The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Uses of Argument
Abstract
A central theme throughout the impressive series of philosophical books and articles Stephen Toulmin has published since 1948 is the way in which assertions and opinions concerning all sorts of topics, brought up in everyday life or in academic research, can be rationally justified. Is there one universal system of norms, by which all sorts of arguments in all sorts of fields must be judged, or must each sort of argument be judged according to its own norms? In The Uses of Argument (1958) Toulmin sets out his views on these questions for the first time. In spite of initial criticisms from logicians and fellow philosophers, The Uses of Argument has been an enduring source of inspiration and discussion to students of argumentation from all kinds of disciplinary background for more than forty years.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Toulmin's model distinguishes claims, data, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals, making it useful for analyzing whether criticism is merely asserted or developed through evidence and reasoning (Toulmin, 2003).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Toulmin, 2003
In the citing paper
“The most widely used methodological tool to analyze argumentation in classroom talk is Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) (Toulmin 2003), which consists of a claim, evidence, warrants, backings, rebuttals, and qualifiers”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Toulmin 2003
Citations
Cites
Prior, A. N. (1957) · Cited by 670
Holmes, G. M. (1936) · Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) · doi:10.1007/bf02973405 · Cited by 34
Brown, D. G. (1955) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/15.6.135 · Cited by 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research
Fairclough, N. L. (2003) · Cited by 6,470
Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/146879410100100307 · Cited by 5,506
Phan, D. T. (1995) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-x · Cited by 5,300
The interdisciplinary study of coordination
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/174666.174668 · Cited by 3,504
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
Driver, R., Newton, P. E., & Osborne, J. F. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3 · Cited by 2,339
Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts
Facione, P. A. (2011) · Cited by 2,252
The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, B. (2005) · Cited by 2,133
Designing conceptual articles: four approaches
Jaakkola, E. (2020) · AMS Review · doi:10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 · Cited by 2,258
The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning
Hajer, M. A., Hoppe, R., & Jennings, B. (1993) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9780822381815 · Cited by 2,112
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412 · Cited by 1,939
Mccloskey, D. N. (1998) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-58802-2_1435 · Cited by 1,833
Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument
Fisher, W. R. (1984) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637758409390180 · Cited by 1,807
Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations
Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2000) · Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/358916.358995 · Cited by 1,731
Levy, Y. M., & Ellis, T. J. (2006) · Informing Science The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline · doi:10.28945/479 · Cited by 1,724
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20035 · Cited by 1,596
Determining the sentiment of opinions
Kim, S.-M., & Hovy, E. H. (2004) · International Conference on Computational Linguistics · doi:10.3115/1220355.1220555 · Cited by 1,499
Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research
Sadler, T. D. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20009 · Cited by 1,440
The evolution of research on collaborative learning
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. L. (1995) · HAL · Cited by 1,413
Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2001) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10008 · Cited by 1,434
Renaissance of case research as a scientific method
Ketokivi, M. A., & Choi, T. Y. (2014) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004 · Cited by 1,474
Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20048 · Cited by 1,345
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach
Andone, C. (2004) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.07.003 · Cited by 1,205
Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. F. (2002) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057260208560187 · Cited by 1,214
Learning to Notice: Scaffolding New Teachers’ Interpretations of Classroom Interactions
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002) · The Journal of Technology and Teacher Education · Cited by 1,117
Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing
Luhandjula, M. K. (2013) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35641-4-57 · Cited by 333
Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound?
PERKINS, D., & SALOMON, G. (1989) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x018001016 · Cited by 1,133
Science Education International
International Council of Associations for Science Education (2019) · Science education international · doi:10.33828/sei · Cited by 1,071
Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals
Duschl, R. A. (2008) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x07309371 · Cited by 1,078
A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., Fretz, E. B., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E. Α., Edelson, D. C., & Soloway, E. M. (2004) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4 · Cited by 1,056
On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured literature review in accounting
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016) · Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · doi:10.1108/aaaj-01-2015-1939 · Cited by 984
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2011) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203839089 · Cited by 969
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003 · Cited by 948
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20012 · Cited by 1,408
van Dijk, T. A. (2019) · Cited by 854
A systematic theory of argumentation : the pragma-dialectical approach.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 838
Focus Article: On the Structure of Educational Assessments
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003) · Measurement Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives · doi:10.1207/s15366359mea0101_02 · Cited by 841
Argumentation in artificial intelligence
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. S. (2007) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001 · Cited by 806
Telos: representing knowledge about information systems
Mylopoulos, J., Borgida, A., Jarke, M., & Koubarakis, M. (1990) · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. · doi:10.1145/102675.102676 · Cited by 904
Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry
Sandoval, W. A. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20065 · Cited by 771
Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2005) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690500336957 · Cited by 806
Making sense of argumentation and explanation
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20286 · Cited by 780
Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse
Salager‐Meyer, F. (1994) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 · Cited by 699
Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric
Krebs, R. R., & Jackson, P. T. (2007) · European Journal of International Relations · doi:10.1177/1354066107074284 · Cited by 688
A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion
Green, S. E. (2004) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2004.14497653 · Cited by 686
Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice
Sadler, T. D. (2009) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057260802681839 · Cited by 731
An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning
Bondarenko, A. G., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1997) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(97)00015-5 · Cited by 666
The Quality of Students' Use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanations
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2 · Cited by 654
Reasoning in Organization Science
Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. A. (2012) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0188 · Cited by 674
The Balanced Scorecard: what is the score? A rhetorical analysis of the Balanced Scorecard
Nørreklit, H. S. O. (2003) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(02)00097-1 · Cited by 594
An introduction to science and technology studies
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-3396 · Cited by 584
Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview
Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007) · Science & technology education library · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1 · Cited by 612
Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015576 · Cited by 566
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1 · Cited by 798
Sampson, V. D., & Clark, D. B. (2008) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20276 · Cited by 552
Implications of Evidence‐Centered Design for Educational Testing
Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006) · Educational Measurement Issues and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x · Cited by 550
Explanations From Intelligent Systems: Theoretical Foundations and Implications for Practice1
Gregor, S., & Benbasat, I. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249487 · Cited by 535
They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia
Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973) · Quarterly Journal of Speech · doi:10.1080/00335637309383176 · Cited by 529
Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management
Burgman, M. A. (2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-2184 · Cited by 519
THE PLACE OF ARGUMENTATION IN THE PEDAGOGY OF SCHOOL SCIENCE
(2003) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203464090-11 · Cited by 522
Chesñevar, C. I., Maguitman, A. G., & Loui, R. P. (2000) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/371578.371581 · Cited by 519
Eppler, M. J. (2006) · Information Visualization · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500131 · Cited by 525
Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction
van Benthem, J. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511974533 · Cited by 512
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20402 · Cited by 516
Participating in Classroom Mathematical Practices
Cobb, P., Stephan, M. L., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9729-3_9 · Cited by 476
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20023 · Cited by 505
Cognitive processes in propositional reasoning.
Rips, L. J. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.1.38 · Cited by 466
Security Requirements Engineering: A Framework for Representation and Analysis
Haley, C. B., Laney, R., Moffett, J., & Nuseibeh, B. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2007.70754 · Cited by 464
Conceptual and Epistemic Aspects of Students' Scientific Explanations
Sandoval, W. A. (2003) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1201_2 · Cited by 477
Classification of learning outcomes: evidence from the computer games literature
O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005) · The Curriculum Journal · doi:10.1080/09585170500384529 · Cited by 472
Product fit uncertainty in online markets: nature, effects, and antecedents
Hong, Y. (., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0520 · Cited by 453
The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02505022 · Cited by 464
Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690600708717 · Cited by 483
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. Y. (2002) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10024 · Cited by 434
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1 · Cited by 448
Learning to Solve Problems: An Instructional Design Guide
Jonassen, D. H. (2009) · Gifted and Talented International · doi:10.1080/15332276.2009.11673538 · Cited by 432
Logics for Defeasible Argumentation
Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3 · Cited by 429
Van Der Sluijs, J. P., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., & Risbey, J. (2005) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00604.x · Cited by 426
Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2001) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(01)00071-6 · Cited by 423
Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art
Oliver Scheuer, A., Loll, F., Niels Pinkwart, C., & McLaren, B. M. (2010) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x · Cited by 425
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007 · Cited by 411
The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building
Leitão, S. (2000) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000022695 · Cited by 433
Making Sense of Stories: A Rhetorical Approach to Narrative Analysis
Feldman, M. S. (2004) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muh010 · Cited by 409
Realizing Emancipatory Principles in Information Systems Development: The Case for ETHICS
Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1994) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249611 · Cited by 402
Lawrence, J. S., & Reed, C. (2019) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00364 · Cited by 469
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20358 · Cited by 399
A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systems
Nunes, I., & Jannach, D. (2017) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-017-9195-0 · Cited by 416
Probing Neural Network Comprehension of Natural Language Arguments
Niven, T., & Kao, H.-Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1459 · Cited by 395
ARAUCARIA: SOFTWARE FOR ARGUMENT ANALYSIS, DIAGRAMMING AND REPRESENTATION
Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2004) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools · doi:10.1142/s0218213004001922 · Cited by 394
Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654310376953 · Cited by 394
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.010 · Cited by 405
Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis
Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0381 · Cited by 391
Building and Supporting a Case for Test Use
Bachman, L. F. (2005) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0201_1 · Cited by 386
Varianten qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse: Ein Wegweiser im Dickicht der Begrifflichkeiten
Schreier, M. (2013) · Forum qualitative Sozialforschung · doi:10.17169/fqs-15.1.2043 · Cited by 515
Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning
Ford, M. (2008) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20263 · Cited by 402
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20364 · Cited by 393
Arguing Safety - A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases
Kelly, T. (1998) · Cited by 378
Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980) · Quarterly Journal of Speech · doi:10.1080/00335638009383524 · Cited by 376
Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research
Gorard, S. A. C., & Taylor, C. (2004) · Cited by 368
Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
Ehrgott, M., Greco, S., & Figueira, J. R. (2010) · International series in management science/operations research/International series in operations research & management science · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5904-1 · Cited by 374
Metadata
- Authors
- Toulmin, S. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Toulmin, Stephen E.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2003-07-07
- OpenAlex
- W1997210479
- Cited by
- 7,101
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 202 · 2025: 197 · 2024: 170 · 2023: 162 · 2022: 156 · 2021: 271 · 2020: 306 · 2019: 294 · 2018: 260 · 2017: 298 · 2016: 283 · 2015: 304 · 2014: 356 · 2013: 333 · 2012: 304
- FWCI
- 324.88
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Logic and Philosophy of Science
- Keywords
- Stephen Toulmin, argumentation theory, rational justification, opinion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
