Need for Inquiry-Based Advocacy in a Democracy

In a democracy citizens are expected to engage in conflicts among ideas, conclusions, and alternative courses of action, that is, controversy. Controversy is a way to get additional information about the decision being made. Inherent in controversy is inquiry-based advocacy (Johnson, 2015; Johnson & Johnson, 2007). Inquiryis investigating a problem to establish the best course of action to solve it. Inquiry involves asking questions and seeking to learn the information needed to answer the questions. Inquiry usually begins with a focal point (i.e., the problem under consideration), something that captures the participants' attention, holds it, and motivates them to investigate. People who are not interested do not inquire. Advocacy involves participants presenting the best case possible for their recommended course of action, which includes the reasons why others should adopt the advocate’s conclusion. Advocates of opposing positions listen carefully to obtain new information that may improve their reasoning and conclusions. Inquiry-based advocacy, therefore, is two or more parties presenting opposing positions in order to investigate an issue and establish the underlying facts and logic needed to reach a reasoned judgment about a course of action to take to solve the problem.

Two serious mistakes in a inquiry-based advocacy are:

1. Presenting one’s position with no reasons why others should adopt it. Look out for people who support their position by making personal attacks on opponents and argue that the opponents' moral character proves the validity of one's arguments.

2. Failing to listen carefully to the reasons supporting the opposing position and considering their validity. Comprehending the reasoning behind the opposing positions helps one improve one’s own position. The reason to seek out advocates of opposing positions is to be better informed and able to gain creative insights into the problem under discussion.