Stephen Toulmin The revival of casuistry what was the revival of casuistry? By reviving casuistry (also known as case ethics), Toulmin sought to find the middle ground between the extremes of absolutism and relativism. what were some of his beliefs about this? Casuistry employs absolutist principles, called "type cases" or "paradigm cases," without resorting to absolutism. can you tell me more about these "cases"? It uses the standard principles (for example, sanctity of life) as referential markers in moral arguments. An individual case is then compared and contrasted with the type case. what else is interesting about casuistry? Casuistry was practiced widely during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to resolve moral issues. How did Toulmin relate this to moral issues? Through the procedure of casuistry, Toulmin and Jonsen identified three problematic situations in moral reasoning:
what were the three problematic situations?
What were the three problematic situations in moral reasoning?
By reviving casuistry (also known as case ethics), Toulmin sought to find the middle ground between the extremes of absolutism and relativism. Casuistry was practiced widely during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to resolve moral issues. Although casuistry largely fell silent during the modern period, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988), Toulmin collaborated with Albert R. Jonsen to demonstrate the effectiveness of casuistry in practical argumentation during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, effectively reviving it as a permissible method of argument.  Casuistry employs absolutist principles, called "type cases" or "paradigm cases," without resorting to absolutism. It uses the standard principles (for example, sanctity of life) as referential markers in moral arguments. An individual case is then compared and contrasted with the type case. Given an individual case that is completely identical to the type case, moral judgments can be made immediately using the standard moral principles advocated in the type case. If the individual case differs from the type case, the differences will be critically assessed in order to arrive at a rational claim.  Through the procedure of casuistry, Toulmin and Jonsen identified three problematic situations in moral reasoning: first, the type case fits the individual case only ambiguously; second, two type cases apply to the same individual case in conflicting ways; third, an unprecedented individual case occurs, which cannot be compared or contrasted to any type case. Through the use of casuistry, Toulmin demonstrated and reinforced his previous emphasis on the significance of comparison to moral arguments, a significance not addressed in theories of absolutism or relativism. CANNOTANSWER
first, the type case fits the individual case only ambiguously; second, two type cases apply to the same individual case in conflicting ways;
Stephen Edelston Toulmin (; 25 March 1922 – 4 December 2009) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Toulmin devoted his works to the analysis of moral reasoning. Throughout his writings, he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues. His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments. The Toulmin model of argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments, and published in his 1958 book The Uses of Argument, was considered his most influential work, particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication, and in computer science.

Biography
Stephen Toulmin was born in London, UK, on 25 March 1922 to Geoffrey Edelson Toulmin and Doris Holman Toulmin. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from King's College, Cambridge in 1943, where he was a Cambridge Apostle. Soon after, Toulmin was hired by the Ministry of Aircraft Production as a junior scientific officer, first at the Malvern Radar Research and Development Station and later at the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Germany. At the end of World War II, he returned to England to earn a Master of Arts degree in 1947 and a PhD in philosophy from Cambridge University, subsequently publishing his dissertation as An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics (1950). While at Cambridge, Toulmin came into contact with the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose examination of the relationship between the uses and the meanings of language shaped much of Toulmin's own work.

After graduating from Cambridge, he was appointed University Lecturer in Philosophy of Science at Oxford University from 1949 to 1954, during which period he wrote a second book, The Philosophy of Science: an Introduction (1953). Soon after, he was appointed to the position of Visiting Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Melbourne University in Australia from 1954 to 1955, after which he returned to England, and served as Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Leeds from 1955 to 1959. While at Leeds, he published one of his most influential books in the field of rhetoric, The Uses of Argument (1958), which investigated the flaws of traditional logic. Although it was poorly received in England and satirized as "Toulmin's anti-logic book" by Toulmin's fellow philosophers at Leeds, the book was applauded by the rhetoricians in the United States, where Toulmin served as a visiting professor at New York, Stanford, and Columbia Universities in 1959. While in the States, Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger introduced Toulmin's work to communication scholars, as they recognized that his work provided a good structural model useful for the analysis and criticism of rhetorical arguments. In 1960, Toulmin returned to London to hold the position of director of the Unit for History of Ideas of the Nuffield Foundation.

In 1965, Toulmin returned to the United States, where he held positions at various universities. In 1967, Toulmin served as literary executor for close friend N.R. Hanson, helping in the posthumous publication of several volumes. While at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Toulmin published Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (1972), which examines the causes and the processes of conceptual change. In this book, Toulmin uses a novel comparison between conceptual change and Charles Darwin's model of biological evolution to analyse the process of conceptual change as an evolutionary process. The book confronts major philosophical questions as well. In 1973, while a professor in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, he collaborated with Allan Janik, a philosophy professor at La Salle University, on the book Wittgenstein's Vienna, which advanced a thesis that underscores the significance of history to human reasoning: Contrary to philosophers who believe the absolute truth advocated in Plato's idealized formal logic, Toulmin argues that truth can be a relative quality, dependent on historical and cultural contexts (what other authors have termed "conceptual schemata").

From 1975 to 1978, he worked with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by the United States Congress. During this time, he collaborated with Albert R. Jonsen to write The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988), which demonstrates the procedures for resolving moral cases. One of his most recent works, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (1990), written while Toulmin held the position of the Avalon Foundation Professor of the Humanities at Northwestern University, specifically criticizes the practical use and the thinning morality underlying modern science.

Toulmin held distinguished professorships at numerous universities, including Columbia, Dartmouth College, Michigan State, Northwestern, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the University of Southern California School of International Relations.

In 1997 the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) selected Toulmin for the Jefferson Lecture, the U.S. federal government's highest honor for achievement in the humanities. His lecture, "A Dissenter's Story" (alternatively entitled "A Dissenter's Life"), discussed the roots of modernity in rationalism and humanism, the "contrast of the reasonable and the rational", and warned of the "abstractions that may still tempt us back into the dogmatism, chauvinism and sectarianism our needs have outgrown". The NEH report of the speech further quoted Toulmin on the need to "make the technical and the humanistic strands in modern thought work together more effectively than they have in the past".

On 2 March 2006 Toulmin received the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art.

He was married four times, once to June Goodfield and collaborated with her on a series of books on the history of science. His children are Greg, of McLean, Va., Polly Macinnes of Skye, Scotland, Camilla Toulmin in the UK and Matthew Toulmin of Melbourne, Australia.

On 4 December 2009 Toulmin died of a heart failure at the age of 87 in Los Angeles, California.

Meta-philosophy

Objection to absolutism and relativism

Throughout many of his works, Toulmin pointed out that absolutism (represented by theoretical or analytic arguments) has limited practical value. Absolutism is derived from Plato's idealized formal logic, which advocates universal truth; accordingly, absolutists believe that moral issues can be resolved by adhering to a standard set of moral principles, regardless of context. By contrast, Toulmin contends that many of these so-called standard principles are irrelevant to real situations encountered by human beings in daily life.

To develop his contention, Toulmin introduced the concept of argument fields. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin claims that some aspects of arguments vary from field to field, and are hence called "field-dependent", while other aspects of argument are the same throughout all fields, and are hence called "field-invariant". The flaw of absolutism, Toulmin believes, lies in its unawareness of the field-dependent aspect of argument; absolutism assumes that all aspects of argument are field invariant.

In Human Understanding (1972), Toulmin suggests that anthropologists have been tempted to side with relativists because they have noticed the influence of cultural variations on rational arguments. In other words, the anthropologist or relativist overemphasizes the importance of the "field-dependent" aspect of arguments, and neglects or is unaware of the "field-invariant" elements. In order to provide solutions to the problems of absolutism and relativism, Toulmin attempts throughout his work to develop standards that are neither absolutist nor relativist for assessing the worth of ideas.

In Cosmopolis (1990), he traces philosophers' "quest for certainty" back to René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes, and lauds John Dewey, Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, and Richard Rorty for abandoning that tradition.

Humanizing modernity
In Cosmopolis Toulmin seeks the origins of the modern emphasis on universality (philosophers' "quest for certainty"), and criticizes both modern science and philosophers for having ignored practical issues in preference for abstract and theoretical issues. The pursuit of absolutism and theoretical arguments lacking practicality, for example, is, in his view, one of the main defects of modern philosophy. Similarly, Toulmin sensed a thinning of morality in the field of sciences, which has diverted its attention from practical issues concerning ecology to the production of the atomic bomb. To solve this problem, Toulmin advocated a return to humanism consisting of four returns: a return to oral communication and discourse, a plea which has been rejected by modern philosophers, whose scholarly focus is on the printed page; a return to the particular or individual cases that deal with practical moral issues occurring in daily life (as opposed to theoretical principles that have limited practicality); a return to the local, or to concrete cultural and historical contexts; and, finally, a return to the timely, from timeless problems to things whose rational significance depends on the time lines of our solutions. He follows up on this critique in Return to Reason (2001), where he seeks to illuminate the ills that, in his view, universalism has caused in the social sphere, discussing, among other things, the discrepancy between mainstream ethical theory and real-life ethical quandaries.

Argumentation

The Toulmin model of argument

Arguing that absolutism lacks practical value, Toulmin aimed to develop a different type of argument, called practical arguments (also known as substantial arguments). In contrast to absolutists' theoretical arguments, Toulmin's practical argument is intended to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, as opposed to the inferential function of theoretical arguments. Whereas theoretical arguments make inferences based on a set of principles to arrive at a claim, practical arguments first find a claim of interest, and then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification.

Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim. This, he believed, will ensure it stands up to criticism and earns a favourable verdict. In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:

Claim (Conclusion) A conclusion whose merit must be established. In argumentative essays, it may be called the thesis. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be "I am a British citizen" (1).

Ground (Fact, Evidence, Data) A fact one appeals to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data "I was born in Bermuda" (2).

Warrant A statement authorizing movement from the ground to the claim. In order to move from the ground established in 2, "I was born in Bermuda", to the claim in 1, "I am a British citizen", the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 and 2 with the statement "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen" (3).

Backing Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions: "I trained as a barrister in London, specialising in citizenship, so I know that a man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen".

Rebuttal (Reservation) Statements recognizing the restrictions which may legitimately be applied to the claim. It is exemplified as follows: "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy for another country".

Qualifier Words or phrases expressing the speaker's degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include "probably", "possible", "impossible", "certainly", "presumably", "as far as the evidence goes", and "necessarily". The claim "I am definitely a British citizen" has a greater degree of force than the claim "I am a British citizen, presumably". (See also: Defeasible reasoning.)

The first three elements, claim, ground, and warrant, are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad, qualifier, backing, and rebuttal, may not be needed in some arguments.

When Toulmin first proposed it, this layout of argumentation was based on legal arguments and intended to be used to analyze the rationality of arguments typically found in the courtroom. Toulmin did not realize that this layout could be applicable to the field of rhetoric and communication until his works were introduced to rhetoricians by Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger. Their Decision by Debate (1963) streamlined Toulmin's terminology and broadly introduced his model to the field of debate. Only after Toulmin published Introduction to Reasoning (1979) were the rhetorical applications of this layout mentioned in his works.

One criticism of the Toulmin model is that it does not fully consider the use of questions in argumentation. The Toulmin model assumes that an argument starts with a fact or claim and ends with a conclusion, but ignores an argument's underlying questions. In the example "Harry was born in Bermuda, so Harry must be a British subject", the question "Is Harry a British subject?" is ignored, which also neglects to analyze why particular questions are asked and others are not. (See Issue mapping for an example of an argument-mapping method that emphasizes questions.)

Toulmin's argument model has inspired research on, for example, goal structuring notation (GSN), widely used for developing safety cases, and argument maps and associated software.

Ethics

Good reasons approach
In Reason in Ethics (1950), his doctoral dissertation, Toulmin sets out a Good Reasons approach of ethics, and criticizes what he considers to be the subjectivism and emotivism of philosophers such as A. J. Ayer because, in his view, they fail to do justice to ethical reasoning.

The revival of casuistry
By reviving casuistry (also known as case ethics), Toulmin sought to find the middle ground between the extremes of absolutism and relativism. Casuistry was practiced widely during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to resolve moral issues. Although casuistry largely fell silent during the modern period, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988), Toulmin collaborated with Albert R. Jonsen to demonstrate the effectiveness of casuistry in practical argumentation during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, effectively reviving it as a permissible method of argument.

Casuistry employs absolutist principles, called "type cases" or "paradigm cases", without resorting to absolutism. It uses the standard principles (for example, sanctity of life) as referential markers in moral arguments. An individual case is then compared and contrasted with the type case. Given an individual case that is completely identical to the type case, moral judgments can be made immediately using the standard moral principles advocated in the type case. If the individual case differs from the type case, the differences will be critically assessed in order to arrive at a rational claim.

Through the procedure of casuistry, Toulmin and Jonsen identified three problematic situations in moral reasoning: first, the type case fits the individual case only ambiguously; second, two type cases apply to the same individual case in conflicting ways; third, an unprecedented individual case occurs, which cannot be compared or contrasted to any type case. Through the use of casuistry, Toulmin demonstrated and reinforced his previous emphasis on the significance of comparison to moral arguments, a significance not addressed in theories of absolutism or relativism.

Philosophy of science

The evolutionary model

In 1972, Toulmin published Human Understanding, in which he asserts that conceptual change is an evolutionary process. In this book, Toulmin attacks Thomas Kuhn's account of conceptual change in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Kuhn believed that conceptual change is a revolutionary process (as opposed to an evolutionary process), during which mutually exclusive paradigms compete to replace one another. Toulmin criticized the relativist elements in Kuhn's thesis, arguing that mutually exclusive paradigms provide no ground for comparison, and that Kuhn made the relativists' error of overemphasizing the "field variant" while ignoring the "field invariant" or commonality shared by all argumentation or scientific paradigms.

In contrast to Kuhn's revolutionary model, Toulmin proposed an evolutionary model of conceptual change comparable to Darwin's model of biological evolution. Toulmin states that conceptual change involves the process of innovation and selection. Innovation accounts for the appearance of conceptual variations, while selection accounts for the survival and perpetuation of the soundest conceptions. Innovation occurs when the professionals of a particular discipline come to view things differently from their predecessors; selection subjects the innovative concepts to a process of debate and inquiry in what Toulmin considers as a "forum of competitions". The soundest concepts will survive the forum of competition as replacements or revisions of the traditional conceptions.

From the absolutists' point of view, concepts are either valid or invalid regardless of contexts. From the relativists' perspective, one concept is neither better nor worse than a rival concept from a different cultural context. From Toulmin's perspective, the evaluation depends on a process of comparison, which determines whether or not one concept will improve explanatory power more than its rival concepts.

Works

An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics (1950) 
The Philosophy of Science: An Introduction (1953)
The Uses of Argument (1958) 2nd edition 2003: 
Metaphysical Beliefs, Three Essays (1957) with Ronald W. Hepburn and Alasdair MacIntyre
The Riviera (1961)
Seventeenth century science and the arts (1961) 	
Foresight and Understanding: An Enquiry into the Aims of Science (1961) 
The Fabric of the Heavens (The Ancestry of Science, volume 1) (1961) with June Goodfield 
The Architecture of Matter (The Ancestry of Science, volume 2) (1962) with June Goodfield 
Night Sky at Rhodes (1963)
The Discovery of Time (The Ancestry of Science, volume 3) (1965) with June Goodfield 
Physical Reality (1970)
Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts (1972) 
Wittgenstein's Vienna (1973) with Allan Janik
On the Nature of the Physician's Understanding (1976)
Knowing and Acting: An Invitation to Philosophy (1976) 
An Introduction to Reasoning (1979) with Allan Janik and Richard D. Rieke 2nd edition 1997: 
The Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature (1985) 
The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988) with Albert R. Jonsen 
Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (1990) 
Social Impact of AIDS in the United States (1993) with Albert R. Jonsen
Beyond theory – changing organizations through participation (1996) with Björn Gustavsen (editors)
Return to Reason (2001)

Pantheon of skeptics
At a meeting of the executive council of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) in Denver, Colorado in April 2011, Toulmin was selected for inclusion in CSI's Pantheon of Skeptics.  The Pantheon of Skeptics was created by CSI to remember the legacy of deceased fellows of CSI and their contributions to the cause of scientific skepticism.

See also
 Argumentation theory
 Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club

Notes

References

Further reading

External links
 
 Stephen Toulmin
 Interview with Stephen Toulmin in JAC
 
 Obituary in The Guardian
 William Long (2004) Wittgenstein's Vienna (1973)

1922 births
2009 deaths
20th-century English philosophers
English rhetoricians
Philosophers of science
Moral philosophers
Wittgensteinian philosophers
Academics of the University of Leeds
Alumni of King's College, Cambridge
Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club
New York University faculty
Stanford University faculty
Columbia University faculty
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth faculty
Michigan State University faculty
University of Chicago faculty
Northwestern University faculty
University of Southern California faculty
English sceptics
Recipients of the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art
British expatriates in the United States
Problematic integration theory is a theory of communication that addresses the processes and dynamics of how people receive, evaluate, and respond to information and experiences. The premises of PI are based on the view that message processing, specifically the development of probabilistic and evaluative orientations (our perceptions of something's likelihood of occurring and its value, respectively), is a social and cultural construction. In situations where there is agreement between probabilistic orientation (a person's constructed belief about an object's likelihood, i.e., how likely something is to occur) and evaluative orientation (a person's constructed belief about an object's value), integration is in harmony, i.e., not problematic. However, when there is disagreement between these orientations about an object (i.e., an event, thing, person, idea, outcome, etc.), then integration becomes problematic. This disharmony leads to conflict and discomfort, which can manifest itself as cognitive, communicative, affective, and/or motivational.

History 
Austin Babrow first introduced the theory of Problematic Integration (PI) in 1992.  Babrow brought together a diverse and interdisciplinary literature (from the field of communication and related disciplines, like psychology, sociology, and philosophy) to serve as building blocks for his new theory.  Among the theoretical underpinnings that support PI are:  uncertainty reduction theory; the theory of belief in a just world; analysis of decision-making; the theory of and motivation and self-esteem; and cognitive dissonance. However, despite integrating elements from these theories, PI has striking differences (e.g., unlike URT, PI does not assume that uncertainty is an undesirable situation, nor does it suggest that resolution of uncertainty is always necessary or desirable).

Concepts 

Problematic Integration is a type of message-processing communication theory that relates to theories of decision making and persuasion.  Problematic Integration Theory (PI) proposes that: (1) people orient themselves to the world by forming both probabilistic and evaluative orientations; (2) that probability and evaluation are not independent from one another; (3) that probability and evaluation are socially based and socially constructed, and that probability and evaluation are integral to our daily experience; and, (4) that integration of these orientations can be problematic.  Probabilistic orientation is an assessment of the likelihood of an event or outcome.  Evaluative orientation is an assessment of the favorability of an outcome. Often, assessments of probability and value are cooperative and easily integrated. However, as the theory's title implies, there are occasions when integration becomes problematic. PI proposes that integration becomes more difficult as:
 clarity of object probability decreases
 object value conflicts increase
 or, there is an increase in the divergence between object expectation and desire

Essentially, problematic integration is what we experience when our probabilistic and evaluative orientations conflict with one another, causing instability and disharmony.  Conflict arising from problematic integration may or may not be significant.  The more important a value and the more central an issue (or object, to use PI terminology) is to one's beliefs or cultural values, the more likely that problematic integration will cause greater discomfort.

Assumptions of problematic integration theory

Babrow identified four distinct manifestations, or forms, of problematic integration:
 Divergence
 Ambiguity
 Ambivalence
 Impossibility

The first of these integrative predicaments, divergence, arises when there is a discrepancy between what we believe to be true or to be likely to occur and what we want to be true (the desired outcome). Ambiguity arises when the probability or value of an object (i.e., situation, outcome, thing, etc.) is unclear or highly uncertain. Babrow explained, that “in ambiguous situations, neither the outcome, nor the probability of the outcome is known, though the latter has restrictions” (Babrow, 1992, p. 112).  Uncertainty occurs when an unknown factor obscures or complicates the development of one's orientation (probability and evaluation) toward an outcome.   Ambiguity has also been described as uncertainty about what is unknown.  Ambivalence is borne from one of two conditions: (1) an individual is forced to choose between two similarly valued alternatives; or (2) an individual is forced to choose between mutually exclusive alternatives. The last form of PI, impossibility, occurs upon the realization or belief that an outcome is will not happen. Impossibility is recognized as different from a form of divergence, because only impossibility denotes a sense of certainty.  Responses to impossibility can range from a sense of futility, to one of increased motivation to deny the impossibility. All of these situations give rise to conflict.

The role of communication in problematic integration theory

Communication is both a source of, a medium, and a method for resolving conflict.  Communication is a source of problematic integration in that knowledge and evaluative orientations are the result of communication, probabilistic and evaluative orientations are based on and developed through message and meaning-making (forms of communication), and communication is itself "an object of thought" and is therefore  an object "of probabilistic and evaluative orientations."  It is also possible that a person experiencing problematic integration will seek new information or new sources of information to bolster or reinforce a desired probabilistic or evaluative orientation.  This could also be seen engaging in as a form of cognitive dissonance.  Communication is seen as a medium of problematic integration because communication inherently involves or is based on probabilistic and evaluative orientations, or communication is about probability and value.  Communication is influenced by and formed from culture; thus, communication is a medium of PI, as and the formation of probabilistic and evaluative orientations derives from cultural frameworks.  Lastly, communication is a resource for PI as we try to resolve and manage conflict caused by problematic integration through communication (internal, interpersonal, etc.).

Because communication may be a source, medium, and/or method for resolving problematic integration, it is possible for conflict to manifest as "extended chains" of problematic integration.  Such extended chains occur through forms, foci, and layers of experience.  By extended chains, it is meant that experiences of problematic integration and efforts to resolve problematic integration may lead to development of a new form of PI.  As conflict between probability and value develops around a focal point (or topic), it can lead to conflict regarding a new topic (e.g., stress and anxiety about earning an end-of-year bonus at work can lead to new worries about personal finances, sense of self-worth, and/or one's status and career prospects at work).  Problematic integration becomes shared (or chained) through layers of experience when people discuss and relate their struggles with others.  In this process of communicating our conflicts, others may share in our problematic integration through empathy and sympathy.  Babrow proposed that communication becomes more important to resolve problematic integration as the conflict or integration becomes more difficult.

Critique and analysis

As mentioned above, Problematic Integration Theory is a type of communication theory that examines how we make meaning of information and experiences, and how we handle uncertainty.  PI differs from Uncertainty Reduction Theory and other axiomatic and predictive communication theories in a number of ways.  PI proposes that there are numerous and varied meanings of the term uncertainty.  Unlike URT, PI predicts that experiencing uncertainty does not automatically lead to a desire to reduce the uncertainty.  Further, PI proposes that: (1) uncertainty is not always "bad; (2) uncertainty has a single or narrow meaning; (3) reduction of uncertainty is not always possible; (4) any resolution of uncertainty is not necessarily final; and, (5) integrative dilemmas do not necessarily have an identifiable or singular cause.

Problematic Integration Theory (PI) falls under the socio-psychological and socio-cultural communication traditions. PI began with a focus on intra- and inter-personal contexts, but has been applicable in many contexts, including interpersonal, small group, and organizational; thus, it has a broad scope of application.  PI is considered an interpretive/hermeneutic approach of theory rather than positivistic/empirical (i.e., predictive) or critical.

Related work: uncertainty management theory

Babrow's theory shares some common ideas with Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT), which was developed by Dale Brashers (2007, A theory of communication and uncertainty management. In B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication theory (pp. 201–218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum). For a comparison of the perspectives, see Bradac (2001).

Current usage 

The complexity of PI and the multiplicity of its manifestations makes it difficult to operationalize, measure, and apply.  However, this breadth of scope also indicates that it may have extremely wide-ranging applications and opportunities for research.  Because the concepts within PI are based on cultural definitions, PI is seen as being overly responsive to external conceptual influences; thus, making it potentially falsifiable.

PI has been used within the realm of Health Communication studies in order to assess methods of educating, and communicating with, patients facing a variety chronic or life-threatening conditions. In 2003, Babrow received the prestigious Woolbert Award for scholarship of exceptional originality and influence from the National Communication Association  for his work with PI.

PI has been used extensively in analysis of the health care system, particularly in regard to communication between health care providers and patients.  The health-care system inherently involves communication between health-care providers (e.g., doctors, nurses, various therapists, dietitians, social workers, counselors, etc.), patients, and members of the patient's social and support network (e.g., family members, friends, members of support groups, etc.).  Because understanding and communicating diagnoses, prognoses, treatment plans, expectations, and more can be complicated and because this communication relies on the communication skills of the various people involved, health-care situations offer ample opportunity to examine problematic integration.  Research in this area has revealed that information is used to decrease and increase uncertainty, depending on the situation.  In some cases, patients may seek information to reduce stressful uncertainty.  However, in other cases, the care team and the patient may need to increase uncertainty in order to increase optimism and allow for re-evaluation of a given situation.  PI has been used to study communication involving various medical issues, including breast cancer, the treatment of diabetes in the elderly, end-of-life issues, and pregnancy.

Problematic Integration has also been used to evaluate organizational communication.  Organizations, comprising networks and hierarchies of individuals, by their very nature, create complex webs of various dynamic social and cultural relationships.  Moreover, most organizations do not exist for themselves, but for an external audience, client, or consumer; thereby, increasing the nature, types, and numbers of relationships.  Communication within these relationships will very likely give rise to instances of uncertainty.  In the context of such complex systems of communication, PI takes on a much different appearance than intrapersonal situations.  An organization's structure, system design, and strategy can create, maintain, or help reduce problematic integration.

One area of this study has been problematic integration arising from internal bureaucracy or organizational rules or objectives and how this conflict involves matters of formal rationality (a quantitative calculation of an action or choice) or substantive rationality (a value judgment of consequences of an action or choice).

In examining marketing strategies for tourism, PI has been used to suggest methods for decreasing uncertainty for potential customers and thereby increasing transactions from the on-line shoppers for the related retail businesses ("converting lookers to bookers").

As mentioned above, PI lends itself to application to a broad scope of issues.  A few other examples of areas of interest to which PI has been applied include:
 Risk study and evaluation
 Family and relationships
 Narrative communication
 Mass media and media Studies (e.g., news reporting)
 Marketing and advertising

Notes

References 

Babrow, Austin S. (1992). Communication and problematic integration: Understanding and diverging probability and value, ambiguity, ambivalence, and impossibility. Communication Theory, 2(2), 95-130.

Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertain outcome values in predicted relationships: Uncertainty reduction theory then and now. Human Communication Research, 13, 34-38.

Berger, C. R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1987). Decision making under ambiguity. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology (pp. 41–66). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hines, S.C., Babrow, A.S., Badzek, L., & Moss, A. (2001). From coping with life to coping with death: Problematic integration for the seriously ill elderly. Health Communication, 13(3), 327-342.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.

Raynor, J. O., & McFarlin, D. B. (1986). Motivation and self-esteem. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 315–349). New York: Guilford.

West, Richard and Turner, Lynn; Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application, McGraw Hill, 2010, Print.

Communication
Communication theory "Problematic" is the name of Five Star's very first single, released 30 September 1983.

The song was performed on BBC TV's Pebble Mill at One show, which brought the band to public attention. According to Five Star's father/manager, Buster Pearson, RCA records were on the phone offering the band a record contract before the end of their performance.

Five Star were asked to perform "Problematic" on the show as that particular edition was focusing on unemployment, trying to find work, and the problems that come with it. The song was simply about a young girl leaving school, trying to find work.

Although credited to Five Star, the b-side "Big Funk" is an instrumental track written, arranged and produced by Buster Pearson with no involvement from the band members. He had already released the track as a single in 1973 credited to the Buster Pearson Band.

"Problematic" failed to chart in the UK.

7” Single:

1.  Problematic

2.  Big Funk 
 

12” Single:
 
1.  Problematic (Extended Version)

2.  Problematic

3.  Big Funk 

The 12" single and a picture disc version of the 7" single were re-pressed by the Five Star Fan Club in 1989 and sold to members.

The 7" and 12" versions of "Problematic" were released as digital downloads on 18 July 2011.

References

Five Star songs
1983 singles
Songs written by George Hargreaves (politician)
1983 songs