Picture of person typing on laptop with programming code visible on the laptop screen

World class computing and information science research at Strathclyde...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by University of Strathclyde researchers, including by researchers from the Department of Computer & Information Sciences involved in mathematically structured programming, similarity and metric search, computer security, software systems, combinatronics and digital health.

The Department also includes the iSchool Research Group, which performs leading research into socio-technical phenomena and topics such as information retrieval and information seeking behaviour.

Explore

A model of the strength and appropriateness of argumentation and rhetoric in organizational contexts

Sillince, John A.A. (2002) A model of the strength and appropriateness of argumentation and rhetoric in organizational contexts. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (5). pp. 585-618. ISSN 0022-2380

Full text not available in this repository. Request a copy from the Strathclyde author

Abstract

Argumentation within organizations depends for its effectiveness upon the context. The model presented seeks to identify the three ways in which an arguer can become more persuasive. The first way uses the fact that many of the dimensions of argument strength (familiarity, evidence, simplicity, etc) are not appropriate in particular organizational contexts, so that within each context the arguer must select a particular combination of appropriate dimensions. The second way uses the fact that each context has its own rhetorical requirements and gives rise to its own appropriate rhetorical form which triggers a myth-like association. The third way uses the fact that the four elements of context (arguer, audience, topic and setting) must be skilfully integrated together, especially with regard to showing empathy for the audience, balancing contradictory elements (such as promises and warnings) in the same argument in order to minimize the simplifying effect of rhetoric, and remaining tactically flexible enough to switch positions.