WEBVTT Kind: captions; Language: fi 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.590 The purpose of this video is to help you to develop your elevator 2 00:00:05.590 --> 00:00:10.860 pitch. I have altogether 3 insights to offer 3 00:00:10.860 --> 00:00:15.590 in this video. First of all I will clarify what’s the 4 00:00:15.590 --> 00:00:21.080 actual basis of sound reasoning be it in scientific uses 5 00:00:21.080 --> 00:00:26.160 or in our everyday lives. In general we need to understand 6 00:00:26.160 --> 00:00:31.130 that reasoning involves three different elements, the grounds, the warrant and 7 00:00:31.130 --> 00:00:36.610 the claim, and most often we oversee, the role of the warrant. Then 8 00:00:36.610 --> 00:00:41.660 related to scientific uses of reasoning, I will introduce 9 00:00:41.660 --> 00:00:46.660 you the prescribing usage of theory. 10 00:00:46.660 --> 00:00:51.520 My second inside will be an example of a theory-driven 11 00:00:51.520 --> 00:00:56.370 argument, and I hope that this example illustrates 12 00:00:56.370 --> 00:01:01.090 the structure and the process of sound reasoning. Third 13 00:01:01.090 --> 00:01:06.190 and finally, we will conclude this video by looking 14 00:01:06.190 --> 00:01:11.070 into the issue of how we evaluate an argument. 15 00:01:11.070 --> 00:01:15.470 So how can we make a rebuttal of an argument? 16 00:01:15.470 --> 00:01:20.070 Let's get started with our first agenda point that is 17 00:01:20.070 --> 00:01:24.090 the basis of scientific reasoning. 18 00:01:24.090 --> 00:01:30.450 As a reminder, let's first revise 19 00:01:30.450 --> 00:01:35.340 on the usage of theories as we have discussed in this 20 00:01:35.340 --> 00:01:40.420 course so far. So in the last unit we 21 00:01:40.420 --> 00:01:46.040 used theory to explain phenomena. So this is related 22 00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:51.130 to answering the question why does something happen? 23 00:01:51.130 --> 00:01:57.450 Alternatively, we can also use this kind of explaining theory 24 00:01:57.450 --> 00:02:03.230 to make predictions. That means what will happen in the future. 25 00:02:03.230 --> 00:02:09.290 In contrast and often overviewed usage of theory is 26 00:02:09.290 --> 00:02:13.940 that we can utilise theory to make prescriptions or 27 00:02:13.940 --> 00:02:19.860 provide recommendations. So prescriptions point to actions 28 00:02:19.860 --> 00:02:24.990 that managers or other practitioners can take to have an effect 29 00:02:24.990 --> 00:02:31.110 that may change outcomes and influence future developments. 30 00:02:31.110 --> 00:02:35.830 And the question here is what should happen? 31 00:02:35.830 --> 00:02:40.730 Let's look into that more specifically. So 32 00:02:40.730 --> 00:02:45.670 how can we prescribe scientifically? 33 00:02:45.670 --> 00:02:49.910 To be very clear here, this is not the same as 34 00:02:49.910 --> 00:02:54.120 voicing an opinion or a sentiment. 35 00:02:54.120 --> 00:03:00.370 Also, in contrast to common beliefs, the facts unfortunately 36 00:03:00.370 --> 00:03:05.440 do not speak for themselves, but humans do. 37 00:03:05.440 --> 00:03:10.350 So what we must understand is the process of 38 00:03:10.350 --> 00:03:16.020 reasoning about process, how we reason about those facts 39 00:03:16.020 --> 00:03:21.150 to infer claims. That is, for instance, 40 00:03:21.150 --> 00:03:25.390 a policy recommendation as I said. But 41 00:03:25.390 --> 00:03:29.020 how does reasoning work? And how do we make a sound argument? 42 00:03:29.020 --> 00:03:34.490 And for this my main advice is to learn from the best. 43 00:03:34.490 --> 00:03:39.010 So Professor Mikko Ketokivi and Saku Mantere, both 44 00:03:39.010 --> 00:03:43.810 leading management scholars have broadcasted a webinar 45 00:03:43.810 --> 00:03:48.790 that unpacks the logics of reasoning. Alternatively, 46 00:03:48.790 --> 00:03:52.980 just stick with me, I try my best to explain it. 47 00:03:52.980 --> 00:03:58.550 So what Ketokivi and Mantere introduced to the management 48 00:03:58.550 --> 00:04:03.360 sciences is the so called Toulmin’s general 49 00:04:03.360 --> 00:04:08.800 model of argumentation. This model developed by this British 50 00:04:08.800 --> 00:04:13.600 philosopher Toulmin, involves three main elements that make up 51 00:04:13.600 --> 00:04:19.090 the structure of an argument the grounds, warrant and a claim. 52 00:04:19.090 --> 00:04:23.770 So let's look into those elements in more detail. 53 00:04:23.770 --> 00:04:30.640 So let's first scrutinise the outcome of an argument, the claim. 54 00:04:30.640 --> 00:04:35.430 In other words, this is our ultimate conclusion that we draw, 55 00:04:35.430 --> 00:04:40.970 or the assertions that we can make. And think 56 00:04:40.970 --> 00:04:46.120 here again for of a call for action or a policy recommendation. 57 00:04:46.120 --> 00:04:51.460 Our central problem, however, is that in developing this 58 00:04:51.460 --> 00:04:56.560 claim is that we need to justify it somehow. 59 00:04:56.560 --> 00:05:01.840 And we justify it by backing a claim, 60 00:05:01.840 --> 00:05:06.790 by building it on a sound ground. 61 00:05:06.790 --> 00:05:11.380 A ground is perhaps, for instance the data or the 62 00:05:11.380 --> 00:05:16.230 facts and the evidence that all agree upon. 63 00:05:16.230 --> 00:05:20.490 And obviously the data of the grounds must be 64 00:05:20.490 --> 00:05:24.760 valid and reliable. However, as I stated earlier, 65 00:05:24.760 --> 00:05:28.870 those facts do not speak for themselves 66 00:05:28.870 --> 00:05:33.880 but humans to speak and be it researchers, politicians, 67 00:05:33.880 --> 00:05:38.330 or managers. The missing link that accounts 68 00:05:38.330 --> 00:05:43.790 for this active reasoner: researcher, politician, or manager. 69 00:05:43.790 --> 00:05:48.610 Missing ink is called the warrant. 70 00:05:48.610 --> 00:05:53.170 And the warrant, think of it just as 71 00:05:53.170 --> 00:05:57.280 interpretational or interpretive lens 72 00:05:57.280 --> 00:06:01.550 through which we make sense of the grounds. 73 00:06:01.550 --> 00:06:07.970 In everyday use we are most often not very explicit about our warrants. 74 00:06:07.970 --> 00:06:11.980 So warrants we use is common knowledge 75 00:06:11.980 --> 00:06:16.900 that is shared widely, accepted by most, or 76 00:06:16.900 --> 00:06:22.640 underpinning ideologies or dogmas such as religious beliefs. 77 00:06:22.640 --> 00:06:27.340 So all those lenses influence how we think 78 00:06:27.340 --> 00:06:32.290 and interpret grounds. In contrast, in science 79 00:06:32.290 --> 00:06:36.630 we are more explicit about our warrants. 80 00:06:36.630 --> 00:06:41.730 And to be very specific, they are nothing else than the theories 81 00:06:41.730 --> 00:06:46.890 that we use as our sense-making device, as we already have 82 00:06:46.890 --> 00:06:51.610 seen in our last study unit. 83 00:06:51.610 --> 00:06:57.390 And before I now illustrate this 84 00:06:57.390 --> 00:07:03.490 so far rather abstract discussion of the structure of an argument, 85 00:07:03.490 --> 00:07:07.840 let me clarify one thing first. 86 00:07:07.840 --> 00:07:13.570 So often students confuse this Toulmin’s model 87 00:07:13.570 --> 00:07:17.890 with a causal model with a mediator. And obviously 88 00:07:17.890 --> 00:07:23.400 this is not the same. So Toulmin’s model is about argument structure, 89 00:07:23.400 --> 00:07:27.940 whereas the causal model represents the ways 90 00:07:27.940 --> 00:07:33.310 we perceive a phenomenon and we perceive it as consisting of the key concepts 91 00:07:33.310 --> 00:07:38.120 and their interrelationships. However, note here that 92 00:07:38.120 --> 00:07:43.050 the warrants that I spoke of are same as the 93 00:07:43.050 --> 00:07:48.690 Y element of the causal model. So that is the conceptual assumptions 94 00:07:48.690 --> 00:07:53.830 underpinning the causal model or the figurative 95 00:07:53.830 --> 00:07:58.040 POV taken. So this is a commonality between the Toulmin’s model 96 00:07:58.040 --> 00:08:02.450 and the causal model discussed in the last study unit. 97 00:08:02.450 --> 00:08:08.400 Let's now move onto our second agenda point, 98 00:08:08.400 --> 00:08:12.770 an example of a theory-driven argument. 99 00:08:12.770 --> 00:08:17.860 For my example, I will utilise the insights 100 00:08:17.860 --> 00:08:23.380 provided by Bazel-Shoham and Shoman on 2020. 101 00:08:23.380 --> 00:08:28.130 In this article they critically scrutinise the desirability of 102 00:08:28.130 --> 00:08:33.510 global production in the face of a 103 00:08:33.510 --> 00:08:38.040 event like the COVID-19 pandemic. Also 104 00:08:38.040 --> 00:08:43.480 note that the elevator pitch situation for which I created this example 105 00:08:43.480 --> 00:08:47.970 involves politician, me, who tries 106 00:08:47.970 --> 00:08:54.050 to persuade other policymakers. So this is my audience. 107 00:08:54.050 --> 00:08:58.720 Let's get started. So in this first slide, and 108 00:08:58.720 --> 00:09:02.890 I admit it's a bit overcrowded, but 109 00:09:02.890 --> 00:09:07.850 I did it because I wanted to present you first overview and 110 00:09:07.850 --> 00:09:13.060 the structure of my argument, and it goes as follows: 111 00:09:13.060 --> 00:09:17.820 So my grounds are that despite the fact that a multinational 112 00:09:17.820 --> 00:09:22.610 enterprise with a global production capacity for an 113 00:09:22.610 --> 00:09:27.520 essential good such as face masks that is 114 00:09:27.520 --> 00:09:32.300 headquartered in a fictitious home country, in 115 00:09:32.300 --> 00:09:37.720 this home country we have an insufficient provision 116 00:09:37.720 --> 00:09:42.110 of those essential commodities during pandemic and 117 00:09:42.110 --> 00:09:47.880 this is something that was evident in multiple 118 00:09:47.880 --> 00:09:51.790 developed countries all around the world. And 119 00:09:51.790 --> 00:09:57.140 based on this ground that is accepted generally 120 00:09:57.140 --> 00:10:02.270 I would say, I argue that utilising the negative 121 00:10:02.270 --> 00:10:07.190 externality theory I argue that 122 00:10:07.190 --> 00:10:11.840 international production is a sub optimal solution 123 00:10:11.840 --> 00:10:17.690 for a home country like the fictitious one 124 00:10:17.690 --> 00:10:21.860 because multinational enterprises do not consider 125 00:10:21.860 --> 00:10:27.150 societal externalities in their global production 126 00:10:27.150 --> 00:10:32.220 decisions because they merely look at the overall 127 00:10:32.220 --> 00:10:37.050 cost reduction when making those decisions. Therefore, I claim that 128 00:10:37.050 --> 00:10:41.880 we impose or we should impose production quotas 129 00:10:41.880 --> 00:10:46.610 for essential goods, such as face masks. 130 00:10:46.610 --> 00:10:52.340 While this has been relatively complicated, I admit, let's 131 00:10:52.340 --> 00:10:57.950 now unpack each of those three elements of my 132 00:10:57.950 --> 00:11:04.030 argument. First I wish to establish the 133 00:11:04.030 --> 00:11:08.420 common ground that our health system, right now became 134 00:11:08.420 --> 00:11:13.430 very global and at the same time also 135 00:11:13.430 --> 00:11:19.220 less resilient. So multinational enterprises 136 00:11:19.220 --> 00:11:23.540 who provide large parts of the essential 137 00:11:23.540 --> 00:11:28.650 goods, such as face masks do actually what 138 00:11:28.650 --> 00:11:34.860 we preach in business schools. So they try to optimise their profits by shifting production 139 00:11:34.860 --> 00:11:38.840 to lower costs host countries. 140 00:11:38.840 --> 00:11:44.230 Therefore, because they shift production, we can say that a large 141 00:11:44.230 --> 00:11:49.270 quantity of essential products is currently manufactured 142 00:11:49.270 --> 00:11:54.660 not in our home country but abroad. And this is problematic 143 00:11:54.660 --> 00:11:59.390 as this pandemic right now showed. Many producing 144 00:11:59.390 --> 00:12:04.010 countries, the host countries of the multinational enterprises, 145 00:12:04.010 --> 00:12:09.120 imposed extensive restrictions on 146 00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:14.410 the expert of essential goods. And as a result, 147 00:12:14.410 --> 00:12:19.160 we in the home countries of the multinational enterprises, we experienced 148 00:12:19.160 --> 00:12:24.720 a shortage of supply of masks and other personal protection equipment 149 00:12:24.720 --> 00:12:29.090 and other medical supplies. So this is the problem that 150 00:12:29.090 --> 00:12:36.130 I wish to establish first and foremost. 151 00:12:36.130 --> 00:12:41.750 Next, let's look at our warrant that we can use to analyse 152 00:12:41.750 --> 00:12:46.770 this situation. My warrant combines a negative 153 00:12:46.770 --> 00:12:51.880 externality perspective with multinational 154 00:12:51.880 --> 00:12:57.230 enterprise optimization theory. So based on this 155 00:12:57.230 --> 00:13:02.740 warrant, we can clearly see that multinational enterprises consider only 156 00:13:02.740 --> 00:13:07.780 internal factors related to overall cost reduction, 157 00:13:07.780 --> 00:13:12.880 when they make those production decisions. 158 00:13:12.880 --> 00:13:18.130 While doing they do not consider 159 00:13:18.130 --> 00:13:23.270 the impact on the home country when they choose to 160 00:13:23.270 --> 00:13:28.570 manufacture those essential goods abroad. And 161 00:13:28.570 --> 00:13:33.750 they do also not consider that this foreign country could use 162 00:13:33.750 --> 00:13:39.680 production facilities that they have to leverage 163 00:13:39.680 --> 00:13:44.790 in case of geopolitical tension 164 00:13:44.790 --> 00:13:48.900 as we have seen right now, in the pandemic 165 00:13:48.900 --> 00:13:53.440 obviously. So from a home country societal 166 00:13:53.440 --> 00:13:58.290 perspective the argument goes that 167 00:13:58.290 --> 00:14:03.460 international production is a sub-optimal solution 168 00:14:03.460 --> 00:14:06.770 during global crisis. 169 00:14:06.770 --> 00:14:11.780 So given the grounds I established in the beginning and 170 00:14:11.780 --> 00:14:16.360 the warrant that allowed a sound analysis of 171 00:14:16.360 --> 00:14:20.900 the grounds, we can now move on to draw our 172 00:14:20.900 --> 00:14:25.440 conclusions. So here I claim that 173 00:14:25.440 --> 00:14:30.390 we as a home country of many multinational enterprises, 174 00:14:30.390 --> 00:14:34.770 we should restore local production again. 175 00:14:34.770 --> 00:14:39.800 Namely, policymakers should impose, for instance local production 176 00:14:39.800 --> 00:14:44.240 quotas on multinational enterprises who produce those goods 177 00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:49.330 and want to retain the home country as a market. For instance, 178 00:14:49.330 --> 00:14:53.630 we could imagine that multinational enterprises must produce 30 or 179 00:14:53.630 --> 00:14:58.200 40% locally in the home country. 180 00:14:58.200 --> 00:15:03.050 As an alternative, we can also just impose taxes 181 00:15:03.050 --> 00:15:07.090 or quotas on foreign production. 182 00:15:07.090 --> 00:15:12.120 so that's it, this is my argument 183 00:15:12.120 --> 00:15:17.290 and using grounds, a warrant 184 00:15:17.290 --> 00:15:22.280 and deriving inferring a claim. Now obviously for some of 185 00:15:22.280 --> 00:15:27.200 you or my claim may sound controversial, 186 00:15:27.200 --> 00:15:29.270 Therefore, 187 00:15:29.270 --> 00:15:34.830 we need somehow an understanding of how we can 188 00:15:34.830 --> 00:15:39.600 have evaluate the claim that I just made 189 00:15:39.600 --> 00:15:45.150 in order that you can make a rebuttal on my argument. 190 00:15:45.150 --> 00:15:49.820 So this is the final agenda I that I promised to deliver on, 191 00:15:49.820 --> 00:15:55.350 so how can we evaluate an argument, 192 00:15:55.350 --> 00:16:00.090 what’s a sound rebuttal? 193 00:16:00.090 --> 00:16:05.340 So to make a sound and effective rebuttal 194 00:16:05.340 --> 00:16:10.310 we must obviously not focus on the 195 00:16:10.310 --> 00:16:15.340 claim but the underpinning of the claim. 196 00:16:15.340 --> 00:16:20.390 For instance, we can look at grounds that I used to establish 197 00:16:20.390 --> 00:16:25.410 my argument. So do I have valid evidence 198 00:16:25.410 --> 00:16:31.190 or could you come up and present opposing facts about situation 199 00:16:31.190 --> 00:16:35.200 that is more valid than mine. 200 00:16:35.200 --> 00:16:40.600 Secondly, you could also scrutinize the validity 201 00:16:40.600 --> 00:16:45.600 of the warrant that I used. And if I haven’t stated 202 00:16:45.600 --> 00:16:50.500 it explicitly you could first all demand that your conversation 203 00:16:50.500 --> 00:16:55.160 partner should make this warrant explicit. 204 00:16:55.160 --> 00:17:00.870 Also you could challenge the warrant and ask me to 205 00:17:00.870 --> 00:17:06.470 justify the warrant, the theory that I utilized. 206 00:17:06.470 --> 00:17:11.340 So all in all, the main message here that I 207 00:17:11.340 --> 00:17:16.640 want to convey is that we evaluate an argument by 208 00:17:16.640 --> 00:17:20.880 scrutinizing the grounds and the warrants. 209 00:17:20.880 --> 00:17:25.610 So this is how we assess the quality of an argument. 210 00:17:25.610 --> 00:17:26.040 That’s it.