“Missing signposts?”

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is first, to explore communicative practice in conflict resolution in its unitary and pluralistic forms; and second, to highlight ways in which interpersonal conflict negotiation and resolution may be recapitulated in organisational or international experiences of conflict resolution.Design/methodology/approachThe methods of research are qualitative discourse analysis in the new critical paradigm. The approach to the topic is one of reflective interlocution of defined topic areas.FindingsA tension exists between unitary and pluralistic components of rational arguments in organisational communication. This is observable in the claims to relational authenticity in both scientific arguments and in the management of conflict negotiations. The main drivers of this tension are the scalability of arguments and the contexts in which they occur. Determining the ontological validity and mutually understood “reference points” of participant perspectives are essential in reaching understandings that have elements of successful communication, clarity and mutuality.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is theoretical in design and mimetically reflects developments in pedagogy and practice in its designated area.Practical implicationsScientists, media commentators need to be mindful of argumentational bias. Conflict resolution negotiators will have a better understanding of the ethical dynamics of their interaction and processes.Social implicationsAs the title suggests, the article highlights tensions between the unitary and pluralistic components of rational arguments and conflict resolution in organisational communication.Originality/valueThe originality and value of the paper is its analysis and juxtaposition of the communication ethics of rational arguments used by scientists, and conflict resolution negotiators.