Abstract
This paper shows how institutional values influence the design and evaluation of arguments in funding proposals for scientific research. We characterize a general argument made within proposals and several kinds of subarguments that contribute to it. We indicate that funders’ values inform the kinds of proposal documents funders require and their relative weighting of them. We illustrate these points by showing how the U.S. federal agency NOAA uses its public service mission to require and heavily weigh arguments to transition new knowledge to agency service providers. We suggest conceptual questions raised by the use of transition arguments.
