Objection: Poor communication

f
Objection:

Well-written prose is a better way of communicating complex theories than Theory Mapping, for the following reasons:

• Visual element adds confusion: people have different levels of visual-spatial ability and so many people will find Theory Maps difficult to process. One friend has talked to me of his mind 'shutting down' when he comes across a complex diagram. Although it is true that in some cases "a picture can paint a thousand words", this is not the case with Argument Mapping since the space on the page does not correspond to a conceptual dimension, unlike with a graph for instance.
  
• Theory Maps too big and complicated: a Theory Map of a complex theory would be be very large and unweildy. Even to get an overview of the key reasons at the top would require a lot of navigation around.

To improve the communication of theories it would therefore be more effective to focus on improving how well prose is written.

Responses:

1. Prose is complementary not a substitute
At the beginning of the post Introducing Theory Mapping, it is stated that one of the problems that Theory Mapping is trying to solve is 'Lack of clear communication' between sides in a debate. However, this is broken down into three particular aspects: a) not communicating assumptions; b) lack of clear expression of ideas and arguments; and c) people not paying enough attention. Whereas the objection seems to be focusing on a fourth aspect (d)), which is purely about the means of communication. Points a), b) and d) can all be given as advantages that Argument Mapping has over ordinary prose (see the post on Argument Mapping), but the case for Theory Mapping only needs to rest on a) and b). This is because prose may be seen as complementary to Theory Mapping e.g. you construct the Theory Map first to uncover the assumptions and gain greater clarity over the ideas and arguments, which then enables you to write a summary in prose to communicate it in a user-friendly way.

2. Argument Maps may be a clearer means of communication than prose
Since Argument Maps can lay out the structure of an argument in a much clearer way than prose and can ensure that rhetoric and extraneous information is removed, it can be argued that they can be clearer than prose under the following conditions:

• Good software: this can make them much easier and fun to read e.g. see aMaps for an example of how to present them in a visually arresting way.
  
• Argument Map literacy: it has been pointed out by Simon Buckingham Shum (here) that with regard to argument visualization tools we need “a new literacy in being able to read and write in the new medium, and a new fluency in using these conversational tools in appropriate ways in different contexts.” As argument mapping becomes more widely used, so this literacy will develop.

f