Effective argumentation for action in health policy: a case study of the UK’s review on antimicrobial resistance

Abstract

This article is a rhetorical analysis of an influential report on antimicrobial resistance in the context of national and global health policymaking. Through a textual-intertextual analysis, it examines how the report’s argumentation structure, grammatical moods, and use of strategic ambiguity direct multiple audiences to debate policy action, without becoming mired in manufactured scientific controversy about the existence or extent of the problem. The report successfully deploys a “beachhead” argumentation strategy by moving swiftly past arguments of scientific fact, definition, and quality, to focus public debate more effectively on matters of procedure. This analysis reveals promising strategies for future reports arguing on behalf of scientific consensus and seeking to stimulate policy action.

Keywords:

• Rhetoric of science
• antimicrobial resistance
• public controversy
• stasis theory
• science communication

Disclosure statement

The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

Fulbright Canada| Recipient: Christine Ackerley; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada | Recipient: Christine Ackerley.