The nature and function of argument in organizational bargaining research

Keough, Colleen M.

doi:10.1080/10417948709372709

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Arguments as topoi for constructing tactical plans also adopts a productoriented view of argument, but in this approach it functions as a rationale or a source for justifying persuasive tactics rather than as an outgrowth of interaction (Keough, 1987). In particular, Bacharach and Lawler (1981) define arguments as justifications, explanations, or legitimizations for positions that bargainers take.…”

Section: Argument As Inventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analysis of expansion sequences, turn taking, and adjacency pairs could be used to study bargaining arguments (Donohue, Diez, & Stahle, 1983). However, this approach to argument, although potentially exciting and insightful, shifts the focus to the structure of conversations in bargaining and away from the content and reason-giving activity of arguments in negotiation (Keough, 1987).…”

Section: Argument As Emergent Speech Actsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The evolution of policy arguments in teachers' negotiations

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argument is a critical component in policy deliberations. In this study, negotiation is viewed as a type of policy deliberation, one characterized by attack and defense of proposals, interdependence between disputants, and mixed motives of cooperation and competition. Argument in negotiation, then, functions as a reason-giving activity to enact policy. Employing a category system based on rhetorical stasis, the researchers examine whether bargainers specialize in their use of argument types and whether this specialization remains consistent throughout a teacher-school board negotiation and whether it differs for the type of settlement of agenda items. Results of the study suggest that bargainers specialize in argument types at different times during the bargaining. In the early stages of negotiation, teachers center on harm and workability arguments to prepare their case and justify the merits of their proposals, but in the latter phases of bargaining they switch to arguments on implementation to reaffirm their demands and to prioritize issues. Board members, in the early stages, rely on disadvantage, workability, and implementation arguments to establish resistance points and to refute appeals for change, but in the latter stages of negotiation they employ harm-inherency and disadvantage arguments to weigh the costs of concessions and to rationalize the settlement. This study, then, supports the existence of phase variation in bargaining and argues for a developmental approach in deciphering how negotiators who hold antithetical positions reach mutually satisfactory settlements.

show abstract

Section: Argument As Inventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Argument As Emergent Speech Actsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of policy arguments in teachers' negotiations

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, negotiators tell different stories to each other in which their interests, their issues, their positions, and the possibilities they envision are located. By concentrating on these stories and how they are told, negotiators invent new stories and new understandings that become the bases for their agreements (Cobb 1993;Keough 1987;Putnam 1985;Putnam, Wilson, and Turner 1990;Roloff and Jordan 1992). The positioning of parties in the discourse facilitates different kinds of stories, some of which open up the possibilities for innovation and learning (Cobb 1993).…”

Section: Relating and Revaluingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The love for three oranges or: What did we miss about Ms. Follett in the library?

Kolb

1995

Negot J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In a review of research focusing on ne! ;otiation from an argumentatioddebate perspective, Keough (1987) conclrided that analyses of arguments ought to play a wider role in negotiatiori research.…”

Section: Research Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%