Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 191–208 | Cite as

The Communicative Work of Organizations in Shaping Argumentative Realities

  • Mark AakhusEmail author
Research Article


It is argued here that large-scale organization and networked computing enable new divisions of communicative work aimed at shaping the content, direction, and outcomes of societal conversations. The challenge for argumentation theory and practice lies in attending to these new divisions of communicative work in constituting contemporary argumentative realities. Goffman’s conceptualization of participation frameworks and production formats are applied to articulate the communicative work of organizations afforded by networked computing that invents and innovates argument in all of its senses—as product, process, and procedure. Communicative work, however, may be scaffolding argumentative contexts and practices that are quite different than what has constituted past argumentative realities. The computerization of argument happens as organizations invent and innovate argument practice relative to the demands and opportunities of interorganizational communication. The cases and examples examined here suggest that argument practice is evolving around the logic of conversation and the principle of personalization. The analysis challenges argumentation theory to seriously engage with the construction of communicative contexts and the realization of ideas about disagreement management in organizational practice and information infrastructures. Directions for integrating insights from a design perspective on argument with insights from organizational and information systems theory are proposed for coming to terms with an era of large-scale organization and computerization, in particular the evolution of argument practice, the inscription of argument in the built environment, and the absorption of socio-cultural argument practices by organizations and computation.


Argument Design Deliberation Information infrastructure Institutions Communicative work Decision support Dialectical Goffman New media Emerging media Organizational communication Participation format Production format 


  1. Aakhus, M. (2002). Modeling reconstruction in groupware technology. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 121–136). Newport News, VA:Vale Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 112–117. doi: 10.1080/03637750701196383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aakhus, M. (2010). Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society. In D. Gouran (Ed.), The functions of argument and social context: selected papers from the 16th Biennial Conference on Argumentation (pp. 11–18). Washington: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  5. Aakhus, M. (2013). Deliberation digitized: designing disagreement space through communication-information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 101–126. doi: 10.1075/jaic.2.1.05aak.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aakhus, M., Ågerfalk, P., Lyytinen, K., & Te’eni, D. (2014). Symbolic action research in information systems: introduction to the special issue. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1187–1200.Google Scholar
  7. Aakhus, M., Dadlani, P., Gigliotti, R., Goldthwaite, C., Kosterich, A., & Sahay, S. (2016). Organizational expertise as organizational practice: competing ideas about communication in the market for solutions. In P. Leonardi & J. W. Treem (Eds.), Communication, expertise, and organizing (Vol. 1, pp. 189–209). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2011). Argument analysis in large scale deliberation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. S. Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 165–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aakhus, M., & Ziek, P. (2008). Sustainability communication: a role for IT and IS in relating business and society. In P. J. Ågerfalk, M. A. Aakhus, & M. Lind (Eds.), Proceedings of AIS special interest group on pragmatist IS research (pp. 29–35). Amsterdam: Sprouts Alliance.Google Scholar
  10. Ågerfalk, P., Aakhus, M., & Lind, M. (2010). Researching open innovation through social media. Open Innovation Forum, Retrieved from Scholar
  11. Baym, G., & Shah, C. (2011). Circulating struggle: the on-line flow of environmental advocacy clips from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Information, Communication, and Society, 14(7), 1017–1038. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2011.554573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beder, S. (2013). Public relations’ role in manufacturing artificial grass roots coalitions. Public Relations Quarterly, 43(2), 21–23.Google Scholar
  13. Brown Bailout. (2009). Bailout with UPS.Google Scholar
  14. Brynjolfsson, E., Hammerbacher, J., & Stevens, B. (2011). Competing through data: three experts offer their game plans. McKinsey Quarterly, 1–12.
  15. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  16. Curtis-Magley, D. (2009). “Brown Bailout” barrage: protecting your brand through social media. Social Media Business Coucil.
  17. Dynel, M. (2011). Revisiting Goffman’s postulates on participant statuses in verbal interaction. Linguistics and Language Compass, 5(7), 454–465. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00286.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in conventionalized communication practices. In Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engelbart, D. C. (1962). Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework (No AFOSR-3223) (Vol. 49). Menlo Park. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  21. FedEx Express. (2010). Brown Bailout. Retrieved from Scholar
  22. Floridi, L. (2003). Two approaches to the philosophy of information. Minds and Machines, 13, 459–469. Scholar
  23. FracFocus. (2013). About us. FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from Scholar
  24. FracTracker Alliance. (2013). About us—FracTracker Alliance. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from Scholar
  25. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  26. Greening, D. W., & Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 467–498. doi: 10.2307/256697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1057/jit.2009.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(May), 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hunter, M. L., Le Menestrel, M., & de Bettignies, H.-C. (2008). Beyond control: crisis strategies and stakeholder media in the Danone boycott of 2001. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(4), 335–350. doi: 10.1057/crr.2008.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson, S. (2015). Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 243–263. doi: 10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7.
  32. Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). What mediators do with words implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(2), 177–204. doi: 10.1002/crq.3890200205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (2006). Derailments of argumentation: it takes two to tango. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 121–134). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.1414.Google Scholar
  34. Lavalle, S., Hopkins, M. S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., & Kruschwitz, N. (2010). Analytics: the new path to value. Boston: MIT Sloan Management Review.Google Scholar
  35. Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–399.Google Scholar
  36. Lewinski, M. (2010). Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(Fall), 86–105.Google Scholar
  37. Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyytinen, K. (2004). Designing of what? What is the design stuff made of? In R. J. Boland Jr. & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lyytinen, K. J. (1985). Implications of theories of language for information systems. MIS Quartely, 9(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mansell, R. (1996). Communication by design? In R. Silverstone & R. Mansell (Eds.), Communication by design: the politics of information communication technologies (pp. 15–43). New York: Oxford University. doi: 10.1037/001261.Google Scholar
  41. Marcoccia, M. (2004). On-line polylogues: conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 115–145. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morozov, E. (2010). Think again: the internet. Foreign Policy, 179, 40–44.Google Scholar
  43. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2010.495581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peeples, A., & Vaughn, C. (2009). Domino’s “Special Delivery”: going viral through social media (parts A & B). IN: Notre Dame.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory and Society, 20(6), 725–762.Google Scholar
  48. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  49. (2013). 10 examples of social media command centers. San Francisco: Scholar
  50. Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  51. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Organizational environments and organizational information processing. In L. L. Putnam & F. Jablin (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 197–230). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Uldam, J. (2014). Corporate management of visibility and the fantasy of the post-political: social media and surveillance. New Media & Society. doi: 10.1177/1461444814541526.
  54. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1983). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland.Google Scholar
  55. Wang, G., Wilson, C., Zhao, X., Zhu, Y., Mohanlal, M., Zheng, H., & Zhao, B. Y. (2012). Serf and turf. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’12, 679. doi: 10.1145/2187836.2187928.
  56. Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  57. Weber, M. S., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2016). The emergence and evolution of social networking sites as an organizational form. Management Communication Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0893318916629547.
  58. Wenzel, J. (1979). Jurgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
  59. Woods, D. (2015). Why big data needs natural language generation to work. Forbes, Retrieved August 25, 2015, from Scholar
  60. Ziek, P. E. (2012). Inter-organizational infrastructure for communication: A study of the generative aspects of the communication context on CSR strategy and instrumentation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
  61. Ziek, P. (2013). CSR Infrastructure for Communication and the Nike Controversy. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3(1), 63–73. doi: 10.5539/jms.v3n1p63.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Communication and InformationRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations