Summary – Academic Skills
Onno Bouwmeester - The social construction of rationality
It is hard to make decisions, human intend to make them in a rational way. Sometimes, humans have
to make decisions that will affect our whole life, so we really have to make the best and most
rational decisions. The quality of journal articles can be derived from how often they are cited. The
most effective way for an academic to get published, is to rationally focus on writing high-impact
articles. Social rationality is about what is the best / important for others, expressive rationality is
about what is the best / important for me and instrumental rationality is about the best means for
it. Instrumental rationality has been central to economists and is effect- or goal-orientated. For an
academic it thus seems rational to focus on writing high impact articles as it is the most effective way
to get promoted. What is rational depends on the respective we choose for evaluation.
Instrumental rationality is limited by our boundedness, the reasons available when arguing based on
bounded rationality are still instrumental and referred to casualties that van be proved and have a
status of being objective and fact based. The focus of instrumental rationally is on how we can do
things better, not on the goals people want to achieve. Instrumental rationality offers a narrow
version of human rationality, by its focus on means and logic’s and on how to realize objectives
effectively or efficiently. Value rationality helps with setting and discussing standards, norms and
principles for evaluating what we do. Value rationality as defined by Weber and Habermans
articulate a universal extreme within the possibilities of social rationality.
Usually, emotions, desires and personal impulses are seen as undermining rationality. When
calculating optimal decisions, emotions can negatively interfere. With the use of many experiments,
Kahneman shows how our feelings can lead to severe mistakes in our judgments, for instance, due
to over optimism or overconfidence. However, he does argue that sometimes they can be based
upon a rational impulse when feelings become conscious, or supportive towards values. Habermans
is slightly more positive than Weber, but still overly skeptical point he considers expressive reasoning
based on the facts, feelings and emotions week or is an instrumental or moral reasoning. Scherer is
positive towards the rationality of emotions and argues that the rationale of the other feelings can
be assessed by the reasonableness.
There are three types of rationality: instrumental rationality, social rationality, and expressive
rationality. Instrumental rationality is the most commonly discussed and is focused on means-end
logic and achieving objectives effectively or efficiently. Social rationality, on the other hand, helps
with setting and discussing standards, norms, and principles for evaluating actions. Expressive
rationality is the least discussed in theory but is the most present in practice when preparing for
many key decisions.
, Management scholars have developed diverse understandings of rationality, including instrumental
rationality, political rationality, economic rationality, organizational rationality, value rationality and
forms of bonded rationality. Economic rationality gives maximizing profits or utility as motive for
action, but it is criticized for being too narrow set of reasons. Value rationality or political rationality
(forms of social rationality) cannot be made operational as easily as economic rationality.
Argumentation analysis seems to be a quiet suitable method to analyze rationality. Instrumental
rationality assumes we know our objectives. What economists add to technical rationality is trying to
maximize outcomes by achieving the best combination of several related lower level ends, which
together make a higher utility, welfare or profit, would you become the higher level ends. Cost
based argumentation supports feasibility analysis and evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness. The
more efficient, effective or feasible, the bar and rational a course of action is, evaluated against
standards of instrumental rationality.
Social rationality, with variations like a value rationality, legal rationality or political rationality, is
based on socially shared interests, moral values, norms are principles. As they are shared, they are
grounded and intersubjective agreements that can legitimize what we do. Social forms of rationality
have their foundations in social philosophy. According to Diesing, a deductive argumentation, is
when a case or situation is connected to a rule, principle, norm, value, etc. Social rationality finds
reason and norms, values and principles shared by many, expressive rationality finds reasons for
acting and how we feel about something. Weber categorizes this as effective reasons to act on.
Irrationality starts when we misunderstand ourselves and our interest due to self- deception.
More and more scholars have started to differentiate expressive rationality as being an independent
and autonomous form of rationality and guiding or actions and decisions. Expressive rationality is
able to criticize social an instrument the rationality as being irrational against expressive standards.
Instrumental rationality only tells us how to achieve what we want. The Relational views on
rationality held by Diesing and Engelen implied the different rationality still interact with each other
more equally, influences between expressive and social rationality can be neutral.
Ethos, pathos, and logos are the three main modes of persuasion used in argumentation.
a. Ethos refers to an argument based on the credibility or character of the speaker. It appeals
to the ethics and values of the audience and tries to establish the speaker as a trustworthy
and knowledgeable source.
b. Pathos refers to an argument that appeals to the emotions of the audience. It aims to evoke
emotions such as anger, fear, sympathy, or hope to persuade the audience.
c. Logos refers to an argument based on logic and reason. It uses facts, statistics, and reasoning
to make a compelling case and persuade the audience through logic and reason.
When arguing, ethos, pathos, and logos can be used in combination to create a powerful and
persuasive argument. By establishing credibility, appealing to emotions, and using logic and reason,
an argument can effectively convince an audience of its position.
For studying micro arguments, Toulmin distinguishes six elements: an asserted claim; grounds
supporting the claim; warrants that justify the inference between grounds and claim; backings that
prove the warrants; qualifiers addressing the modality or likelihood of a claim; and rebuttals that
