A DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Rinhard f^oson^ University of Southern CaliformiaKim Lesohlyy Jet Propulsion Lahor>ato7njAhe Feinherg^ Jet Propulsion Laboratory and

California State Universityj NorthridgeJeffrey H. Smithy Jet Proputsian Laboratom and

University of Sovtherm California

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on the methodology and an applicationof a dialectical approach to research and development plann-ing. The methodology features a structured debate followedby argumentation analysis. The argumentation analysis inturn is followed by an assessment of the plausibility of thearg^uments. The application involved using the methodology toassess the level of funding far research 'and development fora transportation system that would employ a.dvanced technol-ogy. The Dialectic T.nguiry process^ and specifically, theplausibility rating activity, were seen as valuable, aids forpolicy analysis*

INTRODUCTION . The purpose of this paper is to presentthe development and application of a methodology for guanti-fying policy issues as an aid to long term policy and deci-sion making. The paper begins with background material onthe evolution of inguiry systems in the context of policyanalysis and planning. Next is described a methodology foranswering research and development (R&D) planning and ulti-mately funding guestions. The methodology incorporates a"dialectic" in the form of a structured debate.

The motivations for using the Dialectic approach in suchapplications are numerous. First, the procedure complementsthe process that leads to the funding decision by initiatinga dialogue between oDposing views, conducting a structureddebate over the issues, analyzing the arguments, and weighingthe^ plausibiIity of the results. Secondly, the fundingdecision process is time-consuming, expensive, and can lacksufficient detail to surface opposing viewpoints. TheDialectic Inguiry process recognizes that holders of opposingviewpoints may not wish to achieve consensus (as in theDelphi approach). The absence of a sufficiently open view oflarge, i 1 I-structured problems (active or passive), and thesuppression of issue conflict can lead to costs far in excessof those incurred with the use of the Dialectic Inquirymethod. Third, the methodology affords opportunity forexpression of opposing views, analysis of arguments used, andthen assessment of their plausibility by a third party.

652

An apDiication is presented involving the application ofthe methodology to a decision on the level of R&D funding foran advanced techno Iogy transportation system. Comments andconclusions follow the application.

BACKGROUND. Planning information is generally equivocal.There are a var iety of i n terp r eta t ions for any i tem ofinformation or any issue concerning a planning problem.Thus, in many instances, positions on planning issues tend togroup in to distinct "sides" of an argument. This "dialectic"between the two sides of an argument has led to the deveiop-ment of a Dialectical Inquiry process (Mason 196R, 1969;Churchman 1971). The Dialectical Inquiry process proceedsfrom the assumption that policy is ultimately based on thewei ght of arguments presented for and aga i nst a policyoption. The argument may be in conflict and logically incon-s i stent within an issue; however, i rrationaIi ty may be anunavoi dab Ie conseguence of the political, economi c, soci a I,and other stakeholders surround ing the decision to be taken.The method augments detai led scientific analyses by show i ngwhere they fit i nto the structure of the arguments wh icheither support or deny the viability of a policy option. Themethod further assumes that acti veIy i nvolvi ng representa-tives of the parti es of i nterest in the process yieldsdimensions of argument, beliefs, and insights beyond thosenormally captured by other methods (Hambrick, 1974).

A dialecticaI inguiry analyzes an issue from two or morepoints of view. DialecticaI Inqulry explicitly acknow ledgesthe role of purpose in securing and interpreting i nformat ionfor pIann i ng policy-mak ing. In the scientific idea!, dataare considered +o be impersonal, impartial, and unbiased andtherefore repiicative by anyone else gualified to undertakethe i nvesti gation. The i deaI of Dialectic Ingu i ry, on theother hand, assumes that data may be gathered, or i f neces-sary, created for a specific purpose. Data can often be one-sided, biased, misleading, incomplete and eguivocal. Conse-guently. Dialecti cai Inqu i ry contends that all data andconclusions should be opposed by countervailing data andcone I us ions col Iected with roughly similar degrees of i nten-sity (dialectical data). The method is conflictual andpragmatic.

Policy-making reguires both scientific and dialecticaldata as inputs. Failure to understand and therefore to takeaccount of the essential differences between them createsproblems. It frequently results in scientific cone I us ionsbeing unimplemented or unused and in dialectical conclusionsbeing misunderstood or mi sinterpreted. DialecticaI Inquirytreats any statement as bei ng compr i sed of two components—a

653

factuaI part called data (which may or may not be scientificdata) and a belief and value part called a warrant whichder i ves from the exper i ence and intention of the sourcemak ing the statement. S ince all compI ex poli cy-mak i ngi nvolves the merger of confIicting i nterests, Di a IerticaIInguiry D^-ovides i n format ion and i nsi ghts for pol icy-mak i ngthat other methods do not provide.

The purpose of applying Dialectical Inquiry to policyissues is to inform the deci si on-maker as to the breadth anddepth of the case being made for each side. It is assumedthat the dec is ion-maker(s) will review the strength of thecase on each side and arrive at a final cone I us ion. Theanalysis helps the decision-maker in the following ways:

-It provides an overview of the critical elementsinvolved in the case for each alternative.-It provides a sense of the strength or plausibilityof the argument being made by each side by studyingthe strengths of the argument components.-It highlights the discrepancies, differences, andgaps in the arguments and procedures of the opposingparti es through a structured debate and argumenta-tion ana lysis.

-It helps identify the critical elements in the pathof argumentation leading to a final conclusion.-It pi npoi nts exactly where various data sources ordetai led studies Iie in the chain of the pot icyargument by identifying the data and other argumentcomponents in the argumentation analysis.-Because the debate reveaIs weaknesses i n argumentson one or more sides of an issue it identifiestop ies for further research or study. That is, itindicates what additional data, analysis, or exper i-ments wouId be usefuI to improve the qua Iity of theargument.

-Coupled with methods for formally scaling andweighing the arguments and assessing their plausibil-ity, it can be used as a decision support aid forthe deci s ion-maker.

Dialectical Inguiry is designed to deal with complexproblems which are characterized by high levels of inter-dependency, many different values and beliefs, and no sinqledefinitive analytical formulation and solution method.

A number of distinct and radically different inquirysystems have been deveI oped during the past three centuries.Some of the hi stor icaI Iy famous i nqu i ry systems—those ofLeibnitz, Locke, Kant, Hegel, and Sinqer—have been discussedin a modern context by Churchman (1971). Models for theseinquiry systems have been described and their use for teehno-

654

logical forecasting assessed by Mitroff and Turoff (1973).Given the increasing interdisciplinary and adversarial qual-ity of many policy development and planning issues, theHegelian and Singerian inguiry systems offer the greatestprospeets for the analysis of these potentially (and freguent-ly) ill-structured problems.

Mason (1968) has incorporated several aspects of theHeqel ian and Si nger ian i nqu i ry systems in a form he terms"CounterpIann i ng and Structured Debate." The deci sion-makerand the i nvesti gator are both part of the i ngu i ry system.The decision-maker responds to the structured debate byforming a new "Weltanschauung" (world view), ie., a synthesisthat is a more general and expanded view of the problem. Thedesign of this inguiry system is philosophically founded onthe ideas of the Hegelian and Si nger ian i nqui ry systems, andfrom Mason's (1969) adaptation. This adaptation encompassesa process which can be used to answer the basic policy/decision question. This process is diagrammed in Figure 1.

The first phase of the process involves identifying theissues, assumptions, and data and ends with a structureddebate. The second phase i nvolves an argumentation ana Iys i sto i denti fy the d i fferent vi ews, wei gh thei r pIausi b i I i ty,and conclude with the formation of recommendations. Thedetails of this methodology are described in the followingsection and then illustrated with an application to which themethodology was applied.

METHODOLOGY . Dialectical Inquiry as developed by Masonand Mi troff (1979) i nvolves three major steps: an initialassessment to determine the issues and arguments for astructured debate; a structured debate to forma Iize andclarify the positions; and an argumentation analysis todetermi ne the positi ve, neutral, or negati ve vi ew associ atedwith each argument, together with a plausibility review andthe formulation of subseguent recommendations.

The f i rst step, the initial assessment, is performed toidentify topical issues and conflicting viewpoints. Thissearch for the issues raises new guestions on assumptions,methods of data col I ect ion, procedure, and so on. As theissues are raised, questions regarding the accuracy of factsand options lead to further data gather ing. This exerc i seclar i f ies the Iack of consensus on the issues while thereasons and assumptions made by the interested parties forthei r arguments tend to become more compI ex and uncertai n.This is to be expected when dealing with an ill-structuredplanning problem with missing data and strong elements ofjudgmenta 1 consi derations.

655

The next step, the structured debate, is designed toexpose the underlying assumptions and challenge theirvalidity and importance. The debate is carried out withdi fferent teams presenting thei r arguments and rebuttaIs totheir opposing team's arguments following formal debatingprocedures.

The th i rd step i nvolves conducti ng a detaiIed argumenta-tion analysis of the results of the structured debate. Thepurpose of this analysis is to identify the component partsof each argument. The analysis is based on the principles ofStephen Toulmin's (1958, 1979) method of argumentationanalysis. Following the debate, a third party (or team)analyzes the results and places them in a structure patternedafter a model developed by Toulmin (1958).

The results of the argumentation analysis can be summa-r i zed in a form that pol icy makers can use to identifyimportant issues and the most plausible arguments associatedwith each issue. The art of mergi ng the key issues in aframework of a limited and often fragmented scientific database, is the principal task of the policy-maker. The assumedidea! of the advisor is to provide both a relevant data base(what we know) and a relevant insight into the issues ofconcern (what we don't know), in the most efficient way.

Dialectical Inquiry was used to analyze this policyissue. The specific procedure for the dialectical i nqu i ryempIoyed was to conduct a structured debate between twoparties with conflicting viewpoints and i nterests in theoutcome of the R&D policy decision. A third party, composedof four i ndi vi duaIs wi thout commi tment to either of theoppos ing vi ewpoi nts, was chartpred to clarify the argumentsdur i ng the debate and to summar ize and analyze the structureof the arguments following the debate. One characteristic ofDialectical Inquiry is that it helps reveal the factualbasis, interpretations, insights and problems definition ofeach party. This aids in the determination of the degree ofsupport for various claims and serves to identify researchprojects which may resolve critical uncertainties.

AN APPLICATION OF DIALECTIC INQUIRY: THE ROADWAY POWEREDVEHICLE SYSTEM . The application was concerned with theoveraI I vi ab i I ity of a Roadway Powered Veh i cle (RPV) systemconcept, and the multitude of factors re Iated to a possibleimp Iementation of such a system: transportation, economi cs,energy, technology, social, institutional, etc. The problemof assessing these factors i s domi nated by thei r compIexi tyand the relatively high dependency of the assessment onjudgmental considerations and expectations about the future.

656

One of the more promising long-term options for reducingcostly and vulnerable dependence on imported petroleum iscentered around electrification in the transportationsector. This option is presently being pursued primarily interms of R&D on electric and hybrid vehicles (EHV's). Thepurpose of the application reported here was to assess theviability of an alternative technology for automotiveelectrification, the Inductive Coupling Technology (ICT), andthe advisability of further pursuing this technology and itssystem application, the Roadway Powered Vehicle (RPV) system(Leschly, et al. 1979).

The automotive (passenger car) application of the ICT hasbeen suggested as a subject for further R&D wihin the U.S.Department of Energy's (DOE) EHV Research and DevelopmentProgram. The principal merit of the RPV system is itspotential for petroleum conservation and displacement, withelectricity as a substitute. The present study was designedto help DOE decide on the level of funding for further RiDfor the RPV system.

The technical concept behind the RPV system is thecombination of an electrical power source buried in theroadway and a vehicle-mounted power pickup, whieh is indue-tively coupled to the source with an air gap on the order ofone inch between the two. Initial investigations of theconceptual design and feasibility of the RPV system (Bolgeret al. 1977, 1978, 1979), were performed by the LawrenceBerkeley Laboratory (LBL), University of Caiifornia, spon-sored by DOE. While the thrust of the LBL Feasibility studyand prototype development was on the technology itself, theapplication reported here was centered on its system applica-tion.

Two opposing worldviews were identified based on thepositions for and against support of RPV system research.The RPV system team looked to government and other largeinstitutions to set social goals and to take a strong, activerole in achieving them. The large seale systems eharacteris-tics of the RPV system technology partly necessitate thisbelief. The second position favored battery operatedelectric automobi Ies, hybrids and synthetic fuels.Under 1y i ng i ts advocat ion of these techno Iogi es i s a strongre Ii ance on free market economi cs wi th mi ni ma I governmentdirect intervention. The method of inquiry was to bringtogether representatives of the viewpoints to present thefacts, assumptions and modes of reasoning which led them totheir differing conclusions.

THE STRUCTURED DEBATE. The theme of the structured debatewas whether or not the DOE ought to allocate more of its R&D

657

budget to studying the RPV system. One team called the Blueteam, ior RPV system team), took the affirmative position,while the other team, called the Red Team (or EHV team), tookthe negati ve position. The Blue Team was composed ofresearchers and engi neers work ing on or in favor of the RPVsystem while the Red Team was composed of engineers andsystems analysts working on other advanced transportationconcepts.

The issues for the structured debate were identifiedusing the following process. In the first round, each teamsubmitted issues. For the second round both teams agreed toissue statements. Finally the issues were ranked for debatein order of importance: 1) petroleum di spIacement; 2)economi es; 3) transportation; 4) imp Iementation process; and5) comparison of alternatives.

In order to expose under lying assumptions and challengetheir validity and importance with respeet to the R&D deci -sion on the RPV system, a three-day workshop was held as astructured debate between the two competi ng viewpoints. Theworkshop was successfuI in pointing to a number of pi votalassumptions about the RPV system and the future. Theresults, in the eyes of a third (observing) party led to anextension of the analysis in three areas of concern:transportation impacts, economic parameters, and petroleumd i spIaeement.

The third party witnessed the debate and interrogated thedebaters. The third party then modeled the key arguments ofeach position by applying argumentation analysis to thepresentation of, and responses to, each position.

ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS. Argumentation analysis identifiesthe statements taken as given by a position (i.e. facts ordata), the warrants (the assumptions used to i nterpret thegi vens as support for a eoneluslon) and the rebutta Is (thecondi tions under wh]ch the cone I us ion does not folIow).Argumentation analysis lays out the "chain of the argument"by show) ng how facts used in one argument, (or a rebuttal )may be countered by an argument leading to a contraryconclusion (see Figure 2 ) . The result is a specification ofthe hierarchy of the argument. In this study arguments weremodeled up to three levels of detail.

A fu M-sea Ie appIi eat ion of argumentation ana Iysisi nvolves a process by which the plausibility or relativestrength of each argument is assessed. Such a plausibilityassessment was done on an experimental basis as a part of theanalysis.

658

INITIAL ASSESSMENT

What arc the overal l

Restate most c redib le poai t lonaion lr

STmiCTURED DEBATE

Aptumentatlon Analys is

Positive vie N e u t r i l View Negative View

Critique Dirfering Vieus(Plausibility Asaessient]

FORH RECOHHENDATI0H5

Figure 1. Diagram of the Dialectic Inquiry System

ISSUEPetroleum Dlaplacemert:To what extent will the RPV system displace petroleum

Since:

These facts imply sufficient

a substantial dlsplaceowntof pecraleum.

tACKING

The RPV system will displaceaubstantlBl anounta of petToU

The RFV sysceiB requires pettoleunto produce Its electricity.

advantages of a new technology

Figure 2. Argument Structure

The first purpose of the argumGntation analysis was todetermine the "state of the art" and current knowledge aboutthe RPV and Its alternatives as it pertains to the policyIssue of R&D funding. The second purpose was to determinethe relative significance of sub-issues and to rank them.The fInaI purpose was to provlde directions for analysiswithin the study effort and for further research In thepolIcy area. FI ve study projects were undertaken to exami nethe Issues raised In greater detalI. They further Ind i catedthe need for a general plausibility analysis of the argu-ments. The assessment of pIaus i b i1i ty of the argumentspresented in +he structured debate was experimental. Noprior parallel has been I dent I f ied in the 1 i terature. Anydefinitive interpretations of the results should thereforeonly be made with qreat caution. The purpose of plausibilityassessment Is threefold: to examine the plausibility of thearguments and their subelements (claim, data, warrant,back i ng, and rebuttaI ) as presented by the two teams; tocheck +he logicaI consi stency of the arguments wi thIn eachissue, and to determi ne top i cs for further study, for thepurposes of clarifying the credibility of the arguments.

The plausibility analysis involved the preparation of aset of instructions defining the argument component conceptsand the plausibility measure. A plausibility scale (from 0to 9) was presented with a brief descr i pt Ion of the mean i ngof each of the numerals (compIetely i mpIausi bIe—absolutelyno assurance or certainty in the truthfulness or reasonable-ness of the argument versus maximally plausible—a logicaland necessary truth, absolute assurance or certainty in thetruthfulness or reasonableness of the argument). Theinstructions specified that the ratings be based on threefactors: the credentials of the source including its rella-biIity and trustworthiness; the soundness of the logic andreason Ing empIoyed; and the degree to which the argument orits components agree with previous knowledge, experience, andbeliefs. Five individuals, all knowledgeable in the fieldbut with no direct interest in either side of the Issuesprovided the plausibility ratings.

RESULTS. The results show that the Blue Team's case forthe RPV system was bel ieved to be especial ly weak in twoareas. Its claims for significant levels of petroleum dis-p1acement and consumer acceptance gaIned I IttIe support. Incontrast, the Red Team's cI alms were rated h i gh. It becameapparent during the discussion of the results that there wereat I east two critical issues that lowered the be Ii evab i1i tyof the Blue Team. The first was the contention that the RPVsystem would increase freeway safety due to automation of thesystem. The second claim that the raters found unsupportabIewas the complete penetration of the 110 mi lion vehicle fleet

660

by the RPV system.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The Dialectical Inguiryprocess provided a framework that facili+ated and structuredthe decision-making process associated with this policyIssue. The Dialectical Inquiry system helped to combinepreviously undefinable, complex, interdisciplinary areas toprov i de probI em i denti f i cat ion. As the probI em ga i neddefinition, the structured debate and argumentation analyseswere va I uab I e for i denti f y i ng the components of the majorissues raised and surfacing new issues. This procedure Isbelieved to be especially valuable for policy surroundinglarge, ill-structured problems because such problems tend tobe fuzzy In definition and adversarial in nature.

The Dialectical Inquiry process proved to be a valuabletool for identifying and crystallizing the issues surroundingthe R&D funding question. The methodology enabled the partic-ipants to present the alternative views associated with thisquestion. The plausibility instrument, while still prelim-inary, provided an indication as to both the believabiIity ofthe arguments and the consistency of the judgments elicited.The results of the study indicate that continued funding ofthe RPV concept is of questionable benefit qiven the argu-ments made for continuing the study of such systems. Whilethere may be other limited applications of such a technology,the Iarge-scaIe network proposed initially does not appearworkable as has been discussed.

The Dialectical Inquiry effort Is labor-intensive andpotentially time-consuming. However, the benefits achievedare believed to be far in excess of the cost of using themethodology. In fact, the improvement in the decision-makingprocess could save millions of dollars that might otherwisehave been funneled in+o non-productive R&D. In this context,the Dialectic Inquiry system was invaluable.

This is not to say that smaller applications for themethodology are not feasible or do not exist. In smallerfunding and policy conflicts, the environment is often one ofdebate^. The Dialectical approach can be used by policy makersin smaller applications for the supnort or critique of policyby identifying the Issues, potential claims, rebuttals, data,^ t c , which could be used in a strategic sense to aid insupporting/critiquing the policy. The Dialectical approachformalizes the inguiry into policy questions by structuring aprocess which is used to identify conflicting arguments foror against the policy option(s).

It was noted that the Red Team had an advantage in thisdebate. Unlike the Blue Team, it did not have to prepare an

661

offense for its claims, but only to rebut the points made byits opponents. The point was raised by the Blue Team thatthe structure of the debate prevented technical discussion offundamental content and differences. With a week's elapsedtime between selection of the issues, as suggested above, andperhaps another week between the central debate and the sum-marizing positions by each team, more time would be providedfor each team to analyze the di fferences between theirpositions. These analyses could serve to either narrow thedifferences in positions or to sharpen the focus on thereasons for them. Time could be provided for informal dis-cussion as well. The Blue Team also objected to the compo-sition of the th i rd party group for havi ng some members ofthe same organization as the Red Team, and also to the use ofmembers of this organization to rate plausibilities. Thiscould have been overcome by selecting third party members andp lausibiIity raters from organizations not represented oneither of the opposing teams.

The Dialectic Inquiry process, and specifica!ly, theplausibiIIty rating activity, were seen as valuable toolsthat policymakers could use in the decision making process.it is a s i mp1e, yet power f uI method for d i scover i ng thestrengths and weaknesses of opposing arguments and the areaswhere further investigations would be most useful.

REFERENCES

Bolger, J.G., and F.A. Kersten, Investigation of theFeasibility of a Dual Mode Electric TransportationSystem, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University ofCalifornia, May 1977 (LBL-6301). Prepared for U.S.Department of Energy.

Bolger, J.G., and M.I. Green, L.S. Ng, R.t. Wallace,Test of the Performance and Characteristics of aPrototype Inductive Power Coupling for ElectricHighway Systems, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,University of California, July 197fi (LBL-7522).Prepared for U.S. Depatment of Energy.

Bolger, J.G., and L.S. Ng, D.B. Turner, R.I. Wallace,Testing a Prototype Inductive Power Coupling for anElectric Highway System, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,University of California, December 1978 (LBL-8634).Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Paper presentedat the IEEE 29th Annual Vehicle Technology Conference,Chicago, March 1979.

Churchman, C. West, The Design of Inquiry Systems, BasicBooks, New York, 1971 .

662

Hambrick, R.S., "A Guide for the Analysis of PolicyArguments," Policy Sciences, Vol. "i, pp. 46^-479, 1974.

Leschly, K., et al., "An Assessment of Inductive CouplingRoadway Powered Vehicles," JPL Publicat ion No. 79-115,

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, Dec.1979.

Mason, P.O., Dialectics in Decision-Making: A Study in theUse of CounterpIanning and Structured Debate, PhDDissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1968.

Mason, R.O., "A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning,"Management Science, Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 403-414, April1969.

Mason, R.O., and I an t. Mitroff, "Assumptions of MajesticMeta1s: Strategy Through Dialectr i cs", Cali forn i aManagement Review, Vol. XXII, No. 2, pp. 80-88, Winter,197O.

Mitroff, Ian I., and Murray Turoff, "Technological

Forecasting and Assessment: Science and/or Mythology,"Tech no 1oa ical Forecast!nq and Soci al Chanqe, Vol. 15,pp. 113-134, 1973.

TouImin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambr i dge, Cambr i dgeUniversity Press, 1958.

Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik,An Introduction to Reasoning, New York, Macmi I IanPubl ishing Co., 1979.

SYMPOSIUM ON JUDICIAL REFORM

IN-mODUCTION BY THE SYMPOSIUM EDITOR

Philip L. Dubois, University of Catifonmia^ Davis

Speak ing to the Amer ican Bar Associat ion in 1906, RoscoePound observed that popular dissati sfaction with theadministration of Justice "is as old as the I aw" (Pound,1906: 337). Among other things. Pound criticized andrecommended immedi ate a+tention to judici a I structures andprocedures so archaic that the judicial system had become toooften distinguished by excessive delay, expense,inefficiency, waste, and in justice.

663