“Missing signposts?”. Tensions between the unitary and pluralistic components of rational arguments and in organisational communication
| Date | 22 February 2013 |
| Pages | 31-42 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14779961311304149 |
| Published date | 22 February 2013 |
| Author | Luke Strongman |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
“Missing signposts?”
Tensions between the unitary and pluralistic
components of rational arguments and
in organisational communication
Luke Strongman
Department of Communication, The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand,
Lower Hutt, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is first, to explorecommunicative practice in conflictresolution in
its unitaryand pluralisticforms; and second, to highlightways in which interpersonalconflict negotiation
and resolutionmay be recapitulated in organisationalor international experiencesof conflict resolution.
Design/methodology/approach – The methods of research are qualitative discourse analysis in the
new critical paradigm. The approach to the topic is one of reflective interlocution of defined topic areas.
Findings – A tension exists between unitary and pluralistic components of rational arguments in
organisational communication. This is observable in the claims to relational authenticity in both
scientific arguments and in the management of conflict negotiations. The main drivers of this tension
are the scalability of arguments and the contexts in which they occur. Determining the ontological
validity and mutually understood “reference points” of participant perspectives are essential in
reaching understandings that have elements of successful communication, clarity and mutuality.
Research limitations/implications – The research is theoretical in design and mimetically
reflects developments in pedagogy and practice in its designated area.
Practical implications – Scientists, media commentators need to be mindful of argumentational
bias. Conflict resolution negotiators will have a better understanding of the ethical dynamics of their
interaction and processes.
Social implications – As the title suggests, the article highlights tensions between the unitary and
pluralistic components of rational arguments and conflict resolution in organisational communication.
Originality/value – The originality and value of the paper is its analysis and juxtaposition of the
communication ethics of rational arguments used by scientists, and conflict resolution negotiators.
Keywords Organisationalcommunication, Corporate communications, Conflict resolution,
Rational arguments,Interpersonal communications, Information,Ethics
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction: tensions between the rational components of unitary and
plural arguments
Scale, media and context are important in communicative practices and frequent ly may
influence the structure of rational arguments. As Robbins (1978, p. 67) suggests,
“managers spend approximately 20 percent of their time dealing with conflict”. Whether
the communications that are made are unitary or pluralistic in their argument
components can influence the efficacy of their understanding as logical constructions
and ultimately may result in conflicts with ethical repercussions. By unitary the author
refers to arguments that are based on singular facts asserted and by pluralistic itis meant
those arguments that refer to the interconnectedness of related facts. Furthermore, there
are differences between the ethical understandings of communication competency
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
Components
of rational
arguments
31
Received 16 March 2012
Revised 20 June 2012
21 September 2012
Accepted 14 December 2012
Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society
Vol. 11 No. 1, 2013
pp. 31-42
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/14779961311304149
To continue reading
Request your trial