Scientific Argument in Organizational Crisis Communication: The Case of Exxon

Abstract

Scientific research and development is, for many organizations, key to survival. Organizations depend upon science to help create products and services that successfully compete with similar organizations. Beyond creation or refinement of products and services, however, role of science as a tool for maintaining social legitimacy of organizations facing controversy. For example, crisis at Three Mile Island resulted in a reexamination of entire nuclear industry in United States. In describing ineptitude of nuclear power industry's initial response to crisis, Farrell and Goodnight (1981) identify a decline in the practical art of rhetoric. Dionisopoulos and Crable (1988) contend that future of nuclear energy in this country depended upon scientists both inside and outside nuclear industry engaging in an extended public relations campaign to convince public first, that industry had identified and systematically resolved causes of Three Mile Island crisis, and second, that nuclear energy was vital to country's future. Dependence upon science can be limited to legitimacy of a single corporation or product. For instance, when Food and Drug Administration reported that Rely tampons were linked to toxic shock syndrome, Proctor & Gamble hired a group of independent scientists, physicians, microbiologists, and epidemiologists to work with their own scientists in an effort to challenge government's findings as inconclusive. When this group was unable to give Procter & Gamble executives information they so desperately needed, company voluntarily pulled Rely product from market (Fink, 1986, p. 197). These examples suggest that a debate involving scientific evidence can and often does occur during and after an organizational crisis. Inherent in scientific method of research are a series of standard operational procedures endorsed by generations of scientists to enhance likelihood that what offered as scientific evidence accurate. However, as Fisher (1978) explained, science must remain consistent with 'common-sense experience of social reality'. Hence, for science to be practical, as in case of organizational crises, interpretation and application of findings to social exigences are essential. This interpretation and application, along with scrutiny of tangible research procedures, generate a discourse which Prelli (1989) suggests is accepted or rejected on grounds of its reasonableness--given issue at stake, knowledge conditions of scientific community, and perceived expertise |ethos~ of makers of claims. Of particular interest to this study role of ethos in determining reasonableness of scientific argument. Specifically, this study explores question, to what extent can organizations adhere to norms of scientific ethos when defending their products and procedures during times of crisis? To answer this question, I offer a case study in which a test of ethical norms for scientific community applied to a sample of scientific arguments offered by Exxon Corporation in response to Valdez oil spill. Accordingly, I first describe context of Valdez disaster in terms of an organizational crisis. Next, I describe nature of scientific argument and norms of scientific ethos. These norms are then applied to several speeches delivered by CEO of Exxon. Finally, I offer an explanation of how and why a complimentary relationship between norms and counter norms of scientific ethos an appropriate and realistic standard for effectively measuring ethics of profit seeking organizations engaged in scientific argument during times of crisis. CONTEXT OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL In order to establish context for Exxon's scientific argumentation in wake of Valdez crisis, it essential to offer some boundaries for what I label scientific argument. …