16,2008),

http://www.dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICD%20205.pdf,p.2.2McConnell,"AnalyticOutreach,"3.AscyberintelligenceexpertJeffCarrobserves,the

BRIDGEprogram–onecomponentofMcConnell'sAnalyticOutreachinitiative–"providesaplatformfordebatingalternativeviewpointsandcomparingevidenceacrossagencies,specialties,andbordersofallkinds"(JeffCarr,"BuildingBridgeswiththeU.S.IntelligenceCommunity,"O'ReillyRadarweblog,April22,2009,http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/04/building‐bridges‐with‐the‐us‐i.html).Foratypologyofformsofalternativeanalysisinintelligencetradecraft,seeRogerZ.George,"FixingtheProblemofAnalyticalMindsets:AlternativeAnalysis,"inIntelligenceandtheNationalSecurityStrategist:EnduringIssuesandChallenges,ed.RogerZ.GeorgeandRobertD.Kline(Washington,D.C.:NationalDefenseUniversityPress,2004),311‐326

3DavidZarefsky,"TheResponsibilitiesofRhetoric,"inTheResponsibilitiesofRhetoric,ed.MichelleSmithandBarbaraWarnick(LongGrove,IL:WavelandPress,2010),15.ZarefskydevelopsthesegeneralizationsbydrawingontheworkofChaïmPerelmanandLucieOlbrechts‐Tyteca,whoseTheNewRhetoric:ATreatiseonArgumentation(NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1969)developsatheoryofrhetoricyokedtoargumentation.ZarefskyalsoforegroundsStephenToulmin'sinfluentialTheUsesofArgument,abookthatformorethanhalfacentury,hascarvedoutspaceforstudyofinformalargumentpatternsinfieldssuchasphilosophy,education,andcommunication(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1958).

3

Sucheffortsarebeingdrivennotonlybyrecommendationsfromexecutive

directives,blue‐ribboncommitteesandlegislativedecrees,4butalsobyscholarly

commentary.ConsiderDouglasHartandStevenSimon’spropositionthatonemajor

causeoftheintelligencecommunity’smisjudgmentsonIraqin2002‐2003was

‘‘poorargumentationandanalysiswithintheintelligencedirectorate.’’Asaremedy,

HartandSimonrecommendthatintelligenceagenciesencourageanalyststoengage

in‘‘structuredargumentsanddialogues’’designedtofacilitate‘‘sharingand

expressionofmultiplepointsofview’’andcultivate‘‘criticalthinkingskills.’’5

TheU.S.intelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreachinitiativeimplements

whatRonaldWalterGreeneandDarrinHickscall"switch‐sidedebating"–acritical

thinkingexercisewhereinterlocutorstemporarilysuspendbeliefintheir

convictionstobringforthmultipleanglesofanargument.6DrawingonFoucault,

GreeneandHicksclassifyswitch‐sidesdebatingasa"culturaltechnology,"one

ladenwithideologicalbaggage.Specifically,theyclaimthatswitch‐sidedebatingis

"investedwithethicalsubstance"7andthatparticipationintheactivityinculcates

"ethicalobligationsintrinsictothetechnology,"8includingpoliticalliberalismanda

worldviewcoloredbyAmericanexceptionalism.Onfirstblush,thefactthatadeputy

U.S.directorofnationalintelligenceisattemptingtodeploythisculturaltechnology

tostrengthensecretintelligencetradecraftinsupportofU.S.foreignpolicywould

seemtoqualifyasExhibit"B"insupportofGreeneandHicks'generalthesis.9

4McConnell'sdebateinitiativestemsdirectlyfromrecommendationsbytheSilberman‐Robb

Commission's2005reportonIraqWMDintelligence,whichcallsforimplementationofa"formalsystemforcompetitiveandevenexplicitlycontrariananalysis.Suchgroupsmustbelicensedtobetroublesome"(seeUnitedStates,CommissionontheIntelligenceCapabilitiesoftheUnitedStatesRegardingWeaponsofMassDestruction,ReporttothePresident,March2005,http://www.wmd.gov/report/,170).Section1017oftheIntelligenceReformandTerrorismPreventionActof2004alsocallsforaredoubledcommitmentto‘‘redteam’’competitiveintelligenceanalysisasakeyreformplank.SeeCongressionalRecord,December7,2004,H10930‐H10993.

5DouglasHartandStevenSimon,‘‘ThinkingStraightandTalkingStraight:ProblemsofIntelligenceAnalysis,’’Survival48(Spring2006):50.

6RonaldWalterGreeneandDarrinHicks,"LostConvictions:DebatingBothSidesandtheEthicalSelf‐fashioningofLiberalCitizens,"CulturalStudies19(January2005):100‐126.

7GreeneandHicks,"LostConvictions,"110.8GreeneandHicks,"LostConvictions,"111.9Exhibit"A,"forGreeneandHicks,istheAmericanintercollegiatepolicydebate

community'sprojectofcultivatingundergraduatestudentcitizenshipbyhavingdebatersdebate

4

Yetthepicturegrowsmorecomplexwhenoneconsiderswhatishappening

overattheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),whereenvironmentalscientist

IbrahimGoodwiniscollaboratingwithJohnW.Davisonaprojectthatusesswitch‐

sidedebatingtocleanupairandwater.InApril2008,thatinitiativebroughttop

intercollegiatedebatersfromfouruniversitiestoWashington,D.C.,foraseriesof

debatesonthetopicofwaterquality,heldforanaudienceofEPAsubjectmatter

expertsworkingoninterstateriverpollutionandbottledwaterissues.AnApril

2009follow‐upeventinHuntingtonBeach,California,yieldedanotherdebate

weighingtherelativemeritsofmonitoringversusremediationasbeachpollution

strategies."Weusenationallyrankedintercollegiatedebateprogramstoresearch

andpresentthearguments,bothproandcon,devoidofspecialinterestinthe

outcome,"explainsDavis."Indoingso,agencyrepresentativesnowremainsquarely

withinthedecision‐makingroletherebyneutralizingoverzealousadvocacythatcan

inhibitlearneddiscourse."10

TheintelligencecommunityandEPAdebatinginitiativesvaryquiteabit

simplybyvirtueofthecontrastingpolicyobjectivespursuedbytheirsponsoring

agencies(foreignpolicyversusenvironmentalprotection).Significantprocess‐level

differencesmarkofftherespectiveinitiativesaswell;theformerprojectentails

largelyone‐wayinteractionsdesignedtosluiceinsightfrom"opensources"to

intelligenceanalystsworkinginclassifiedenvironmentsandproducinglargely

secretassessments.Incontrast,theEPA'sdebatinginitiativeisconductedthrough

publicforumsinapolicyprocessrequiredbylawtobetransparent.Thisgranularity

troublesGreeneandHicks'deterministicframingofswitch‐sidedebateasan

ideologicallysmoothandconsistentculturaltechnology.Inanalternativeapproach,

bothsidesofthe1954collegedebatetopicontheU.S.recognitionofCommunistChina.ForcommentaryonGreeneandHicks'claimsregardingthispoint,seeEricEnglish,CarlyWoods,StevenLlano,GordonR.Mitchell,CatherineE.Morrison,andJohnRief,"DebateasaWeaponofMassDestruction,"Communication&Critical/CulturalStudies,4(2007):222‐226.GreeneandHicksrespondto"DebateasaWeaponofMassDestruction"inapaper,"ConscientiousObjections:DebatingBothSidesandtheCulturesofDemocracy,"presentedattheSixteenthNCA/AFAConferenceonArgumentationheldinAlta,UT,July30‐August2,2009.

10JohnW.Davis,"UsingIntercollegiateDebatetoInformEnvironmentalPolicyDiscourseinAmerica,"ConcurrentSessionProgramDescription,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyCommunityInvolvementTrainingConference,Seattle,Washington,August18‐20,2009.

5

thisessaypositionsdebateasamalleablemethodofdecision‐making,oneutilized

bydifferentactorsinmyriadwaystopursuevariouspurposes.Bybringingforththe

textureinherentintheassociatedmessy"mangleofpractice"11suchanapproach

haspotentialtodeepenourunderstandingofdebateasadynamicandcontingent,

ratherthanstaticformofrhetoricalperformance.

JuxtapositionoftheintelligencecommunityandEPAdebatinginitiatives

illuminatesadditionalavenuesofinquiry,onesthattakeoverlappingelementsof

thetwoprojectsaspointsofdeparture.Bothtacklecomplex,multifacetedand

technicaltopicsthatdonotlendthemselvestoreductionist,formalanalysis,and

bothtapintothecreativeenergylatentinwhatProtagorasofAbderacalleddissoi

logoi,theprocessoflearningaboutacontroversialorunresolvedissuebyairing

opposingviewpoints.12Inshort,theseinstitutionsareemployingdebateasatoolof

deliberation,seekingoutsideexpertisetohelpaccomplishtheiraims.Suchtrends

provideanoccasiontorevisitapresumptioncommonlyheldamongtheoristsof

deliberativedemocracythatdebateanddeliberationarefundamentallyopposed

practices,astheintelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreachprogramandEPA

debatinginitiativesrepresentexampleswheredebatingexercisesaredesignedto

facilitate,notfrustratedeliberativegoals.

Themovebytherespectiveinstitutionstotapoutsideresourcesforsupport

alsoimplicatesthelong‐simmeringtheoreticaldiscussioninrhetoricofscience

circles,whereDilipGaonkarchargesthatscholarssuchasJohnCampbell,Lawrence

Prelli,andAlanGrosserrbyutilizingconceptsfromclassicalGreekrhetoricasa

hermeneuticmetadiscourseforinterpretingscientifictexts.13InGaonkar'stelling,

the"hegemonic"projectto"globalize"rhetoricbybringingalltextualartifacts(even

11AndrewPickering,TheMangleofPractice:Time,AgencyandScience(Chicago:University

ofChicagoPress,1995).12RosamondKent,Sprague,ed.,TheOlderSophists,2ded.(Indianapolis:Hackett,2001);see

alsoJohnPoulakos,"RhetoricandCivicEducation:FromtheSophiststoIsocrates,"inIsocratesandCivicEducation,ed.TakisPoulakosandDavidJ.Depew(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,2004),81‐82;andEdwardSchiappa,ProtagorasandLogos:AStudyinGreekPhilosophyandRhetoric(Columbia,SC:UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress,1991).

13DilipParameshwarGaonkar,"TheIdeaofRhetoricintheRhetoricofScience,"inRhetoricalHermeneutics,ed.AlanG.GrossandWilliamM.Keith(Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1997),25‐85.

6

hardscience)underitsscopeisanill‐fatedexerciseinsupply‐sideepistemology.Yet

theintelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreachprojectandtheEPA'sdebating

initiativesentaildemand‐drivenrhetoricofscience,whereinstitutionalactorsseek

enlistmentofrhetoric'sexpertisetotackletechnicalproblems.Ratherthanrhetoric

pushingitsepistemologyonscience,herewehavesciencepullingrhetoricintoits

interdisciplinaryorbit.14Coulditbethatthe"thinness"oftheproductivistclassical

Greeklexicon,forGaonkaraliabilityinrhetoricalcriticism,herebecomesastrength

supportingthetypeofpractice‐orientedscholarshipthatZarefskyenvisioned

growingoutofhistheoryofargumentationas"hypothesistesting"?15Thefollowing

analysis,whichconsidersinturntheintelligencecommunityandEPAdebating

initiatives,engagesthisquestion.

EvidenceandArgumentFieldsinIntelligenceCommunityDeliberations

"Theaxiomofallrhetoricistheprincipleofinsufficientreason,"saysHans

Blumenberg.16Inthisformulation,whenapressingsituationcallsforaction,butall

thefactsarenotyetin,rhetoriclendspracticalguidancetothoseseekingtonavigate

unchartedwaters.InLloydBitzer'sshopwornterminology,such"rhetorical

situations"aremeaningvacuumsthatinvite,even"call"discoursetothesceneas

"fitting"remediesforthe"imperfect"stateofaffairs.17Yetthecurrenteraof

14Foraprogrammaticanalysisexploringpossiblecontoursofanappliedresearchprogram

inrhetoricofscienceutilizingapublicdebatemethodology,seeGordonR.MitchellandMarcusParoske,"Fact,Friction,andPoliticalConvictioninSciencePolicyControversies,"SocialEpistemology14(2000):89‐108.Paroske's"DeliberatingInternationalSciencePolicyControversies:UncertaintyandAIDSinSouthAfrica"illustrateshowthisresearchapproachcanalsobeextendedinextendedcasestudies(seeQuarterlyJournalofSpeech95[2009]:148‐170).

15SeeDavidZarefsky,"ArgumentasHypothesis‐testing,"inDavidA.Thomas,ed.,AdvancedDebate:ReadingsinTheory,PracticeandTeaching(Skokie,Illinois:NationalTextbookCompany,1979),427‐437.

16HansBlumenberg,"AnAnthropologicalApproachtotheContemporarySignificanceofRhetoric,"inAfterPhilosophy?:EndorTransformation?,ed.KennethBaynes,JamesBohmanandThomasMcCarthy;trans.RobertM.Wallace(Cambridge:MITPress,1987),447.

17LloydF.Bitzer,“TheRhetoricalSituation,”PhilosophyandRhetoric1(1968):1‐14;seealsoRichardE.Vatz,“TheMythoftheRhetoricalSituation,”PhilosophyandRhetoric6(1973):154‐161;ScottConsigny,“RhetoricanditsSituations,”PhilosophyandRhetoric7(1974):175‐185;andKathleenM.HallJamieson,“GenericConstraintsandtheRhetoricalSituation,”PhilosophyandRhetoric6(1973):162‐170.

7

"contentabundance"18seemstoinvertthiscommonlyheldsenseoftherhetorical

situation,aswestruggletostayafloatinthewakeofnewwavesoffacts,figures,and

testimonychurnedoutbytoday'sproliferatingsitesofknowledgeproduction.19

AccordingtoRichardLanham,"we'redrowning"inthisendemicstateofsurplus

information,strugglingtomarshalsufficientattentionneededtomakesenseofit

all.20Tocapturethissenseofinundation,DamienPfistercoinstheterm

"hyperpublicity"todescribethe"massiveexpansioninthecapacityofpersonal

mediatorecord,archive,andmakesearchablethoughts,events,andinteractionsin

publiclyaccessibledatabases."21Inthismeaning‐saturatedenvironment,whichhas

"doublepotentialtoenrichandthreatenpubliclife,"22thechallengehaslesstodo

withfiguringouthowtomakepracticaldecisionsbasedonscarceshredsof

evidence(rhetoricfillingalack);andmoretodowithsortingthroughever‐

expandingmoundsofevidencewhoserelevancetopressingdecisionsmaynotbe

immediatelyapparent(rhetoricrespondingtoasurplus).

TheofficialU.S.intelligencecommunityroutinelyfacessuchinverted

rhetoricalsituationswhenitiscalledupontodeliverconsensusjudgmentssuchas

NationalIntelligenceEstimates.Toreachsuchjudgments,analystsmustcomb

throughterabytesofdigitaldatafromSIGINT(signalsintelligencegatheredfrom

satellitesandothermonitoringdevices),HUMINT(humanintelligencedrawnfrom

informantsandagents),aswellasaburgeoningsupplyof"opensource"intelligence

(datainthepublicdomain).Asthecommunityiscomposedofsixteenseparate

18MichaelJensen,"ScholarlyAuthorityintheAgeofAbundance:RetainingRelevancewithin

theNewLandscape,"KeynoteAddressattheJSTORannualParticipatingPublisher'sConference,NewYork,NewYork,May13,2008,http://www.nap.edu/staff/mjensen/jstor.htm.

19DamienPfister,"TowardaGrammaroftheBlogosphere:RhetoricandAttentionintheNetworkedImaginary"(Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofPittsburgh,2009).Todevelopthispointfurther,Pfister("TowardAGrammar,"39)pointstoHerbertSimon's“DesigningOrganizationsforanInformation‐RichWorld,”whichsuggests"awealthofinformationcreatesapovertyofattention,andaneedtoallocatethatattentionefficientlyamongtheoverabundanceofinformationsourcesthatmightconsumeit"inComputers,Communication,andthePublicInterest,ed.MartinGreenberger(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity,1971),41.

20RichardLanham,TheEconomicsofAttention:StyleandSubstanceintheInformationAge(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006),xi.

21Pfister,"GrammaroftheBlogosphere,"384.22Pfister,"GrammaroftheBlogosphere,"384.

8

agenciesandentitiesthateachservedifferentcustomersandpursuedistinct

approachestointelligenceanalysis,heterogeneousperspectivesoftencomplicate

theprocessofsortingtheproverbialwheatfromthechaff.AsSimonandHart

explain,"thebasicproblemstemsfrommovingknowledgecreatedusingevidence

andanalysisinonegroupororganisationintoanother.Thisisnotatrivial

undertaking,becausetheprocess,languageandultimatepurposeofthecreated

knowledgeoftendifferradicallybetweentheoriginatingandreceiving

organisations."23Asaresult,"analysesinvolvingjihadistperceptionsortechnical

detailsconcerningchemical,biologicalornuclearweaponscanoftengenerate

interpretiveorsemanticdifferencesbetweenoriginatingandreceiving

organisationsastowhataword,measurementoroutcomeactuallymeans."24Here,

centrifugalforcesofprofessionalspecializationandhorizontalknowledgediffusion

scatterthepooluponwhichanalystsdrawdata.Simultaneously,centripetalforces

obligethesesameanalyststosynthesizevastsumsofdiverseinformationand

rendercoherentargumentsoncomplexandmultifacetedissues.Thischallenge

stemsfromatensionbornefromthepushbroughtaboutbythesplinteringofthe

intelligencecommunityintodisparateagencies,ontheonehand,andthepullof

institutionaldirectivesrequiringco‐ordinationofintelligenceproducts,onthe

other.

Surmountingthiscomplexepistemologicaldilemmarequiresmorethan

sheerinformationprocessingpower;itdemandsformsofcommunicativedexterity

thatenabletranslationofideasacrossdifferencesandfacilitateco‐operativework

byinterlocutorsfromheterogeneousbackgrounds.Howcansuchcommunicative

dexteritybecultivated?HartandSimonseestructuredargumentationasa

promisingtoolinthisregard.Intheirview,theuniquevirtueofrigorousdebatesis

thatthey"supportdiversepointsofviewwhileencouragingconsensusformation."

Thisdualfunctionofargumentationprovides"bothintelligenceproducersand

policyconsumerswithaviewintothemethodologiesandassociatedevidenceused

23HartandSimon,"ThinkingStraight,"46.24HartandSimon,"ThinkingStraight,"47.

9

toproduceanalyticalproduct,effectivelycreatingacommonlanguagethatmight

helpmoveknowledgeacrossorganisationalbarrierswithoutlossofaccuracyor

relevance."25HartandSimon'sinsights,coupledwiththepreviouslymentioned

institutionalinitiativespromotingswitch‐sidedebatingintheintelligence

community,carveoutanewzoneofrelevancewhereargumentationtheory's

salienceispronouncedandgrowing.Giventhecentralityofevidentiaryanalysisin

thiszone,itisusefultorevisithowargumentationscholarshavetheorizedways

evidencefunctionsindebatingcontexts.

InthewordsofAustinFreeley,"evidenceistherawmaterialof

argumentation.Itconsistsoffacts,opinionsandobjectsthatareusedtogenerate

proof."26Here,evidencebecomesthe"factualfoundationfortheclaimsofthe

advocates."27Whenaninterlocutorattemptstoforwardclaimsbasedondata,"the

processofadvancingfromevidencetoconclusionisargument."28Whatarethe

differenttypesofevidence?Whicharemostpersuasiveincertainsituations?How

canevidencebemisused?Whatdoesn'tcountaslegitimateevidence?Inthefieldof

argumentation,scholarshavelonggrappledwiththesequestions,oftenby

developingidiosyncratictaxonomiesofevidenceusage.29So,forexample,one

textbookbreaksdowntypesofevidenceintothreecategories:examples,statistics

andauthority;andthreesources:original,hearsay,written.30Anearliereffort

identifiesthree"formsofdatathatprovideproofforaclaim"asunwritten,ordinary,

25HartandSimon,"ThinkingStraight,"53.Onrhetoric'sroleasamediumoftranslationinmedicalresearch,seeGordonR.MitchellandKathleenM.McTigue,"PromotingTranslationalResearchinMedicinethroughDeliberation,"paperpresentedatthe“Justification,Reason,andAction"ConferenceinHonorofProfessorDavidZarefsky,NorthwesternUniversiy,Evanston,IL,May29&30,2009.

26AustinJ.Freeley,ArgumentationandDebate:CriticalThinkingforReasonedDecisionMaking,9thed.(Belmont:Wadsworth,1996),107;seealsoJamesH.McBurney,JamesM.O'NeillandGlenE.Mills,ArgumentationandDebate:TechniquesofaFreeSociety(NewYork:Macmillan,1951),73.

27DavidL.Vancil,RhetoricandArgumentation(Boston:AllynandBacon,1993),48.28A.CraigBaird,Argumentation,DiscussionandDebate(NewYork:McGraw‐Hill,1950),90.29Forareviewoftheliteratureonempiricaldimensionsofevidence'sroleinargument,

especiallyregardingperceptionsofevidencestrengthbyinterlocutors,seeRodneyA.ReynoldsandJ.LynnReynolds,"Evidence,"inThePersuasionHandbook:DevelopmentsinTheoryandPractice,ed.JamesPriceDillardandMichaelPfau(ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,2002),427‐444.

30TrischaGoodnowKnappandLawrenceA.Galizio,ElementsofParliamentaryDebate:AGuidetoPublicArgument(NewYork:Longman,1999),17‐18.

10

andexpert.31Inablisteringcritique,DaleHamplequestionstheusefulnessofthese

projects:"Thetypologies—forindeedtheyareplural—differfromtextbookto

textbookandhaveneverbeendefendedashavinganyphenomenalrealityfor

anyonenottakinganargumentationexam."32Onefactoraccountingforthelimited

conceptualappealoftheseevidencetaxonomiesisthatsuchschemesaretiedtightly

tothepracticalactivityassociatedwiththeirdevelopment—intercollegiate

debating.SinceasDeanFadelypointsout,the"bedrockofcontestdebate"is

evidence,33itisonlynaturalthatmanyofthesetaxonomicaleffortsaredesignedto

supportstudentclassroomwork.Forexample,theprefacetoRobertandDale

Newman's1969Evidenceexplains,"Thisbookisdesignedprimarilyforstudentsof

exposition,discussion,persuasion,andargumentwhomustbuttresstheirspeeches

oressayswithevidence."34Suchapedagogicalorientationunderwritesthepractical

dimensionofevidencestudies,wheretheemphasisrestsoncultivatinginvention

skillssufficienttoenablestudentstoresearch,deployanddefendevidencedclaims

inargumentativesituations.35

Arelatedstrandofscholarshipconcernsthemobilizationofargumentation

theorytocritiqueevidentiarypracticesusedintheconductofpublicaffairs.This

criticalorientationisalsomanifestinNewmanandNewman's1969Evidencetext,

whichfeaturesanalysesoftheauthenticity,credibility,andfactualgroundingof

evidenceprovidedbygovernmentofficials,journalists,andexpertsdiscussing

publicpolicyissues.Later,RobertNewman'sarticle‘‘CommunicationPathologiesof

IntelligenceSystems,’’woulddeploythissameframeworktoshowhowintelligence

failuresrangingfromtheBayofPigstoVietnamwererootedinsystematic

31Baird,Argumentation,DiscussionandDebate,95.32DaleHample,Arguing:ExchangingReasonsFacetoFace(Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum

Associates,2005),200.33DeanFadely,Advocacy:TheEssentialsofArgumentationandDebate(Dubuque,IA:

KendallHunt,1994),55.34RobertP.NewmanandDaleR.Newman,Evidence(NewYork:Houghton‐Mifflin,1969),

vii.35Onthegeneraltopicofhowthecommunicationfield'spedagogicalrootsinflect

communicationtheory,seeRichardGraffandMichaelLeff,"RevisionistHistoriographyandRhetoricalTradition(s),"inTheViabilityoftheRhetoricalTradition,ed.RichardGraff,ArthurE.Walzer,andJanetM.Atwill(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2005),11‐30.

11

institutionalpressuresthatdistortedcommunicationbetweenintelligenceanalysts

andpolicy‐makers,causingthemtomishandleevidence.36

Asonetracestheevolutionofevidencestudiesbeyondthedebatecontest

roundcontext,ahostofotherargument‐informedanalysescomeintoview.Someof

theseprojectsmeasureempiricallythepsychologicaldimensionofevidenceuptake

byaudiences,37whileothers,oftenworkingunderthebanner"informallogic,"

explorethe"fielddependency"ofevidencenorms.Whereanalyticaltreatmentsby

logicalempiricistssuchasCarlHempelsoughttodevelopuniversalaccountsof

evidencethatwouldholdfastacrossobjectdomains,argumentationscholars,ledby

StephenToulmin,havepositedthatthedomainsinwhichargumenttakesplace

structureexpectationsandnormsregardingevidence.38Thus,answerstoquestions

like"whichtypeofevidenceismostpersuasive"pivotdependingontheargument

fieldinwhichtheargumenttakesplace.Hearsaytestimony,forinstance,maybe

persuasiveevidenceforajournalistworkingonastoryaboutarecentcrime.Yet

thatsametestimonywilllikelyreceivelesssympathetictreatmentinacourtroom

trialwhereaprosecutorattemptstopresentitasevidenceagainstasuspect

accusedofcommittingthecrime.Thesedimensionsofcontingencyand

interpretationarelargelyabsentinformallogic,where"fieldinvariant"rulesgovern

connectionsbetweenclaimsandtheirsupportingevidence.AsChaimPerelmanand

LucieOlbrechts‐TytecashowinTheNewRhetoric,theconceptualscaffoldingof

argumentationiswellequippedtoshedlightonpreciselythosesituationswhere

deductiveformsofreasoningandformallogicfailtodeliver.39

The"fielddependent"approachtothestudyofevidenceisstraightforward

wheninventionandcritiqueareapproachedwithinthehorizonofadistinctfield.

Onefirstdiscernsthelocalnormsgoverningevidenceintheparticularfieldinwhich

36RobertP.Newman,‘‘CommunicationPathologiesofIntelligenceSystems,’’Speech

Monographs42(1975):273‐90.37DaleHample,“TestingaModelofValueArgumentandEvidence,”Communication

Monographs44(1977):106‐120;andHansHoeken,"Anecdotal,StatisticalandCausalEvidence:TheirPerceivedandActualPersuasiveness,”Argumentation15(2001):425‐437.

38CarlG.Hempel,"APurelySyntacticalDefinitionofConfirmation,"JournalofSymbolicLogic8(1943):122‐143;Toulmin,UsesofArgument.

39PerelmanandOlbrechts‐Tyteca,TheNewRhetoric.

12

anargumenttakesplace,thenappliesthosenormstothetaskathand,whetheritbe

creationofnovelargumentationoranalysisofextantargumentsalreadyonrecord.

Yetthingsgrowcomplicatedwhenthediscursivemilieuspanstwoormore

argumentfields,especiallywhenthosefieldsfeatureincompatibleconventions

regardingevidence.ConsiderthattheCentralIntelligenceAgency(CIA's)

prioritizationofthewarningfunctioninintelligenceanalysispredisposesCIA

analyststodeploydifferentevidencestandardsthantheStateDepartment'sBureau

ofIntelligenceandResearch,whereanalystsaretrainedtoprioritizeaccurate

predictionoverthreatwarning.40Onefactoraccountingfortheintelligencefailure

priortothe2003IraqWarwasaninabilitybyintelligenceanalystsandpolicy‐

makerstofullyappreciatehowthedisparateassessmentsregardingSaddam

Hussein'sarsenalofunconventionalweaponrycouldbeunderstoodasproductsof

thedistinctargumentfieldsproducingtheassessments.

Someofthespecificprojectsunderwayintheintelligencecommunitythat

giveDirectorMcConnell'sAnalyticOutreachinitiativeconcreteexpressionshow

howtheleadershipisbankingontheprocessofargumentationtohelppreventa

repeatofthe2003IraqWarintelligencefailure.41Forinstance,DanDoney,oneof

McConnell'sdeputies,isspearheadingaprojectnamedBRIDGEthat"providesa

platformfordebatingalternativeviewpointsandcomparingevidenceacross

agencies,specialties,andbordersofallkinds."42AsDoneyexplains,"BRIDGEis

designedtoenablecrowd‐sourcingofintelligenceapplications–followingthe

iPhoneAppStoremodel–byprovidingalowbarrier‐to‐entryplatformtostimulate

innovationandenableanalyststodiscovernextgenerationcapabilitiesthathave

valuetotheirmission."43OnecannothelpbutrecallGreeneandHicks'formulation

ofdebatingasatechnologyafterreadingasummaryofthefirstwaveofapplications

40GregThielmann,"IntelligenceinPreventiveMilitaryStrategies,"inHittingFirst:

PreventiveForceinU.S.SecurityStrategy,ed.WilliamW.KellerandGordonR.Mitchell(Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress,2006),153‐174.

41JohnA.Kringen,‘‘HowWe’veImprovedIntelligence;MinimizingtheRiskof‘Groupthink’,’’WashingtonPost,April3,2006,p.A19.

42Carr,"BuildingBridges."43DanDoney,quotedinCarr,"BuildingBridges."

13

featuredintheBRIDGEprogram.ThefirstWeb‐based"App,"named"Collaborative

AnalysisofCompetingHypotheses,"enablesanalysts"togatherevidence

collaborativelyandthinkmorecriticallyabouttheplausiblescenarios,mitigating

bias"and"honeinondifferences,makingdebatemoreconstructiveand

encouragingdeeperreasoning."44AnotheronlineApp,"HotGrinds,"supports

"semanticsearch,expertiseidentification,andmanagementoverviewsofdebate"

that"providegreatercollectiveawarenessandenhancedcollaboration."45Thekey

premiseunderlyingspecificdesignfeaturesofthissoftwareisthatthroughonline

connectivity,analystswillbeempoweredtoredoubletheircapacityfor

collaborativedeliberation.

Thewatchwordsfortheintelligencecommunity'sdebatinginitiative–

collaboration,criticalthinking,collectiveawareness–resonatewithkeyterms

anchoringthestudyofdeliberativedemocracy,oneofthecommunicationfield's

hottestresearchareas.Inamajornewtext,JohnGastildefinesdeliberationasa

processwherebypeople"carefullyexamineaproblemandarriveatawell‐reasoned

solutionafteraperiodofinclusive,respectfulconsiderationofdiversepointsof

view."46GastilandhiscolleaguesinorganizationssuchastheKetteringFoundation

andtheNationalCoalitionforDialogueandDeliberationarepursuinganexciting

researchprogramthatforegroundsthedemocratictelosofdeliberativeprocesses.

Workinthisareafeaturesablendofconcreteinterventionsandstudiesofcitizen

empowerment.47Notably,akeythemeinmuchofthisliteratureconcernsthe

relationshipbetweendeliberationanddebate,withthelattertermoftenloaded

withpejorativebaggageandworkingasanegativefoiltohighlightthepositive

qualitiesofdeliberation.48"Mostpoliticaldiscussions,however,aredebates.Stories

44Carr,"BuildingBridges."45Carr,"BuildingBridges."46JohnGastil,PoliticalCommunicationandDeliberation(ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,2008),8.47Foranilluminatingcollectionofcasestudiesinthisburgeoningareaofscholarship,see

JohnGastilandPeterLevine,ed.,TheDeliberativeDemocracyHandbook(SanFrancisco,Jossey‐Bass,2005).

48OnenotableexceptionisChristopherF.KarpowitzandJaneMasbridge'schapter,"DisagreementandConsensus:TheImportanceofDynamicUpdatinginPublicDeliberation,"inTheDeliberativeDemocracyHandbook,237‐253.

14

inthemediaturnpoliticsintoanever‐endingseriesofcontests.Peoplegetswept

intotakingsides;theirenergygoesintofiguringoutwhoorwhatthey'reforor

against,"saysKetteringpresidentDavidMathewsandcoauthorNoelleMcAfee.

"Deliberationisdifferent.Itisneitherapartisanargumentwhereopposingsidestry

towinnoracasualconversationconductedwithpolitecivility.Publicdeliberationis

ameansbywhichcitizensmaketoughchoicesaboutbasicpurposesanddirections

fortheircommunitiesandtheircountry.Itisawayofreasoningandtalking

together."49MathewsandMcAfee'sdistrustaboutthedebateprocessisalmost

paradigmaticamongsttheoristsandpractitionersofKettering‐styledeliberative

democracy.

Oneconceptualmechanismforreinforcingthisdebate‐deliberation

oppositionischaracterizationofdebateasaprocessinimicaltodeliberativeaims,

withdebatersadoptingdogmaticandfixedpositionsthatfrustratethedeliberative

objectiveof"choicework."Inthisregister,EmilyRobertsonobserves,"unlike

deliberators,debatersaretypicallynotopentothepossibilityofbeingshown

wrong....Debatersarenottryingtofindthebestsolutionbykeepinganopenmind

abouttheopponent'spointofview."50Similarly,foundingdocumentsfromthe

UniversityofHouston‐Downtown'sUniversityofHouston‐DowntownCenterfor

PublicDeliberationstate,"Publicdeliberationisaboutchoicework,whichis

differentfromadialogueoradebate.Indialogue,peopleoftenlooktorelatetoeach

other,tounderstandeachother,andtotalkaboutmoreinformalissues.Indebate,

therearegenerallytwopositionsandpeoplearegenerallylookingto'win'their

side."51Debate,casthereasthetheoreticalscapegoat,providesaconvenient,low‐

waterbenchmarkforexplaininghowotherformsofdeliberativeinteractionbetter

promotecooperative"choicework."

49DavidMathewsandNoelleMcAfee,MakingChoicesTogether:ThePowerofPublic

Deliberation(Dayton,OH:KetteringFoundation,2003),10.50EmilyRobertson,"TeacherEducationinaDemocraticSociety:LearningandTeachingthe

PracticesofDemocraticParticipaton,"inTheHandbookofResearchonTeacherEducation,ed.MarilynCochran‐Smith,SharonFreiman‐Nemser,andD.JohnMcIntyre(London:Routledge,2008),32.

51UniversityofHouston‐DowntownCenterforPublicDeliberation,"WhatisPublicDeliberation,"http://www.dt.uh.edu/academic/colleges/humanities/uhd_cpd/what_is.html#.

15

TheKettering‐inspiredframeworkreceivessupportfromperversionsofthe

debateprocesssuchasvapidpresidentialdebatesandverbalpyrotechnicsfoundon

Crossfire‐styletelevisionshows.Incontrast,theintelligencecommunity'sdebating

initiativestandsasanettlesomeanomalyforthesetheoreticalframeworks,with

debateserving,ratherthanfrustrating,theendsofdeliberation.Thepresenceof

suchananomalywouldseemtopointtothewisdomoffashioningatheoretical

orientationthatframesthedebate‐deliberationconnectionincontingent,rather

thanstaticterms,withtherelationshipbetweenthecategoriesshiftingalongwith

thevariouscontextsinwhichtheymanifestinpractice.52Suchanapproachgestures

towardtheimportanceofrhetoricallyinformedcriticalworkonmultiplelevels.

First,thecontingencyofsituatedpracticeinvitesanalysisgearedtoassess,in

particularcases,theextenttowhichdebatepracticesenableand/orconstrain

deliberativeobjectives.Regardingtheintelligencecommunity'sdebatinginitiative,

suchananalyticalperspectivehighlights,forexample,thetightconnectionbetween

thedeliberativegoalsestablishedbyintelligenceofficialsandthe"cultural

technology"manifestintheBRDIGEproject'sonlinedebatingapplicationssuchas

"HotGrinds."

Anadditionaldimensionofnuanceemergingfromthisavenueofanalysis

pertainstotheprecisenatureofthedeliberativegoalsmadeaspartofBRIDGE.

ProgramdescriptionsnotablyeschewKettering‐stylereferencestodemocratic

citizenempowerment,yetfeaturedeliberationprominentlyaskeyingredientof

strongintelligencetradecraft.Thiscaveatisespeciallysalienttoconsiderwhenit

comestothesecondcategoryofrhetoricallyinformedcriticalworkinvitedbythe

contingentaspectofspecificdebateinitiatives.Tograspthislayeritisusefulto

appreciatehowthenameoftheBRIDGEprojectconstitutesaninvitationforthose

outsidetheintelligencecommunitytoparticipateintheanalyticoutreacheffort.

52Thislineofthinkingisintendedtoendorseneithercompleteerasureofthetheoretical

differencesbetweendebateanddeliberation,nordenigrationofdeliberationonitsownterms.Rather,itsignalsreceptivitytotheoreticalframeworks,suchasJamesCrosswhite's"rhetoricofreason,"thatforegroundthemultifaceteddimensionsofargumentativepractice,somewhicharemoreconsistentwithdeliberativeobjectivesthanothers—seehisTheRhetoricofReason:WritingandtheAttractionsofArgument(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1996).

16

AccordingtoDoney,BRIDGE"providesanenvironmentforAnalyticOutreach‐‐a

placewhereICanalystscanreachouttoexpertiseelsewhereinfederal,state,and

localgovernment,inacademia,andindustry.Newcommunitiesofinterestcanform

quicklyinBRIDGEthroughthe'weboftrust'accesscontrolmodel‐‐accesstominds

outsidetheintelligencecommunitycreatesananalyticforcemultiplier."53This

presentsamomentofchoiceforacademicscholarsinapositiontorespondto

Doney'sinvitation;itisanopportunitytoconvertscholarlyexpertiseintoan

"analyticforcemultiplier."

Inreflexivelyponderingthisinvitation,itmaybevaluableforscholarsto

bearinmindLangdonWinner'smaximthat"technologicalartifactshavepolitics,"54

sinceifGreeneandHicks'propositionthatswitch‐sidedebatingshouldbeviewedas

aculturaltechnology,thendebateinitiativesalsocarrypoliticalentailments.Inthe

caseofBRIDGE,thosepoliticalentailmentsarecoloredbythehistoryofintelligence

communitypoliciesandpractices.CommenterThomasLordputsthispointinhigh

reliefinapostofferedinresponsetoanewsstoryonthetopic:"Whyshouldthis

thing('BRIDGE')be?...[Theintelligencecommunity]ontheonehandsometimes

providesusefulinformationtothemilitaryortothecivilianbranchesandonthe

otherhanditisadangerous,outofcontrol,relicthatbyallexternalappearancesis

nottheslightestbitreformed,otherthansuperficially,fromsuchexcessesas

becameexposedintheCOINTELPROandMKULTRAhearingsofthe1970s."55A

debatescholarneednotagreewithLord'sfull‐throatedcriticismoftheintelligence

community(hegoesontoobservethatitbearsanalarmingresemblanceto

organizedcrime)tounderstandthatparticipationinthecommunity'sAnalytic

Outreachprogrammayservetheendsofdeliberation,butnotnecessarily

democracy,orevenadefensiblepolitics.Demand‐drivenrhetoricofscience

necessarilyraisesquestionsaboutwhat'sdrivingthedemand,questionsthat

scholarswithrelevantexpertisewoulddowelltopondercarefullybefore

53DanDoney,quotedinCarr,"BuildingBridges."54LangdonWinner,TheWhaleandtheReactor:ASearchforLimitsinanAgeofHigh

Technology(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1986),1955ThomasLord,commentonCarr,"BuildingBridges,"April22,2009.

17

embracinginvitationstocontributetheirargumentativeexpertisetodeliberative

projects.Bythesametoken,itwouldbeprudenttobearinmindthatthe

technologicaldeterminismaboutswitch‐sidedebateendorsedbyGreeneandHicks

maytendtoflattenreflexiveassessmentsregardingthewisdomofsupportinga

givendebateinitiative—asthenextsectionillustrates,manifestdifferencesamong

initiativeswarrantcontext‐sensitivejudgmentsregardingthenormativepolitical

dimensionsfeaturedineachcase.

PublicDebatesintheEPAPolicyProcess

TheprecedinganalysisofU.S.intelligencecommunitydebatinginitiatives

highlightedhowanalystsarechallengedtodiscursivelynavigatetheheteroglossia

ofvastamountsofdifferentkindsofdataflowingthroughintelligencestreams.

Publicpolicyplannersaretestedinlikemannerwhentheyattempttostitch

togetherinstitutionalargumentsfromvariousandsundryinputsrangingfrom

experttestimony,historicalprecedent,andpubliccomment.Justasintelligence

managersfindthatalgorithmic,formalmethodsofanalysisoftendon'tworkwhenit

comestothetaskofinterpretingandsynthesizingcopiousamountsofdisparate

data,publicpolicyplannersencountersimilarchallenges.

Infact,the"argumentativeturn"inpublicpolicyplanningelaboratesan

approachtopublicpolicyanalysisthatforegroundsdeliberativeinterchangeand

criticalthinkingasalternativesto"decisionism,"theformulaicapplicationof

"objective"decisionalgorithmstothepublicpolicyprocess.56Statingthematter

plainly,Majonesuggests,"whetherinwrittenororalform,argumentiscentralinall

stagesofthepolicyprocess."57Accordingly,henotes,"wemissagreatdealifwetry

tounderstandpolicy‐makingsolelyintermsofpower,influence,andbargaining,to

theexclusionofdebateandargument."58Onecanseesimilarrationalesdriving

GoodwinandDavis'sEPAdebatingproject,wheredebatersareinvitedtoconduct

56GiandomenicoMajone,Evidence,Argument,&PersuasioninthePolicyProcess(New

Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1989),12‐20.57Majone,Evidence,ArgumentandPersuasion,5.58Majone,Evidence,ArgumentandPersuasion,2.

18

on‐sitepublicdebatescoveringresolutionscraftedtoreflectkeypointsofstasisin

theEPAdecision‐makingprocess.Forexample,inthe2008"WaterWars"debates

heldatEPAheadquartersinWashington,D.C.,resolutionswerecraftedtofocus

attentiononthetopicofwaterpollution,withoneresolutionfocusingon

downstreamstates'authoritytocontrolupstreamstates’dischargesandsourcesof

pollutants;andasecondresolutionexploringthepolicymeritsofbottledwaterand

toiletpapertaxesasrevenuesourcestofundfinancewaterinfrastructureprojects.

Inthefirstdebateoninterstateriverpollution,theteamofSethGannonand

SeungwonChungfromWakeForestUniversityarguedinfavorofdownstreamstate

control,withtheMichiganStateUniversityteamofCarlyWunderlichandGarrett

Abelkopprovidingopposition.Intheseconddebateontaxationpolicy,Kevin

KallmyerandMatthewStruthfromMaryWashingtonUniversitydefendedtaxeson

bottledwaterandtoiletpaper,whiletheiropponentsfromHowardUniversity,

DominiqueScottandJarredMcKee,arguedagainstthisproposal.Reflectingonthe

project,Goodwinnotedhowtheintercollegiatedebaters'abilitytoactas"honest

brokers"inthepolicyargumentscontributedpositivelytointernalEPAdeliberation

onbothissues.59Davisobservedthatsincetheinviteddebaters"didn'thaveadogin

thefight,"theywereabletogivevoicetopreviouslyburiedargumentsthatsome

EPAsubjectmatterexpertsfeltreticenttoelucidate,becauseoftheirinstitutional

affiliations.60

Suchfindingsareconsistentwiththeviewsofpolicyanalystsadvocatingthe

"argumentativeturn"inpolicyplanning.AsMajoneclaims,"dialectical

confrontationbetweengeneralistsandexpertsoftensucceedsinbringingout

unstatedassumptions,conflictinginterpretationsofthefacts,andtherisksposedby

newprojects."61FrankFischergoesevenfurtherinthiscontext,explicitly

59IbrahimGoodwin,personalcorrespondencewithGordonMitchell,July21,2009.60JohnDavis,personalcorrespondencewithGordonMitchell,June7,2009.Inpersonal

correspondencewithGordonMitchellonAugust4,2009,debaterSethGannonreinforcedthisnotion:"OurEPAaudienceexpressedgreatthanksforadebateonthemeritsoftheirpoliciesthatwasinvestedonlyinthedebateprocessandnotanyparticularinterests."

61Majone,Evidence,ArgumentandPersuasion,5.

19

appropriatingrhetoricalscholarCharlesWillard'sconceptofargumentative

"epistemics"tofleshouthisvisionforpolicystudies:

Uncoveringtheepistemicdynamicsofpubliccontroversieswould

allowforamoreenlightenedunderstandingofwhatisatstakeina

particulardispute,makingpossibleasophisticatedevaluationofthe

variousviewpointsandmeritsofdifferentpolicyoptions.Insodoing,

thediffering,oftentacitlyheldcontextualperspectivesandvalues

couldbejuxtaposed;theviewpointsanddemandsofexperts,special

interestgroups,andthewiderpubliccouldbedirectlycompared;and

thedynamicsamongtheparticipantscouldbescrutizined.Thiswould

bynomeanssidelineorevenexcludescientificassessment;itwould

onlysituateitwithintheframeworkofamorecomprehensive

evaluation.62

AsDavisnotes,institutionalconstraintspresentwithintheEPA

communicativemilieucancomplicateeffortstoprovideafullairingofallrelevant

argumentspertainingtoagivenregulatoryissue.Thus,intercollegiatedebaterscan

playkeyrolesinretrievingandamplifyingpositionsthatmightotherwiseremain

sedimentedinthepolicyprocess.Thedynamicsentailedinthissymbiotic

relationshipareunderscoredbydeliberativeplannerJohnForester,whoobserves,

"Ifplannersandpublicadministratorsaretomakedemocraticpoliticaldebateand

argumentpossible,theywillneedstrategicallylocatedalliestoavoidbeingfully

thwartedbythecharacteristicself‐protectingbehaviorsoftheplanning

62FrankFischer,Citizens,ExpertsandtheEnvironment:ThePoliticsofLocalKnowledge

(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2000),257;CharlesArthurWillard,LiberalismandtheProblemofKnowledge:ANewRhetoricforModernDemocracy(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996).Fischergoesontospelloutoneimplicationflowingfromthislineofthinking,thatpolicyanalysts"mustdevelopaquitedifferentsetofskills....Beyondacompetentgraspofempirical‐analyticskills,heorsherequiresaswelltheabilitytoeffectivelyshareandconveyinformationtothelargerpublic.Inthissense,theanalystisasmuchaneducatorasasubstantivepolicyexpert.Thepedagogicaltaskistohelppeopleseeandteaseouttheassumptionsandconflictsunderlyingparticularpolicypositions,aswellastheconsequencesofresolvingtheminonewayoranother"(Fischer,Citizens,ExpertsandtheEnvironment,261).Forrelatedanalysisofthisthemeinthecontextofaprogrammaticefforttointegrateargumentationtheorywithsciencestudies,seeWilliamRehg,CogentScienceinContext:TheScienceWars,ArgumentationTheory,andHabermas(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2009).

20

organizationsandbureaucracieswithinwhichtheywork."63Here,aninstitution's

needfor"strategicallylocatedallies"tosupportdeliberativepracticeconstitutesthe

demandforrhetoricallyinformedexpertise,settingupwhatcanbeconsidered

"demand‐driven"rhetoricofscience.Asaninstanceofrhetoricofscience

scholarship,thistypeof"switch‐sidepublicdebate"64differsbothfrominsular

contesttournamentdebating,wherethemainfocusisonthepedagogicalbenefitfor

studentparticipants,andfirst‐generationrhetoricofsciencescholarship,where

criticsconcentratedonunmaskingtherhetoricityofscientificartifactscirculatingin

whatmanyperceivedtobepurelytechnicalspheresofknowledgeproduction.65As

aformofdemand‐drivenrhetoricofscience,switch‐sidesdebatingconnects

directlywiththecommunicationfield'sperformativetraditionofargumentative

engagementinpubliccontroversy—adifferentrouteoftheoreticalgroundingthan

rhetoricalcriticism'stendencytolocateitsfoundationsintheEnglishfield's

traditionofliterarycriticismandtextualanalysis.66

Giventhisgeneaology,itisnotsurprisingtolearnhowDavis'responsetothe

EPA'sinstitutionalneedforrhetoricalexpertisetooktheformofapublicdebate

proposal,shapedbyDavis'dualbackgroundasapractitionerandhistorianof

intercollegiatedebate.Daviscompetedasanundergraduatepolicydebaterfor

63JohnForester,CriticalTheory,PublicPolicy,andPlanningPractice:TowardaCriticalPragmatism(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993),59.Specifically,inCriticalTheory,Forestersuggests"spreadingdesignresponsibility"and"promotingcriticallyconstructivedesignandpolicycriticism"asmechanismsforpolicyplannerstoincorporateargumentationintotheirprofessionalpractices(29).Inthecontextofscientificinquiry,SteveFullermakessimilarpointsinhisbooksSocialEpistemology(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1991);andTheGovernanceofScience:IdeologyandtheFutureoftheOpenSociety(Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress,2000).

64AsJaneMunksgaardandDamienPfisterobserve,whenpursuedinthecontextofpublicdebate,"switch‐sidesdebatingrepresentstheultimateconsiderationofvariousperspectives.Studentsmustdointensiveresearchandreadingtoinformthemselvesofvarioussidesofanissue...crediblyadvancethoseviewsasadvocates,andrebuildtheirpositionsthroughcross‐examinationandrebuttal.Switch‐sidesdebatingdisplaysthepossibilitiesofintellectualengagementasaprocessofunderstanding,notcombat.Carefulconsiderationofothers'opinionsreshapesthemetaphorofargumentaswarintoametaphorofcollaboration"(seetheiressay,"ThePublicDebater'sRoleinAdvancingDeliberation:TowardsSwitch‐SidesPublicDebate,"inCriticalProblemsinArgumentation,ed.CharlesWillard,[Washington,D.C.:NCA,2003],506).

65SeeHarris,LandmarkEssays.66SuchgroundingmayhelpeasedisciplinaryanxietiesraisedbycommentatorssuchasLeah

Ceccarelli,whopaintsadimpictureregardingrhetoricofscience'spotentialforscholarlyandpolicyimpactbeyondthefieldofcommunication;seeher“AHardLookatOurselves:AReceptionStudyofRhetoricofScience,"TechnicalCommunicationQuarterly,14(2005):257‐65.

21

HowardUniversityinthe1970s,andthenwentonenjoysubstantialsuccessas

coachoftheHowardteaminthenewmillennium.Inanessayreviewingthebroad

sweepofdebatinghistory,Davisnotes,"Academicdebatebeganatleast2,400years

agowhenthescholarProtagorasofAbdera(481‐411B.C.),knownasthefatherof

debate,conducteddebatesamonghisstudentsinAthens."67AsJohnPoulakospoints

out,"older"SophistssuchasProtagorastaughtGreekstudentsthevalueofdissoi

logoi,orpullingapartcomplexquestionsbydebatingtwosidesofanissue.68The

fewsurvivingfragmentsofProtagoras'worksuggestthathisnotionofdissoilogoi

stoodfortheprinciplethat"twoaccounts[logoi]arepresentaboutevery'thing,'

opposedtoeachother,"69andfurther,thathumanscould"measure"70therelative

soundnessofknowledgeclaimsbyengagingingive‐and‐takewherepartieswould

makethe"weakerargumentstronger"toactivatethegenerativeaspectofrhetorical

practice,akeyelementoftheSophisticaltradition.71

FollowinginProtagoras'wake,Isocrateswouldcomplementthiscentrifugal

pushwiththepullofsynerchésthé,acentripetalexerciseof"comingtogether

deliberatively"tolisten,respond,andformcommonsocialbonds.72Isocrates

incorporatedProtagoreandissoilogoiintosynerchésthé("comingtogether

deliberately"),abroaderconceptthatheusedflexiblytoexpressinterlockingsenses

of1)inquiry,asingroupsconveningtosearchforanswerstocommonquestions

throughdiscussion;732)deliberation,withinterlocutorsgatheringinapolitical

settingtodeliberateaboutproposedcoursesofaction;74and3)allianceformation,a

67JohnW.Davis,"WordsasWeapons,"DebateSolutionswebsite,December5,2007,

http://www.debatesolutions.com.68Sprague,ed.,TheOlderSophists,2ded.;seealsoJohnPoulakos,"RhetoricandCivic

Education,"81‐82.69Schiappa,ProtagorasanLogos,100.70Schiappa,ProtagorasandLogos,117‐133.71Schiappa,ProtagorasandLogos,103‐116.72EkaterinaHaskins,LogosandPowerinIsocratesandAristotle(Columbia,SC:Universityof

SouthCarolinaPress,1997),88.73Isocrates,Panathenaicus,trans.GeorgeNorlin,vol.2,LoebClassicalLibrary(London:

WilliamHeinemann,1929),14,76.74Isocrates,Nicocles,19,OnthePeace,trans.GeorgeNorlin,LoebClassicalLibrary,vol.2

(London:WilliamHeinemann,1929),2,9.

22

formofcollectiveactiontypicalatfestivals,75orintheexchangeofpledgesthat

deepensocialties.76

ReturningonceagaintotheKettering‐informedsharpdistinctionbetween

debateanddeliberation,oneseesinIsocraticsynerchésthé,aswellastheEPA

debatinginitiative,afusionofdebatewithdeliberativefunctions.Echoingatheme

raisedinthisessay'searlierdiscussionofintelligencetradecraft,suchafusion

troublescategoricalattemptstoclassifydebateanddeliberationasfundamentally

opposedactivities.Thesignificanceofsuchafindingisamplifiedbythefrequencyof

attemptsinthedeliberativedemocracyliteraturetoinsistonthetheoretical

bifurcationofdebateanddeliberationasanarticleoftheoreticalfaith.

TandemanalysisoftheEPAandintelligencecommunitydebatinginitiatives

alsobringstolightdimensionsofcontrastatthethirdlevelofIsocratic

synerchésthé,allianceformation.Theintelligencecommunity'sAnalyticOutreach

initiativeinviteslargelyone‐waycommunicationflowingfromoutsideexpertsinto

theblackboxofclassifiedintelligenceanalysis.Onthecontrary,theEPAdebating

programgesturestowardamoreexpansiveprojectofdeliberativealliancebuilding.

Inthisvein,HowardUniversity'sparticipationinthe2008EPA"WaterWars"

debatescanbeseenastheharbingerofatrendbyHistoricallyBlackCollegesand

Universities(HBCUs)tocatalyzetheirdebateprogramsinastrategythatevinces

Davis'dual‐focusvision.Ontheonehand,DavisaimstorecuperateWileyCollege's

traditionofcompetitiveexcellenceinintercollegiatedebatedepictedsopowerfully

inthefeaturefilmTheGreatDebaters,bystartingawaveofnewdebateprograms

housedinHBCUsacrossthenation.77Ontheotherhand,Davisseespotentialfor

75Isocrates,Panathenaicus,146,Panegyricus,trans.GeorgeNorlin,vol.1,LoebClassical

Library(London:WilliamHeinemann,1928),81.76Isocrates,Panegyricus,43,Helen,trans.LarueVanHook,vol.3,LoebClassicalLibrary

(London:WilliamHeinemann,1945),40,AgainstCallimachus,trans.LarueVanHook,vol.3,LoebClassicalLibrary(London:WilliamHeinemann,1945),45;seealsoTakisPoulakos,SpeakingforthePolis:Isocrates'RhetoricalEducation(Columbia,SC:UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress,1997),19;Haskins,LogosandPower,8;andKathleenE.Welch,ElectricRhetoric:ClassicalRhetoric,OralismandaNewLiteracy(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1999).

77TheGreatDebaters(Chicago:HarperProductions,2007).TimothyM.O'Donnellprovidesinsightfulcommentaryonthehistoricalandprospectivesignificanceofthisfilmin"'TheGreatDebaters':AChallengetoHigherEducation,"hisJanuary7,2008articleforInsideHigherEducation,http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/01/07/odonnell;aswellashis"ThePittsburgh

23

thesenewprogramstocomplementtheircompetitivedebateprogrammingwith

participationintheEPA'spublicdebatinginitiative.Thisdual‐focusvisionrecalls

DouglasEhningerandWayneBrockriede'svisionof"total"debateprogramsthat

blendswitch‐sidesintercollegiatetournamentdebatingwithformsofpublicdebate

designedtocontributetowidercommunitiesbeyondthetournamentsetting.78

WhilethepoliticaltelosanimatingDavis'dual‐focusvisioncertainlyembraces

backgroundassumptionsthatGreeneandHickswouldfinddisconcerting(e.g.

notionsofliberalpoliticalagency,theideaofdebateusing"wordsasweapons"),79

thereislittledoubtthattheprojectofpursuingenvironmentalprotectionby

tappingthecreativeenergyofHBCU‐leverageddissoilogoidifferssignificantlyfrom

theintelligencecommunity'sefforttoimproveitstradecraftthroughonlinedigital

debateprogramming.SuchdifferenceisespeciallyevidentinlightoftheEPA's

commitmenttoextenddebatestopublicrealms,withtheattendantpossible

benefitsunpackedbyJaneMunksgaardandDamienPfister:

Havingapublicdebaterargueagainsttheirconvictions,orconfess

theirindecisiononasubjectandsubsequentembraceofargumentas

awaytoseekclarity,couldshakeuptheprevailingviewofdebateasa

warofwords.Publicuptakeofthepossibilityofswitch‐sidesdebate

mayhelplessenthepolarizationofissuesinherentinprevailing

debateformatsbecausestudentsarenolongerseenasweddedto

theirarguments.Thiscouldtransformpublicdebatefromatussle

betweenadvocates,witheachpublicdebatertryingtoconvincethe

audienceinaManicheanstruggleaboutthetruthoftheirside,toa

Debaters,"anarticlepublishedinThePittsburghPost‐Gazette,December30,2007,http://www.post‐gazette.com/pg/07364/845125‐109.stm.

78DouglasEhningerandWayneBrockriede,DecisionbyDebate(NewYork:Dodd,Mead&Co.,1963).Forrelatedcommentaryontheentwinementofdebatetournamentcompetitionandpublicdebating,seeGordonR.MitchellandTakeshiSuzuki,"Beyondthe'DailyMe':ArgumentationinanAgeofEnclaveDeliberation,"inArgumentationandSocialCognition,ed.TakeshiSuzuki,YoshiroYano,andTakayukiKato(Tokyo,JapanDebateAssociation,2004),160‐166;andJoeMiller,Cross‐X(NewYork:Farrar,StraussandGiroux,2006),470‐478.

79SeeDavis,"WordsasWeapons."

24

moreinvitingexchangefocusedonthecontentoftheother's

argumentationandtheprocessofdeliberativeexchange.80

ReflectionontheEPAdebatinginitiativerevealsastrikingconvergence

betweentheexpressedneedfordissoilogoibygovernmentagencyofficials

wrestlingwiththechallengesofinvertedrhetoricalsituations;theoreticalclaimsby

scholarsregardingthecentralityofargumentationinthepublicpolicyprocess;and

thepracticalwherewithalofintercollegiatedebaterstotailorpublicswitch‐side

debatingperformancesinspecificwaysrequestedbyagencycollaborators.These

pointsofconvergenceunderscorepreviouslyarticulatedtheoreticalassertions

regardingtherelationshipofdebatetodeliberation,aswellasdeepen

understandingofthepoliticalroleofdeliberationininstitutionaldecision‐making.

Buttheyalsosuggesthowdecisionsbyrhetoricalscholarsaboutwhetherto

contributeswitch‐sidedebatingacumentomeetdemand‐drivenrhetoricofscience

initiativesoughttoinvolvecarefulreflection.Suchanapproachmirrorstheway

policyplanninginthe"argumentativeturn"isdesignedtorespondtothe

weaknessesofformal,decisionisticparadigmsofpolicyplanningwithsituated,

contingentjudgmentsinformedbyreflectivedeliberation.

Conclusion

DilipGaonkar'scriticismoffirst‐generationrhetoricofsciencescholarship

restsonakeyclaimregardingwhatheseesastheinherent"thinness"oftheancient

Greekrhetoricallexicon.81Thatlexicon,byvirtueofthefactthatitwasinvented

primarilytoteachrhetoricalperformance,isill‐equippedtosupportthekindof

nuanceddiscriminationsrequiredforeffectiveinterpretationandcritiqueof

rhetoricaltexts.WhileGaonkarisolatesrhetoricofscienceasamaintargetofthis

critique,hischoiceofsubjectmatterpositionshimtotogglebackandforthbetween

specificengagementwithrhetoricofsciencescholarshipanddiscussionofbroader

80MunksgaardandPfister,"PublicDebater'sRole,"507.81Gaonkar,"TheIdeaofRhetoric."Forasurveyofearlyrhetoricofsciencescholarship,see

RandyAllenHarris,ed.,LandmarkEssaysonRhetoricofScience:CaseStudies(Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,1997).

25

themestouchingonthemeta‐theoreticalcontroversyoverrhetoric'sproperscope

asafieldofinquiry(theso‐called"big"vs."little"rhetoricdispute).82Gaonkar's

familiarrefraininbothcontextsisawarningaboutthedangersof"universalizing"

or"globalizing"rhetoricalinquiry,especiallyinattemptsthat"stretch"theclassical

Greekrhetoricalvocabularyintoahermeneuticmetadiscourse,onepressedinto

serviceasamasterkeyforinterpretationofanyandalltypesofcommunicative

artifacts.Inotherwords,Gaonkarwarnsagainstthedangersofrhetoricians

pursuingwhatmightbecalled"supply‐sideepistemology,"rhetoric'sprojectof

pushingforgreaterdisciplinaryrelevancebyattemptingtoextenditsreachintofar‐

flungareasofinquirysuchasthehardsciences.

Yetthisessayhighlightshowrhetoricalscholarship'srelevancecanbe

crediblyestablishedbyoutsiders,whoseekaccesstothecreativeenergyflowing

fromtheclassicalGreekrhetoricallexiconinitsnativemode,thatisasatoolof

inventiondesignedtospurandhonerhetoricalperformance.Analysisofthe

intelligencecommunityandEPAdebatinginitiativesshowshowthisisthecase,

withgovernmentagenciescallingforassistancetoanimaterhetoricalprocesses

suchasdissoilogoi(debatingdifferentsides)andsynérchesthé,theperformative

taskofcomingtogetherdeliberatelyforthepurposeofjointinquiry,collective

choice‐making,andrenewalofcommunicativebonds.Thisdemand‐driven

epistemologyisdifferentinkindfromthe"globalization"projectsoroundly

criticizedbyGaonkar.Ratherthanrhetoricventuringoutfromitsownacademic

hometoproselytizeaboutitsepistemologicaluniversalityforallknowers,instead

herewehaveactorsnotformallytrainedintherhetoricaltraditionarticulatinghow

theirowndeliberativeobjectivescallforincorporationofrhetoricalpractice,and

evenrecruitmentof"strategicallylocatedallies"83toassistintheprocess.Sincethe

productivistcontentintheclassicalGreekvocabularyservesasacriticalresource

82EdwardSchiappa,"SecondThoughtsontheCritiquesofBigRhetoric,"Philosophyand

Rhetoric34(2001):260‐274;seealsotheessaysinHerbertW.Simons'seditedvolume,TheRhetoricalTurn:InventionandPersuasionintheConductofInquiry(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1990).

83Forester,CriticalTheory,59.

26

forjointcollaborationinthisregard,demand‐drivenrhetoricofscienceturns

Gaonkar'soriginalcritiqueonitshead.

InfairnesstoGaonkar,itshouldbestipulatedthathis1993intervention

challengedthewayrhetoricofsciencehadbeendonetodate,nottheuniverseof

waysrhetoricofsciencemightbedoneinthefuture.Andtohispartialcredit(hedid

thisinafootnote),Gaonkardidacknowledgethepromiseofaperformance‐oriented

rhetoricofscience,especiallyoneinformedbyclassicalthinkersotherthan

Aristotle.84InhisPh.D.dissertationon"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"85Gaonkar

documentshowtheancientsophistswere"thegreatestchampions"of"socially

useful"science,86andalsohowthesophistsessentiallypracticedtheartofrhetoric

inatranslational,performativeregister:

Thesophistscouldnotblithelygoabouttheirbusinessofmaking

scienceuseful,whilescienceitselfstoodstillduetolackofcommunal

supportandrecognition.Besides,sophisticpedagogywasbecoming

increasinglydependentonthefindingsofcontemporaryspeculation

inphilosophyandscience.Takeforinstance,theeminentlypractical

artofrhetoric.Astaughtbythebestofthesophists,itwasnotsimply

ahandbookofrecipeswhichanyonecouldmechanicallyemploytohis

advantage.Onthecontrary,thestrengthandvitalityofsophistic

rhetoriccamefromtheirabilitytoincorporatetherelevant

informationobtainedfromtheon‐goingresearchinotherfields.87

Ofcoursedeeptrans‐historicaldifferencesmakeuncriticalappropriationof

classicalGreekrhetoricforcontemporaryuseafool'serrand.Buttogaugefrom

RobertHariman'srecentreflectionsontheenduringsalienceofIsocrates,"timely,

suitable,andelegantappropriations"canhelpuspost‐moderns"forgeanew

politicallanguage"suitableforaddressingthecomplexraftofintertwinedproblems

84Gaonkar,"TheIdeaofRhetoric,"note3,78.85DilipParameshwarGaonkar,"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"unpublishedPh.D.diss.,

UniversityofPittsburgh,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania,1984.86Gaonkar,"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"121.87Gaonkar,"AspectsofSophisticPedagogy,"248,emphasisadded.

27

facingglobalsociety.88Suchretrospectionislongoverdue,saysHariman,as"the

history,literature,philosophy,oratory,art,andpoliticalthoughtofGreeceand

Romehaveneverbeenmoreaccessibleorlessappreciated."89

Thisessayhasexploredwaysthatsomeofthemostvenerableelementsof

theancientGreekrhetoricaltradition—thosedealingwithdebateand

deliberation—canberetrievedandadaptedtoanswercallsinthecontemporary

milieufor"culturaltechnologies"capableofdealingwithoneofourtime'smost

dauntingchallenges.Thischallengeinvolvesfindingmeaningininvertedrhetorical

situationscharacterizedbyanendemicsurplusofheterogeneouscontent.

88RobertHariman,"CivicEducation,ClassicalImitation,andDemocraticPolity,"inIsocrates

andCivicEducation,228.89Hariman,"CivicEducation,"217.