Search results

This paper aims to describe the statistical arguments produced by third-grade students (8–9 years old) and to identify the teaching support for collective argumentation in a lesson based on data comparison. A Lesson Study Group researched and planned the lesson around a problem from the official mathematics textbook.

From an interpretative perspective, we have analysed the arguments produced by students in a situation where they should give reasons to support or refute some claims based on data analysis. We looked at how some teaching support strategies promoted collective argumentation.

The strategies outlined in the lesson plan enabled the teacher to foster collective argumentation, encouraging students to provide reasoning based on data analysis. The lesson plan served as a means of improving the context presented in the textbook, guiding the development of well-structured teaching, and promoting high-quality teaching practices.

One of the limitations, and future lines of research by the LSG is the deepening of teachers' understanding of the support required for CA in their classrooms so that they can distinguish the components of an argument and their role in and interpretation of the effectiveness of the arguments. In addition, the lesson plan did not consider in depth aspects such as the argumentative processes of the students, nor did it implement specific actions to promote argumentation. Addressing these limitations would be interesting and is necessary, considering that teachers still do not understand the key role of argumentation in learning and that the mastery of CA strategies is still a challenge for initial teacher training and for professional development programs for teachers.

For research purposes, evidence is presented of the types of teacher support in collective argumentation in a comparative task of two dot plots. For teaching purposes, these types of support can be pointed out within Lesson Study Groups and included in lesson plans, allowing discussions and base-data argumentation.

The research has social implications in civic development, educational inclusion, and adaptation to technological and pandemic changes, with a focus on inferential statistical reasoning and the crucial role of the teacher in facilitating collective argumentation in the online school classroom.

The study enriches knowledge about the potential of Lesson Study and the possibilities of planned online lessons to develop professional learning on collective argumentation with data, as exemplary teaching practices that should be widely shared.

This paper develops a typology of argumentation strategies used in lobbying. Unlike in other strategic communication functions such as crisis or risk communication, such typologies have not been proposed in the sub-field of public affairs.

The article synthesises the strategic communication, political communication and policy studies literature and employs exchange theory to explain the communicative-strategic exchange in public affairs. It showcases its explanatory potential with illustrative examples from Big Tech lobbying.

The paper describes that categories of argumentation strategies that a public affairs professional will choose are based on the contingency of the issue, policy objective and lobbying objective. The descriptive typology will require empirical testing to develop further.

The paper describes how public affairs professionals influence public policy through their argumentation strategies, which sheds light on the usually opaque activities of lobbying.

The proposed typology is the first of its kind for the field of public affairs. Beyond, it contributes communication-scientific insights from a rhetorical tradition to strategic communication research and other social science fields where lobbying is studied, e.g. policy studies.

This paper is intended as an original contribution to researching ESG from a PR perspective, as well as offering a case study of the use of letters as a mode of corporate communication.

The methodology is interdisciplinary but is centred on a critical discourse analysis of the organizational rhetoric on ESG in the annual letters of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink from 2018 to 2023. The article also considers the content of the BlackRock letters alongside the campaign rhetoric deployed by opponents to ESG over the same period.

The analysis of the letters showed up a difference in tempo and tone between the courteous, collaborative and somewhat “corporate” style of text in the Fink letters and the more urgent and confrontational tone of opponents that adopted a populist line of argumentation against ESG in general and Larry Fink and BlackRock in particular.

While advantages can accrue to CEOs and corporations for speaking out on issues, there are also perils awaiting in the contemporary environment for opinion. The findings suggest it is also important to gauge the intensity of cultural and political division in society when speaking out on contentious issues and make a judgement on whether to proceed based on that analysis. Moreover, in countries where the middle ground of public opinion has eroded, ideology and cultural affiliations can prevail instead of openness to argument and counter-argument on topics such as climate change.

The paper presents a fresh case study of a CEO who has been prominent in shaping the discourse on ESG, which has itself become is a matter of contemporary relevance to public relations. The findings offer original insights that are additive to existing guidance and criteria for CEOs deciding to speak out on issues on behalf of their organizations.

The credibility crisis of science is a growing topic of investigation. This study approaches the problem from the sustainability of the scholarly communication system by merging argumentation with information science.

Coding and content analysis drawing from a well-established textual argumentative tradition; a novel non-textual approach to complex communication and, an overlooked definition of sustainable information, were applied to 34 research works. The retrieval was carried out using Inciteful, a tool exploring literature networks. Additional information, such as keywords, mapping to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and citations were acquired through the OpenAlex API. Operationalisation of concepts from the theoretical framework underpinned the selection and analysis of documents.

Scholars virtually involve peers, funding agencies, research councils, policymakers, experts, practitioners and representatives of the public in their formal written production. The described coalitions are occasional, while the needed ones are deep. Three forms of scholarly communication were found: traditional, dialogical and complex depending on the involved audiences. The sample tells us about the sustainability of the scientific communication system and the impact it may have on the public construction of imaginaries of science.

This investigation frames scholars, their products and societies as intertwined dialogical entities constantly communicating and impacting each other. Direct and indirect forms of scholarly communications are addressed too, showing how poor sustainability in these processes may entail a failure to reach different layers of societies.

All four propositions, assumptions (A), presumptions (P), suppositions (S), and presuppositions (PS), are, in general, part of human language and its usage, usually studied under the domain of linguistics. Critical thinking, as we understand in these volumes, is critical analysis of human language and its linguistics and narratives and arguments, which freely or spontaneously use A, P, S, and PS. These in turn are composed of signs, symbols (e.g., the alphabet) that bear meanings (semantics), messages and information (informatics), and motivation and persuasion via argumentation (pragmatics). We elaborate on these in this appendix.

Our major thesis here is the epistemological quasi necessity of A, P, S, and PS, which we freely and spontaneously use in linguistics, informatics, semantics, semeiotics, and pragmatics in our day-to day discussions, dialog, research, teaching, conversations, and conventional rationalizations. These can be both good from the viewpoint of transparency and honesty, opacity, and human exchange information asymmetry. They are dangerous since such A, P, S, and PS could be based on false dichotomies of man/Nature, male/female, truth/falsehood, objectivity/subjectivity, riches/poverty, equality/inequality, and the like; most of the negative aspects of such dichotomies are being used for self-serving, profit-maximizing, wealth-accumulating, poverty-perpetuating, and socially polarizing purposes. Human Anthropocene history is dotted with them, especially in the developmental context of industrialization and economic infrastructure development.

Hence, the vital necessity of critical thinking for critical self-examination, especially in current MBA curricula. All the three volumes of this book on critical thinking are expressly designed for this purpose.

This study aims to explore scientific discourses on vaccination in YouTube comments using the Connectivism theory as a foundational guide in the inquiry of understanding knowledge seeking and sharing. The authors sought to understand how individuals share and seek information by using external sources through URL links to validate their arguments.

Using content analysis, the authors extracted and analysed 584 random comments with URL links from eight YouTube videos scientifically addressing the purpose of vaccines. The comments were coded by stance (pro, anti, and neutral) and the type of resource to observe how their links were used.

The results showed that URL links were composed of quotes, questions, and opinions. Many sources came from research papers, conspiracy websites, or other videos. Some of the comments did not accurately reflect the information from research papers and showed little scientific reasoning. This suggests the need for critical evaluation among individuals when finding information online.

The findings can be expanded to explore different types of information literacy practices in the comment section of social media for both informal and formal environments.

YouTube is useful in fostering scientific discourse and information-seeking/sharing practices among individuals. However, considering the inaccuracy of content deliverance, educators and individuals will need to consider how to teach/conduct information literacy skills when implementing social media for educational purposes.

Only a few studies have conducted research on comments using URL links, the originality of sources and how the sources were used in argumentation.

In recent years, the acronym VUCA has gained traction in strategic communication (SC) as an umbrella term that summarizes the recurrent challenges (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) of digital communication environments. However, an integrated reflection on how the VUCA dimensions facilitate a deeper understanding of specific digitalization challenges and how to navigate through these challenges is lacking. This article aims to explore and substantiate the descriptive (how) and prescriptive (how to) potential of VUCA for SC under digitalization conditions.

We first provide a systematic discussion of the four VUCA dimensions based on the general strategy literature. While their descriptive value is undisputed, prescriptive advice on how to respond to these challenges is contradictory. We substantiate this observation in a second empirical step based on problem-centered interviews with strategic communicators at the agency and corporate levels.

Our findings reveal that VUCA facilitates a systematic mapping of digitalization challenges consistently identified by professionals. The proposed strategic responses, however, remain contradictory at the theoretical and empirical levels. Hence, we propose the VUCA radar as a comprehensive descriptive and prescriptive framework.

The radar provides (a) a systematic overview of recurrent digitalization challenges to SC at the industry and practice levels and (b) prescriptive advice on how to navigate through these challenges by balancing contradictory strategic responses at the levels of vision, understanding, clarity and agility.

In today’s digital economy, it is very important to cultivate digital professionals with advanced interdisciplinary skills. The purpose of this paper is that universities play a vital role in this effort, and research teams need to use the synergistic effect of various educational methods to improve the quality and efficiency of personnel training. For these teams, a powerful evaluation mechanism is very important to improve their innovation ability and the overall level of talents they cultivate. The policy of “selecting the best through public bidding” not only meets the multi-dimensional evaluation needs of contemporary research, but also conforms to the current atmosphere of evaluating scientific and technological talents.

Nonetheless, since its adoption, several challenges have emerged, including flawed project management systems, a mismatch between listed needs and actual core technological needs and a low rate of conversion of scientific achievements into practical outcomes. These issues are often traced back to overly simplistic evaluation methods for research teams. This paper reviews the literature on the “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates” policy and related evaluation mechanisms for research teams, identifying methodological shortcomings, a gap in exploring team collaboration and an oversight in team selection criteria.

It proposes a theoretical framework for the evaluation and selection mechanisms of research teams under the “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates” model, offering a solid foundation for further in-depth studies in this area.

Research progress on the Evaluation Mechanism of Scientific Research Teams in the Digital Economy Era from the Perspective of “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates.”

Given the rising complexities around organizational resilience, this study identifies and explains the critical enablers of developing organizational resilience (OR). It offers logical reasoning into the interactions and interdependencies among the identified elements with the help of a hierarchical model of the antecedents of OR.

This paper deployed a mixed methodology research design. Firstly, critical enablers of OR are identified from the literature review. Second, contextual relationships and interactions between the enablers are examined using modified total interpretive structural modeling to derive a hierarchical model among the antecedents that characterize OR. Lastly, a survey study including industry experts is used to statistically verify the model links.

Developing resilience lies at the intersection of organization science and strategic management, involving the interaction of factors within an organization’s strategic behaviors, organizational practices, and people processes. The study identifies twelve antecedents of OR. The resultant interpretive hierarchical model helped decipher internal relationships among the antecedents. The proposed model helps determine how organizations move through different phases (before, during, and after) of turbulences and how organizational resilience helps overcome negative spirals.

This research is original and refreshing in its attempt to necessitate resilience as a processual characteristic needed to survive, thrive, and transform amidst business tensions. The hierarchical model of antecedents garners a better understanding of how their interactions and interdependencies help organizations enhance their capacity to adapt and build resilience in organizational systems and processes. It answers questions of “what,” “how,” and “why” relevant to theory building in OR.

Theories are crucial for addressing research questions and advancing the boundaries of knowledge. However, in the field of strategic management, the existence of diverse schools of thought from various disciplines, including economics, politics, and sociology, poses significant challenges for researchers seeking to develop theories for argumentation and theorization. In this study, we have conceptualized a novel approach to selecting an appropriate theory for addressing specific research questions.

Thought experiment, disciplined imagination, and a conceptual examination of a diverse set of theories.

Because the central focus in the field of strategic management revolves around how firms achieve sustainable high performance, a research question should initially clarify the fundamental phenomenological issues it aims to address. Subsequently, the process of problematization should identify the ontological assumptions and premises that establish a connection between the research question and existing theories. Finally, the identification and abstraction of rhetorical concepts derived from these assumptions and premises lead to theory selection criteria, namely connectedness, reliability, parsimoniousness, and falsifiability.

Although we believe that our model for theory selection is generalizable to a wide range of management disciplines, we have primarily focused on its application in the field of strategic management. Future work could validate and further explore the applicability and effectiveness of this model in selecting appropriate theories for conceptual development in other domains.

While many researchers have proposed methods for writing theoretical papers, few have provided suggestions specifically focused on theory selection. This paper stands out as one of the few that not only attempts to address this gap but successfully develops a comprehensive model for theory selection.