Argumentation in public communication I Course syllabus

Transcription

1 Argumentation in public communication I Course syllabus Prof. Sara Greco Teaching assistant: Rebecca Schär Università della Svizzera italiana Master in Public Management and Policy SA 2015 Rationale and objectives In public communication, many activities and interactions (oral and written) are characterized by argumentation, as actors are committed to be accountable for their decisions and give reasons for their claims. Argumentation in Public Communication I (3 ECTS) is specifically focused on the argumentative discussion as a means to resolve disagreement through reasonable dialogue; taking into account that well-conducted argumentative interactions ideally increase the quality of communicative exchanges, as they allow avoiding conflict and manipulation. Students will learn both to analyse and to design argumentative contributions (oral or written) within argumentative discussions. The focus will be on a delicate balance between the critical requirement of resolving disagreement in a reasonable fashion and the attempt to persuade others and win one s cause; both aspects are typical of argumentation and crucial to institutional objectives. Alongside a general introduction to the different uses and applications of public rhetoric, a special accent will be placed on two key domains in which argumentation plays an important role. The former is the role of argumentation as an alternative to conflict in (public) organizations. Given the high economic and human costs of conflict, managing disagreement by means of reasonable discussion is important in order to scaffold efficient and healthy relations. The latter domain concerns how argumentation is used in the system of Swiss semi-direct democracy, with a special focus on popular initiatives at the federal level. This course will run from September to the end of October. It is preliminary to Argumentation in Public Communication II. In the second part of the course, which introduces argumentation at a more fine-grained level, a series of case-studies will be analysed in order to gain expertise and familiarity with different types of argument schemes (e.g. analogy, causal argumentation, means-end argumentation). By considering different case studies, each type of argument will be analysed in a specific context, examining its conditions of effectiveness. Professional implications will be discussed for each context.

2 Course methodology This course adopts a bottom-up approach, based on the analysis of empirical data (documents, oral discourses) in the field of public communication as well as on the design of argumentative (oral or written) discourse in specific situations relative to public communication and administrative rhetoric. Class interaction will allow significant space for students discussion, group-work, and guided controversy in order to see how argumentation works in practice. As a general attitude, argumentative discussion is encouraged in class, as this course combines the two poles of learning argumentation with doing argumentation to learn (Schwarz 2009). In order to contact Prof. Greco or Ms. Schär for a personal discussion, please make an appointment by (sara.greco@usi.ch; Rebecca.schaer@usi.ch). Evaluation Evaluation is as follows: 30% based on two exercises of design of argumentative texts (15% each) to be submitted during the course (deadlines tba); and 70% based on a final oral exam in which the course contents (reading and class work, including exercises) will be discussed. The oral exam will take place during the regular session at USI (January 2016). More details will be provided during the course. Assigned readings All readings will be made available on the course online platform icorsi as downloadable PDF files. General introduction to argumentation Rigotti and Greco, S Introducing argumentation. Argumentum elearning module, (restricted access). Van Eemeren, F. H., and Grootendorst, R Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum. Chapter 2 (pp ); Chapter 4 (only pp ). On evidence in argumentation: a critical approach Ziegelmueller, G. W., and Kay, J Argumentation: Inquiry and advocacy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon (pp ; and pp ). Freeley, A. J., and Steinberg, D. L Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Boston (MA): Wadsworth Cencage Learning (pp ; and pp ). On the classical model of rhetoric Murphy, J. J, Katula, R. A., and Hoppmann, M A synoptic history of classical rhetoric. New York: Routledge (pp ). On communication and argumentation in conflict Greco Morasso, S Argumentation in dispute mediation: a reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (pp ; and pp ). 2 P age- Argumentation in Public Communication I

3 Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B (2 nd edition). Getting to yes. Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books (pp ). Wehr, P. Conflict Mapping. In Beyond Intractability, G. Burgess and H. Burgess (Eds.). Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2006 < Additional readings will be provided during the course, also in view of students personal interests. Program (subject to changes). There are two (unequal) components in this course. A first fundamental component is constituted by classes introducing argumentation and its role within public organizations (component A). Both an analytical perspective and a production perspective (communication design) will be used. A second component concerns the application of argumentation to the two main specific domains that are considered in this course: semi-direct democracy (and popular initiatives) in Switzerland; and communication for conflict in organizations (component B). These two components are not presented in a chronological order; they are developed in parallel in order to enhance students personal appropriation of the subject at a theoretical and practical level. N. Date Component Contents A Introduction to argumentation in public communication This course intends to introduce the basic and fundamental concepts of argumentation (issue, standpoint, argument) and to put them in practice by means of an exercise. The aims and structure of Argumentation in public communication I will be also introduced and discussed A A model for argumentation design This course introduces a first model to guide the design (production) of argumentative interventions, based on ancient deliberative oratory (and in particular on the Rhetorica ad Herennium). A first exercise of design of argumentative interventions is introduced, based on a case of public debate (supported by social media) A Argumentation as the lifeblood of public organizations Having considered production or design in the first two classes, this course is focused on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative texts in public communication. After having discussed the roles of argumentation within public institutions, the case of foundational texts of public organizations will be taken, specifying the role of means-end argumentation in public organizations. At the theoretical level, this course introduces the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004) for the analysis of argumentation A A critical approach to argument evaluation and production This course discusses the philosophical foundation of argumentation as a critical approach to decision-making. Based on an ideal of reasonableness, argumentative discussion enhances the quality of public communication. Thus, this course discusses the potential of 3 P age- Argumentation in Public Communication I

4 B- conflict B- conflict B- conflict B- direct democracy argumentation within policy making and public debate; in order to do so, a case study will be discussed in class. Particular attention will be devoted to a critical approach to evidence as a basis for constructing arguments and discussing issues. Discussion on exercise 1: best practices Argumentation in conflict management: Part 1. This course introduces dispute mediation as a communicative practice relevant to public organizations at the formal and informal levels. An overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution practices is given. Professional opportunities and challenges for mediators and current training programs (especially in Switzerland) are discussed. Argumentation in conflict management: Part 2. Via the analysis of video materials, this course discusses the phases of mediation as a communicative approach to conflict. Argumentation in conflict management: Part 3. This course analyses the notion of conflict and its role (risks and opportunities) in public organizations. It introduces the conflict mapping guide as a tool for analyzing conflicts to be used prior to designing a communicative intervention for conflict. Argumentation and semi-direct democracy: Part 1 Via the analysis of a case of popular initiative at the Federal level, this course discusses the role of argumentation in Swiss semi-direct democracy, especially in written documents. With the collaboration of G. Dillena A Argumentation design in public organizations During this course, we will go back to a design perspective. The finding out of arguments for a case of public communication will be supported by the methodology of Lego Serious Play ( With the participation of S. Tardini, Lego Serious Play facilitator. This course will be the basis for the second exercise of production of argumentative texts B- direct democracy B- conflict B- conflict Argumentation and semi-direct democracy: Part 2 Via the analysis of a case of popular initiative at the Federal level, this course discusses the role of argumentation in Swiss semi-direct democracy, especially in written documents. With the collaboration of G. Dillena. Argumentation in conflict management: Part 4. This course discusses the different types of questions that are necessary to facilitate conflict prevention and conflict. Video materials of dispute mediation will be discussed. Argumentation in conflict management: Part 4. This course is devoted to a role-play of dispute mediation in order to experiment the concepts about argumentation in conflict that have been introduced so far A Emotions in public argumentation As a final opening for this course, we will tackle the role of emotions in reasonable argumentation. Are emotions irrational? A case-study from the foundation of the European Union will be discussed. 4 P age- Argumentation in Public Communication I

5 A Discussion This last meeting is divided into two parts. On the one hand, the results of the two exercises will be discussed, focusing on best practices. On the other hand, the Fil rouge of this class will be reframed, while discussing some conclusions and open questions. This will be the basis for presenting the second part of the course (Argumentation in Public Communication II) for those interested. 5 P age- Argumentation in Public Communication I