A Broader Understanding of the Ethics of Listening: Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Media Studies and the Ethical Listening Subject

Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice

“…These definitions are also informed and supported by human communication theories already noted, such as Gadamer's (1989) concept of openness and the dialogism and dialogue espoused by Bakhtin (1981Bakhtin ( , 1984 and Buber (1958Buber ( , 2002, as well as theories of receptivity (Kompridis, 2011); reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960); hospitality (Silverstone, 2007); and interactivity (Pelias & VanOosting, 1987). Also, literature on the ethics of listening (Beard, 2009;Bodie, 2010;Bodie & Crick, 2014;Conquergood, 1985;Gehrke, 2009) is directly applicable to this analysis and informs theory building and practice in public relations.…”

“I Says to Myself, Says I”: Charles Sanders Peirce on the Components of Dialogue

“…In contemporary conceptions, the mere meeting of another person often becomes a potential starting point for dialogue, as when Kim and Kim (2008) argued that "casual, informal, spontaneous, nonpurposive conversation, or conversation for the sake of conversation, is the womb of dialogic moments" (p. 57). A similar attitude is reflected in works by Beard (2009), Floyd (2010, Gehrke (2009), Lipari (2012), and others (e.g., Arneson, 2010;Ballif, Davis, & Mountford, 2000). Although these positions correspond in many ways with what Peirce believed to be important aspects of dialogic communication, his work provides resources to construct a more distinct and narrow vision of dialogue as explicitly purpose-oriented and concerned less with understanding the nature of an other's Being and more with working together with another person in dialogue (including a person of oneself) in order to bring clarity to some issue of doubt.…”

Listening, Hearing, Sensing: Three Modes of Being and the Phenomenology of Charles Sanders Peirce

“…In terms of theory building, one particularly salient contribution of this analysis is to move away from the unnecessary dichotomy between “humanities‐based communication scholarship on listening” and the “social science and cognitive science literature” (Lipari, , p. 351). It appears commonplace to categorize listening research into “camps” (Purdy, , p. 49), invoking notions of agonism and tension rather than harmony and synergy, or “perspectives” (Beard, , p. 8), thus invoking notions of incommensurability rather than collaboration. And while it is true that “In [the] list of disciplines and fields that have contributed to listening studies, we find noticeably absent philosophy, ethics, and politics” (Gehrke, , p. 2), it is also true that by attempting to separate rather than integrate, we may be missing an important piece of the larger theoretical listening puzzle.…”