Gedetailleerde leidraad

2.2 Value mapping and Argumentative Analysis

This section provides a means to map out key value positions held by the respective stakeholder groups. In societal debates on policy problems, different levels of argumentation can be distinguished (Fischer, 1995). These are:

Ideological view

This is the deepest level of disagreement and can lead to very different views of whether there is a problem or what it is. One can hold the view that a radically different ideological starting point is required. Ideological argumentation focuses typically on ideology and alternative societal orders.

Problem setting and goal searching

Groups may agree on the existence of a problem, but not on identifying precisely what the problem is, how to formulate it, and what the end goal or solution point should be.

Problem solving

Groups may agree on the existence of a problem and further agree on policy goals but disagree on the strategies and instruments required to reach the goal. Problem solving argumentation typically focus on effectiveness, side effects, and efficiency of methods.

Outcomes and fairness

Groups often care about the fairness of solutions to problems, but can hold different views on what constitutes fair outcomes. For example, one can hold the view that the policy at hand does not serve the public interest or public wellbeing. Fairness argumentation focuses typically on public interest, unexpected societal side effects, and distributive justice.

As part of the context analysis, it is useful to map 'what level of arguments' are put forward by 'what actors'. Ideological argumentation reflects deeper value conflicts amongst actors than problem solving argumentation for instance. A simple way to do the mapping is to extend the 'knipselkrant' actor analysis by classifying arguments put forward by each of the

actors identified according to the classification given above. Write down all arguments found in table 2. When finished, scan each row and flag areas of agreement and disagreement. For reasons of space table 2 provides only three different stakeholder groups, but this can easily be extended to the number of groups which is considered appropriate for the problem at hand.

Table 2: Stakeholder argumentation table.