Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Societal conversations” is a phrase used here as a generic reference to the wide variety of conversations in society at different scales, from interpersonal to communities, and across varieties of topics, from mundane to high-stakes matters, and in a variety of formats, from informal to formal.
Grice’s (1989) formulation is typically associated with the phrase “the logic of conversation.” While of some general relevance here, it is not explored. Goffman (1981) clearly conveys a sociological sense of conversational logic in that the interaction order involves expectations, obligations, and commitments to be worked out and that people devise means for doing so. These means are often not random but tailored and organized relative to the demands of the interaction order and other actors. It is this sense that frames a way of thinking about mediated interaction on different scales.
References
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.
Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265–290.
Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 112–117. doi:10.1080/03637750701196383.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ågerfalk, P., Aakhus, M., & Lind, M. (2010). Researching open innovation through social media. Open Innovation Forum, Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/30882386?access_key=key-1jfy9vze0spw4m0q1ybv.
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.
Beder, S. (2013). Public relations’ role in manufacturing artificial grass roots coalitions. Public Relations Quarterly, 43(2), 21–23.
Brown Bailout. (2009). Bailout with UPS.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hammerbacher, J., & Stevens, B. (2011). Competing through data: three experts offer their game plans. McKinsey Quarterly, 1–12. http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/ourinsights/charting-technologys-new-directions-a-conversation-with-mits-erik-brynjolfsson.
Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Curtis-Magley, D. (2009). “Brown Bailout” barrage: protecting your brand through social media. Social Media Business Coucil. www.gaspedal.com/BlogWell
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.
van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Engelbart, D. C. (1962). Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework (No AFOSR-3223) (Vol. 49). Menlo Park. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
FedEx Express. (2010). Brown Bailout. Retrieved from http://www.brownbailout.com/?fbid=Nz9yyDD1Wdr.
Floridi, L. (2003). Two approaches to the philosophy of information. Minds and Machines, 13, 459–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026241332041.
FracFocus. (2013). About us. FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://fracfocus.org/welcome.
FracTracker Alliance. (2013). About us—FracTracker Alliance. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from https://www.fractracker.org/about-us/.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
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.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(May), 183–211.
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.
Jackson, S. (2015). Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 243–263. doi:10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7.
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.
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.
Lavalle, S., Hopkins, M. S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., & Kruschwitz, N. (2010). Analytics: the new path to value. Boston: MIT Sloan Management Review.
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–399.
Lewinski, M. (2010). Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(Fall), 86–105.
Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1, 4–11.
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.
Lyytinen, K. J. (1985). Implications of theories of language for information systems. MIS Quartely, 9(1), 61–74.
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.
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.
Morozov, E. (2010). Think again: the internet. Foreign Policy, 179, 40–44.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble. London: Penguin.
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.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Peeples, A., & Vaughn, C. (2009). Domino’s “Special Delivery”: going viral through social media (parts A & B). IN: Notre Dame.
Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory and Society, 20(6), 725–762.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Salesforce.com. (2013). 10 examples of social media command centers. San Francisco: Salesforce.com.
Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody. New York: Penguin.
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.
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.
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.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1983). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland.
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.
Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
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.
Wenzel, J. (1979). Jurgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 16, 83–94.
Woods, D. (2015). Why big data needs natural language generation to work. Forbes, Retrieved August 25, 2015, from http://onforb.es/1G92kGi .
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aakhus, M. The Communicative Work of Organizations in Shaping Argumentative Realities. Philos. Technol. 30, 191–208 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0224-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0224-4