NEGOTIATING A CHANGE IN THE ARGUMENTATION COURSE: TEACHING
COOPERATIVE ARGUMENT
Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter 2000, Vol. 36 Issue 3, 105-119
David E. Williams, Associate Professor at Texas Tech University and . Brian R. McGee,
Texas Tech University.
While less common than was once the case, the argumentation or argumentation and
debate course in American colleges and universities is often taught as a scaled-down
version of a tutorial in intercollegiate debate. Although textbooks that de-emphasize
traditional debate formats have increased in popularity, many instructors still provide
students with basic instruction in policy or value debate, where they are introduced to a
version of the National Debate Tournament (NDT), Cross Examination Debate
Association (CEDA), or parliamentary debate format. Students are then encouraged to
compete with each other in debate rounds where a win-loss decision is announced and a
grade is issued.
This approach to the course seems sensible enough. Intercollegiate debate has a long
history of providing valuable experience to student competitors (e.g., Colbert & Biggers,
1985; Colbert, 1987; Matlon & Keele, 1984), and non-forensics students would
seemingly benefit from this instruction as well. But the argumentation course would be
bolstered by a dual focus on possibilities for argumentation that will de-emphasize the
competitive component of the course without seeking to eliminate that component
entirely. The competitive element of debate instruction should be balanced with
recognition of the need to foster competencies in cooperation, compromise and consensus
building that may not be adequately addressed by the traditional debate formats. We will
suggest that by including a unit on negotiation, argumentation instructors can provide
their students with instruction and activities of clear potential benefit for public-sphere
deliberation and professional development.
While many of the research, argument construction, and refutation skills used in
negotiation have analogues to those required for debate, a negotiation unit emphasizes for
students how argumentation is potentially consistent with cooperation and outcomes of
mutual benefit. As Gerald I. Nierenberg (1995) states in the introduction to his book, The
Art of Negotiating.
A competitive spirit is necessary but does not have to be divisive. In fact quite the
opposite will happen... instead of creating a rift, each negotiator's competence will
enhance the other's, and result in the achievement of a common goal. Competition then
becomes a cooperative effort. (viii)
This cooperative perspective requires a set of argumentation skills that is not typically
emphasized in the traditional argumentation course.
The move toward viewing argument as a cooperative enterprise is anything but new and
is consistent with more recent challenges to the competitive focus of debate education.
Gordon Mitchell (1998) recently criticized the "purely preparatory pedagogy" of current
intercollegiate debate practice. His essay suggested that a focus on learning the intricacies
of academic debate as a means for preparing students for future activities can be limiting.
His call was to move beyond tournament competition and use argumentation in the public
sphere (e.g., public debates, debate outreach, and public advocacy). Mitchell noted that
"approaches that are purely oriented toward preparation place students and teachers
squarely in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen, a peripheral space marked off from the
field of social action" (43). Mitchell's concern was with the practice of intercollegiate
debate tournaments, but his concern is also applicable to the argumentation course. An
exclusive focus on in-class debates can limit students' perception of the versatility of
skills they are developing. While the negotiation process might be viewed by some as
still competitive, it offers an account of argumentative practice with a more cooperative
framework and purpose, where a mutually satisfactory outcome is more likely. If
instruction in argumentation is to include a public-sphere component, then the
development of cooperative argumentation skills will enhance the ability of participants
in public for a to take seriously a variety of perspectives in exchanges with auditors.
Although the negotiation exercise by itself does not necessarily take argumentation
instruction out of the classroom, it does move the focus beyond formal debate and
competition. What follows is a review of the literature dealing with competitive and
cooperative approaches to argumentation. The defense of cooperative argumentation
serves as the theoretical foundation for incorporating negotiation into the course design.
The essay then reviews some primary concepts concerning the role of argumentation in
negotiation and explains how to conduct the negotiation unit.
COOPERATIVE ARGUMENTATION
Deborah Tannen (1998) is one of many scholars who has argued that U.S. public culture
has become increasingly strident and adversarial. From this perspective, public argument
today is singularly mean-spirited, nasty, and unpleasant, with partisan advocates
defending their own positions and denouncing those of their opponents with the zeal of
what Hoffer (1942/1963) once called the "true believer." While "meaningful incivility"
and the passionate defense of dearly held positions are not without defenders (e.g.,
Darsey, 1997), the prevailing tendency is to denounce the competitive spirit of
vituperative partisan disputes. The complaints about partisanship in the gun control
debate following the Littleton, Colorado, tragedy are only one manifestation of this
tendency.
This critique of contemporary public culture is reminiscent of an earlier debate in
communication studies over the Vietnam War-era "rhetoric of confrontation," when
rhetoricians struggled to respond to rhetorical forms and argument strategies for which
the rhetorical theory of the time seemed inadequate (e.g., Booth, 1974; Haiman, 1967;
Windt, 1972). While sometimes sympathetic with the motives of those employing
confrontational rhetoric, scholars like Scott and Smith (1969) admitted that "academic
rhetorics have been for the most part instruments of established society, presupposing the
'goods' of order, civility, reason, decorum, and civil or theocratic law" (7). In other words,
rhetoricians have been (and largely still are) likely to defend decorum and reasonable
deliberation-what Matthew Arnold (1932) would have called "sweetness and light"-and
to label confrontational tactics as irrational or worse. For example, Windt condemned the
radicalism of the anti-war Yippies as no better than "those who conducted the [Vietnam]
war" by using napalm against the civilian Vietnamese population (Windt, 1972, 14).
Other exemplars of a disciplinary disdain for confrontational strategies include
Rothwell's (1971) dislike of verbal obscenity in public discourse and Baskerville's (1963)
description of the "far right" as "irresponsible" and the domain of "crackpots." (198-199)
A quick review of argumentation and debate textbooks in communication studies
published over the past three decades initially suggests that textbook writers have shared
the disciplinary preference for cooperative, reasoned deliberation over competitive,
confrontational, winner-take-all argumentation. Ziegelmueller, Kay, and Dause (1990)
maintain that adhering to certain "fundamental principles of argumentation" will lead to
"enlightened understanding and decision-making" (12). Freeley (1990) describes debate
as involving "reasoned arguments for and against a given proposition" and leading to
"reasoned decisions" (3). While some textbook authors define debate primarily as
"competitive advocacy" (Klopf & Cambra, 1979, 3; see Bartanen & Frank, 1991), other
textbooks describe debate as also being a cooperative endeavor (e.g., Colburn, 1972;
Patterson & Zarefsky, 1983; Thompson, 1971). For example, Patterson and Zarefsky
maintain that argument inherently requires the "common goal of making the best
decision," since those who are certain they are right would never bother to enter into an
argument in the first place (1983, 7; see Brockriede, 1975). Whether the emphasis of the
argumentation and debate textbook is on cooperation or competition, a feature shared by
almost all such texts is their focus on debate as helping interlocutors to "decide
rationally," where to be "rational" means that we must reject "emotional decision[s]" and
"personal opinion" in favor of "hard evidence" (Pfan, Thomas, & Ulrich, 1987, 3-4).(n1)
While debate presumes some sort of meaningful disagreement, debaters follow an orderly
procedure intended to produce an outcome consistent with well-known rules for
adjudication. This procedure includes the directive that debaters not commit fallacies of
language, evidence, and reasoning, especially the argumentum ad hominem, or attack on
the person. In describing the benefits of debate, Freeley (1990) makes reference to the
relatively civil examples of U.S. Senators and other government officials, rather than to
more confrontational social movement activists. In short, argumentation and debate
textbooks appear to suggest a distinct preference for decorousness, where emotion is
divorced from reason; disagreement stops short of negative assessments of the character
of the opponent; and competition does not become the ultimate goal of the debaters, who
must cooperate if their debate is to be productive. The decline in sales of traditional
argumentation and debate textbooks that concentrate solely on tournament debating may
provide continuing evidence of a general disciplinary preference for reduced emphasis on
competition.
Of course, not all scholars believe that the traditional argumentation and debate textbook
or course should marginalize competition and valorize cooperation. Many students of
argumentation during the twentieth century have defended the competitive character of
intercollegiate and/or public debate against charges that competition is anti-educational
and unproductive, maintaining instead that competition motivates some students to excel
who otherwise would not and that competition can be used as an indicator of educational
progress (e.g., Simerly & McGee, 1991; Wood & Goodnight, 1990). Some academics are
willing to embrace the competitive elements of intercollegiate debate and do not believe
that competition is incompatible with the thoughtful examination of diverse arguments.
As Baird (1928) responded to critics of competitiveness in academic debate, if
"competition in debate will endanger those [liberal] educational values, then the debating
game had better be abandoned. But there is no evidence to prove that those educational
values are seriously threatened" (25). For Baird, competition was necessary to inspire the
"vigorous" and "thorough" preparation of college students for debates, with a resulting
improvement in the quality of deliberation. McKean (1934), in another early defense of
competitive debate against proponents of cooperative approaches, insisted that some
questions do not allow for a resolution that will satisfy everyone. On these questions, he
maintained, there must be winners and losers, since a palatable middle position will not
exist in those cases where an intelligent person "ought never to compromise, ought never
to give way an inch" (McKean, 1934, 234).
Further, despite the language of cooperation often employed in some texts, the
commitment of many textbook authors to cooperative approaches to argumentation is
questionable at best. Gehrke's (1998) review of argumentation and debate texts reveals
that such works often frame "argument within competitive and often combative
metaphors" (77). For example, Ehninger and Brockriede's (1963) classic text describes
testing beliefs by seeing how they withstand "the attacks of an informed opponent," (15)
using what Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have called the "argument is war" metaphor. (4)
Such metaphors, which are common both in popular discourse and argumentation
pedagogy, emphasize competition and marginalize efforts to depict argument as a
cooperative, shared search for answers to common problems. The description of
argument in violent terms as an activity in which there are winners who do violence and
losers who have violence done to them encourages incivility and competition at the
expense of cooperation, rather than suggesting that competition and cooperation can coexist in public argument. While civility is not necessary coterminous with cooperation,
the war metaphor encourages the association of competition with verbal aggression and
hostility.
Perhaps the most explicit recent critique in print of the traditional argumentation and
debate course's emphasis on competition has come from Josina Makau (1990, 1992a,
1992b, 1996). Relying in part on the claim that patriarchal, Western forms of pedagogy
encourage "competition more than cooperation among students" (Wood, 1993, 372; see
Harnack, 1951), Makau maintains that traditional argumentation and debate instruction
encourages a competitive approach antithetical to critical thinking and reasoned
deliberation. As Makau explains, "traditional competitive debate instruction encourages
students to view one another as rivals. Students are taught to seek power over one
another, to use communication to gain advantage over others" (1996, 139). Because often
"competitors' desire to win overshadows their desire to contribute to a just outcome,"
such competition "sometimes discourages, rather than fosters, reasoned decision making"
(1990, 49). Instruction in competitive argumentation typically precludes attempts to find
common ground and mutually satisfactory answers to important questions, since
competition encourages students to value winning over a productive dialogue.
As an alternative, Makau would prefer a classroom experience in which students and
instructors eliminated "all traces of competition" (1992a, 9), with students sharing
evidence and instructors using "non-competitive grading strategies" (1992b, 82). The
cooperative alternative that Makau describes has interlocutors "view opposing advocates
as colleagues potentially capable of enlightening them" (1990, 49). Only with the
adoption of a cooperative approach would seeking the "best assessments or decisions in
any given situation" be possible, since competition interferes with the search for the best
decisions (1990, 49).
Much about Makau's perspective is commendable. At its worst, competition does
intimidate some prospective debaters, dissuading them from engaging in an activity
frequently associated with the health and viability of democratic institutions. Her focus
on creating a safe classroom space in the argumentation and debate course by avoiding
the use of win-loss decisions and urging mutual respect among interlocutors is likely to
encourage students to take the enormous risks involved in staking out controversial
positions in front of their peers. However, contra Makau, we are not convinced that
competition is without value as a unique source of motivation or an indicator of academic
progress. It is uncertain that competition devalues "losers" and glorifies "winners" when
winning students know they may lose a debate to the same opponent(s) at the next
tournament or in-class debate, while losing students realize the next tournament or inclass debate will give them another opportunity to improve. Ideally at least, students
should understand that the win-loss decision is a round-specific judgment made by a
fallible judge or instructor, rather than some assessment of a student's value as an
individual. Further, the frequent willingness of students in competitive debate to make
concessions and to come to mutual agreement on key points, especially in crossexamination periods, suggests that sharing power and cooperation are not wholly absent
from competitive debate rounds and are compatible with the traditional debate format.
When advocates in competitive debates cooperate, as they often do, positing an either-or
choice between competition and cooperation seems unsatisfactory. The example of
competitive NDT and CEDA debate is illustrative, since a debater who repeatedly fails to
cooperate with an opponent's requests for information and/or willfully deceives her or his
opponents for competitive gain eventually will earn an unpleasant reputation or academic
sanction that, ironically, interferes with future competitive success. In short, we believe
that the traditional argumentation course may overemphasize competition, but we are not
convinced that the idea of competitive argument should be banished from the classroom.
Instead, the traditional debate experience should be complemented by a more cooperative
exercise or unit in negotiation.
In addressing the controversy in his era over cooperative discussion versus competitive
debate events, Nichols (1942) wisely observed that, in a world in which competition and
cooperation are often interrelated, training in a variety of argumentation contexts that
emphasize competition and cooperation in varying ways and degrees is desirable. In a
culture that often values competition over cooperation, the very real dangers of an
excessive emphasis on competition as described by Makau justify providing more
opportunities for students in argumentation and debate classes to develop cooperative
argumentation skills. Exercises in negotiation are well suited to developing such skills.
The theoretical justification for a negotiation exercise is hardly new. Older argumentation
and debate texts frequently included extensive development of "discussion," a type of
argumentation that sometimes was distinguished from debate and was typically
characterized as the cooperative search for consensus or, more modestly, a livable
compromise (see, e.g., Gulley, 1942). As described by Ehninger and Brockriede (1963),
discussion is an "intelligent, purposeful interchange of ideas carried on in a
conversational pattern," where "the atmosphere is informal and permissive" and a final
decision is made by the interlocutors themselves, as opposed to decisions following
debates that are made by a third party or parties (9). Negotiation, a specific form of
discussion, employs many argumentation strategies that are shared with formal debate,
and negotiation, if it is to satisfy all participants, ultimately must have a cooperative
purpose, since the mutual gain of all participants is the optimal outcome of negotiation. A
negotiation exercise, therefore, can be an important vehicle for encouraging students to
develop cooperative argumentation skills, as explained below. According to Trompson's
(1944) description of discussion over five decades ago, discussion is an approach to
"thinking cooperatively toward the solution of a common problem," (289) and the
negotiation exercise seems consistent with this spirit.(n2)
Incorporating negotiation into the argumentation and debate course design begins with a
review of the role argumentation plays in negotiation.
ARGUMENTATION IN NEGOTIATION
To illustrate the distinction between competitive and cooperative argumentation where
negotiation is concerned, Walton and McKersie's (1965) typology of negotiation is
employed below. Walton and McKersie identified four types of negotiation: distributive,
integrative, attitudinal, and intraorganizational bargaining. Distributive negotiation is
characterized by fixed sum alternatives. The distributive approach forces opposing
negotiators into a competitive situation where one must win and the other must lose.
Putnam and Jones (1982b) have warned that negotiators using a distributive approach can
perceive a situation as win-lose when a win-win outcome is actually possible.
In contrast, integrative negotiation allows for outcomes benefiting both parties. Putnam
and Jones (1982b) noted that this negotiation style allows for the possibility of goal
alteration, the expansion of outcomes, and sacrifice of some goals. Additionally,
attitudinal structuring and intraorganizational bargaining are both described by Donohue
(1981) as "more cooperative since the interaction generally may not be constrained
initially by fixed potential outcomes" (273).
Attitudinal structuring is negotiation that seeking to alter the relational patterns between
the involved parties. Turner (1990) explains "intraorganizational bargaining" by noting
"the negotiator must obtain consensus with the other party" (54). Therefore,
intraorganizational bargaining seeks internal consensus among the parties involved
before weighing external factors and publics.
Negotiation has not always been perceived as a cooperative process. Rieke and Sillars
(1984) claimed that "in negotiation, the parties are committed to reaching a decision, but
will prefer no decision to one that grants them less than what they consider minimally
acceptable" (41). They choose to focus on the change-seeking function of argument in
negotiation without recognition of how it can include cooperation. In contrast, Crusius
and Channell (1994) suggest that "negotiators must let go of the whole notion of proving
one side right and the other side wrong" (155). In further defense of a cooperative
perspective on negotiation, they specify that "arguing to negotiate aims to resolve-or at
least reduce-conflict to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved" (153).
The instructional use of negotiation as a means for teaching cooperative argument would
dictate a preference for Walton and McKersie's (1965) latter three forms of negotiation,
and in the remainder of this essay we assume the instructor adopts this orientation. Seven
issues will be addressed that account for the most relevant concerns in negotiation
argumentation. We begin with four concepts (research, rules, trust, and deductive
argument) more closely related to standard argumentation course content. Three more
concepts are then offered ("know thyself", expectations, and "bids and concessions") less
typical of the standard argumentation and debate course.
Traditional Concepts in the Argumentation Course
Research is certainly an essential element of preparation in traditional argumentation
instruction. Research also plays an important role in negotiation. However, the practice
and purpose of research is somewhat different in negotiation. The primary difference
between negotiation and debate research is that negotiation research is more focused on
the other negotiator. This practice supplements the traditional gathering of facts and issue
development with information on ones' personally held beliefs, desires, and needs.
Traditional argumentation instruction does not give as much credence to the arguer. This
can help foster identification with the other negotiator, although it can also be used
competitively. "There is a positive reason for amassing information. It makes a wealth of
material in your mind so that you may take advantage of any new development in the
negotiation" (Nierenberg, 1995, 48). Researchers are often advised to explore the past
history, previous transactions, and business ventures of the negotiator they will face.
Extensive background knowledge will facilitate understanding and identification with the
other party.
Preparation for negotiation also necessitates that students learn to review the rules of each
individual negotiation session. Nierenberg (1995) suggests seven basic questions that
must be asked:
1. Are there any penalties for bluffing or providing false information?
2. Are you aware of all interested parties in the negotiation?
3. Any time limit?
4.
5.
6.
7.
Do you want to maintain or change the status quo?
What is the cost of a stalemate?
What means of communication will be used?
Can many items be addressed in the negotiation at once?
This process could be roughly correlated to students learning the procedural obligations
of evidence-oriented or parliamentary debate formats. In the latter case, there is specific
static knowledge the student must learn (e.g. topicality, stock issues, format time limits)
in order to participate in the debate exercise. In negotiation, those rules may vary from
situation to situation. Therefore, it is essential that students learn the practice of
reviewing the rules for each negotiation.
While traditional argumentation and debate instruction may not address trust specifically,
related concepts of ethics and honesty are standard topics for the argumentation course
(e.g., Hollihan & Baaske, 1998; Inch & Warnick, 1998). In negotiation, the issue of trust
is of paramount importance. Trust has (not surprisingly) been correlated with positive
outcomes in negotiation. Turner (1990) notes research showing "that as the negotiator
feels more trusted by constituents, the negotiator feels less tension, he or she has more
flexibility in the negotiations, and feels less of a need to defend his or her own actions to
constituents" (61). He concluded that "low trust from constituents leads to disruptive
behavior or a 'win-lose' approach that may interfere with high joint gains" (61).
Instructors likely will have lectures prepared on ethical responsibility in communication,
given that adherence to such standards is a prerequisite to successful, cooperative
negotiation. That topic should be referenced when discussing negotiation and trust.
Political adversaries in the United States Senate and House of Representatives can
usually be offered as examples of the difficulty arising from a lack of trust. For example,
the impeachment proceeding involving President Clinton was a difficult process because
of the lack of trust exhibited by members of each political party toward each other.
Facilitating trust also necessitates that instructors convey the pitfalls of coercion in
negotiation. Putnam and Jones (1982b) remind us that threats, promises, offers and
concessions are basic argument approaches that can greatly affect the process and
outcome of negotiation. The authors' review of literature found that threats should be
treated as a risky negotiation strategy. Threats can increase conflict (e.g., Guyer &
Rapoport, 1970), and the threatener often has to follow with messages demonstrating a
willingness and ability to follow-up on the threat. Threats also typically lead to additional
coercive strategies, whereas promises induce greater compliance from negotiators. The
use of coercion also clearly hinders the cooperative process and would likely foster a
competitive attitude among participants.
While coercion must be avoided, deductive reasoning maintains its traditional importance
as a form of argument where negotiation is concerned. Mary Ann Renz (1987) offered an
analysis of argumentative form and negotiation strategy in three United Nations Security
Council debates. Her research provided insight into the role of causal correlation and
deduction in real negotiations. She found that causal correlation was virtually ignored by
the negotiators with only six of 625 arguments using that form. (Admittedly, this finding
could certainly be a function of the type of negotiation and the participants.)
If Renz's research can be generalized, then argumentation instructors will see similarities
between in-class debates and negotiation. Deduction was the most prevalent form of
argumentation used by the UN negotiators. Deduction was seen to increase as a
negotiator was put on the defensive and reliance on deduction would be limited as the
defensive position was perceived as less threatening. Renz's research reinforces the
obvious relevance of the traditional argumentation analysis skills (deduction, fallacy,
recognition, etc.) taught in argumentation and debate courses to the practice of
negotiation. This further validates the view that the argumentation course provides
professionally transferable skills and orientations further enhanced through the
negotiation exercise.
Non-Traditional Concepts in Teaching Negotiation
Teaching the negotiation unit will require instructors to expand their class preparations.
The concepts of self-evaluation ("knowthyself'), expectations, and bids and concessions
should be addressed before students are asked to practice their negotiation skills.
Nierenberg (1995) offers a suggestion that is frequently overlooked by those whose work
focuses exclusively on the negotiation process. We are reminded, however, that
preparation is essential and negotiators must begin by adhering to the dictum, "know
thyself:"
A long-range preparation for negotiation must begin with a form of self-evaluation. It
involves an intimate examination of your sense of values, your philosophy of life, it
means, in a sense, taking stock of your intellectual and emotional makeup. (46)
The "know thyself" process is further described as self-reflective, with questions as
general as "what do you want out of life?" and as specific as "can you be easily goaded
into anger?" Donohue (1978) suggests that the most relevant personality traits in
negotiation include: perception of situational cues, enactment of power strategies, and
perception and response to role requirements. These elements should be addressed during
this reflective process. Ideally, this process could take place after students have
participated in some level of traditional in-class debate exercises but before the
negotiation exercises. The students would be equipped with recent experiences in
argumentation to judge how they would react to some of the issues mentioned above.
Peer evaluations from classmates might also assist in this process.
Assessing expectations is another preparatory measure not usually addressed in advance
of traditional debate exercises, but it would be added in the negotiation unit. According to
Donohue (1978) an evaluation of negotiation strategy might be contextually bound. He
offers the maxim, "as the coordination of expectations increases, intense, dysfunctional
conflict arising from situational incompatibilities, decreases" (250). Here, Schelling's
(1960) early advice is sensible: Negotiators should coordinate their expectations by
learning what the other will accept during the process and as an outcome. If desired,
instructors could describe this process as a form of audience analysis able to facilitate
cooperation between interlocutors. Whereas traditional debate will place students in a
position to view the outcome in a win-loss situation, negotiation allows for the possibility
of a range of mutually satisfactory outcomes.
Nierenberg (1995) warns that assessing expectations must be an active process designed
to avoid faulty assumptions. He claims assumptions are a vital part of the negotiation
process, and one is severely limited if her or his own assumptions are not reviewed nor
the others' anticipated. Hidden assumptions are of greatest concern as they can alter the
direction and strategy of negotiation in unproductive ways, since such assumptions could
create misunderstanding and frustration that make resorting to competition more likely.
When given material for the negotiation exercise, students will need to learn to determine
what assumptions they develop and how to critically evaluate those assumptions. They
also need to view the issue from the opponents' viewpoint to determine what assumptions
would be likely.
The proper use of bids and concessions comprises the final essential component of the
negotiation unit. Initial offers (bids) are an argumentation skill unique to negotiation.
Negotiating parties have critical decisions to make prior to the start of the session. The
bid will include the negotiators' initial suggestion for the outcome of the negotiation. The
strength and tone of the bid can vary greatly and convey widely differing messages to the
"opposing side." The negotiator does not simply advocate a position; he or she
demonstrates the importance of that position, and the degree to which the "opponent" will
or should be effected by the position, and the initial likelihood of compromise. Rubin and
Brown (1975) found that extreme initial demands convey to opponents a sense of value
about the proposal and a desire to negotiate without fear of confrontation. An extreme bid
delivered in a cooperative tone yielded trust, while a competitive tone created distrust. In
judging negotiation outcomes, Rubin and Brown's work suggests that stronger initial bids
(larger requests) receive more satisfactory settlements than moderate bids. The bid differs
from the traditional debate exercise because it avoids the win-loss dichotomy. The bid
can be changed throughout the negotiation in order to facilitate a mutually agreeable
decision. In traditional debate concession occurs primarily when a point is either lost or
deemed unimportant.
Concession during the negotiation process is another essential skill to be developed by
the student. Putnam and Jones (1982b) noted that "concessions also signaled
cooperativeness. Negotiators who made positive concessions elicited more cooperation
from opponents and more reciprocal concessions than did bargainers who made negative
or no concessions" (271). However, Putnam and Jones (1982b) believed that concessions
will have less impact on negotiation outcome than strength of initial bid and the pressure
to reach an agreement.
In a study of labor-management negotiations, Putnam and Jones (1982a) found that "a
negotiator's role had a profound effect on the frequency and the structure of bargaining
talk in that negotiators specialized in select strategies" (190). They found that labor
representatives took an offensive position and used more threats and rejections, while
management used defensive tactics such as commitments and self-supporting statements.
These offensive-defensive positions became symmetrical, with each side responding from
its own unchanging position. By contrast, when cooperative gestures were offered, they
were generally reciprocated. Based on this evidence, teaching negotiation skills may
provide a unique resource for encouraging cooperative argumentation.
The negotiation unit can also give the instructor an opportunity to incorporate other
persuasion theory into the argumentation course. Donohue (1981) suggests that
assertiveness instruction and questioning strategies would be beneficial additions to the
class lectures on negotiation. Crusius and Channell (1994) indicate that interpersonal
concepts can be easily added to the argumentation course: 'Just like other aims of
argument, arguing to negotiate requires sound logic and clear presentation of positions
and reasons. However, negotiation challenges our interpersonal skills more than do the
other aims" (7). While cross-examination lectures and reference material will have
already addressed the questioning strategy, assertiveness instruction could be added.
Essentially, the instructor is encouraged to be creative in determining what to add to this
unit.
While this list of strategies available to negotiators is not exhaustive, it does give
argumentation instructors a starting point for the negotiation unit. The actual
implementation of a negotiation unit in a debate course inevitably raises certain practical
issues which we will now explicitly address.
CONDUCTING THE NEGOTIATION UNIT
The
negotiation unit should be scheduled near the end of the semester after in-class debates, if
such debates are a part of the curriculum. As noted previously, much of the instruction
for traditional debate is transferable to negotiation. Therefore, students will be able to
utilize some debate skills further while learning about a new argumentation arena.
Instructors should initially consider devoting two or three class meetings to lecture and
discussion about negotiation. The concepts introduced here might provide the beginning
structure and resources for those lectures. Many of the lecture items (e.g., research) will
complement, but not necessarily duplicate, what students have already learned.
Following a general lecture/discussion of negotiation preparation and argument strategy,
the instructor should provide a means for practicing negotiation. The most direct means
for doing this is to develop a few hypothetical scenarios dealing with labor-management
negotiations or negotiations in alternative dispute resolution sessions where students are
cast in the role of worker or owner. In the case of labor-management negotiations, the
instructor can provide workers with a description of their situation including a pay rate,
work load description, work place description, benefits package, etc. Likewise, managers
can be provided with the same information plus a list of organizational facts including,
projected growth, company earnings, physical plant status and plans for future
development. We suggest that each side be provided at least eight items that describe
their situation. In dyads or groups, the instructor can arrange for mock negotiations to
take place. A couple of abbreviated examples of hypothetical scenarios are provided
below:
Campus Bookstore Dispute
The campus bookstore has an owner and full-time management. Most other employees
are local college students. The workers are growing increasingly distressed over their
working conditions and would like to see some concessions made by the owner and
management to improve working conditions. The owner and management are generally
happy with the way the bookstore has been running and the worker distress surprises
them.
CAMPUS BOOKSTORE OWNER/MANAGERS
1. There is no competition for book sales.
2. The owner and managers have no growth plans.
3. After all bills and salaries are paid, the owner clears $4,000 per month.
4. There has been no change in the store for 15 years.
5. Earnings are stable, but there is constant fear that new competition will emerge.
6. The owner and managers are comfortable with the status quo aside from fear of
future competition.
7. Most employees are short term.
8. The owner does not plan to own the business for more than 10 more years.
WORKERS
1. Workers are paid $5.75 per hour to start.
2. No remodeling of building done in 15 years.
3. Workers think the business is understaffed.
4. Worker duties include: stock, place orders, sales, customer questions/relations,
clean up, and inventory.
5. No insurance plan is offered but workers do receive a reduced rate on purchases at
the store.
6. There is no opportunity to provide input to management/owner.
7. Customers blame workers for things they can not control.
8. Managers frequently are gone during peak hours.
Halloween Party Dispute
On Halloween weekend, the university becomes a gathering place for university and nonuniversity student party-goers. The event is becoming a "tradition" and the administration
is not in favor of this development. The party begins in local taverns and then spills into
the streets. There are frequent arrests and minor disturbances. The students generally
favor this party and do not see the harm that the administration sees.
CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION
1. The party is five years old.
2. It creates a negative reputation for the school in the surrounding community.
3. Sometimes arrests are made.
4. Each year there are injuries.
5. The town has a population of about 30,000 people.
6. The city government does not like the party.
7. Each year thousands of students from other schools come to the party.
8. The university administration fears the party will grow in size each year.
9. Alumni do not like the party.
STUDENT GROUP
1. Students generally like the party.
2. They view it as a tradition.
3. Only a minority (10%) of students disapprove of the party.
4. The student population is 10,000.
5. They are willing to negotiate in order to keep the party.
6. They see the party as a disturbance, nothing worse.
7. Student Government and student media want to keep the parties
8. Most students are not concerned about alumni views; current students think it should
not matter to alumni as the party was not around when most of the alumni were in school.
Hypothetical negotiation scenarios like these are designed to allow students to practice
the argumentation strategies they have just learned. It should be emphasized that they
need to focus on learning how to use argumentation as a cooperative skill. Because of the
hypothetical nature of this exercise, much of the preparation element could not be
practiced. Following the negotiations, students should go through a debriefing where they
discuss their operating assumptions and the degree of trust and cooperation they
witnessed in their opponents. It would be beneficial to videotape these sessions to allow
for student observation of their performance. This could be a graded exercise, but we
suggest that it not be weighted as heavily as the next exercise.
In the next phase of the negotiation unit, the instructor identifies a campus or local (or
larger) event that could reasonably be addressed by negotiation. The ideal event might be
difficult to discover, should be one that includes at least several viable issues on which
informed people might disagree, adequate and accessible background information, and at
least one individual from each side who has received some public attention or is wellknown. It is important that students be able to ascertain quickly the primary issues
involved in the dispute, the developing arguments on each side and some insight (if
possible) into the personalities of the primary actors. This data gathering process will be
easier for students if the event and the primary players have garnered some media
attention.
The instructor should write a negotiation scenario based on the event and assign students
to negotiate for either side. The instructor should provide students with some initial
information, such as a few newspaper articles, as a starting point for their research
efforts. The students should then be assigned the task of researching and preparing for
negotiations. Students can prepare self-report evaluations of themselves and catalogue
information they have gathered. The negotiations can be performed in class or in written
form as a test.
If the negotiations are performed, negotiators can come to agreement on the rules for the
session. They should then proceed to initiate bids and the negotiation process using the
research on oneself, the other negotiator(s), and the facts of the case. Again, it should be
emphasized to students that they will be evaluated on their apparent preparation and
utilization of strategies leading to an acceptable negotiated settlement. These sessions
should also be videotaped for student review.
In the written version of the exercise, students will need to reveal what they discovered
about the people and issues involved, the likely approach the opponent would take in
negotiation, and their likely preferences for how the negotiation should take place. The
students would then offer their initial bids and describe the strategies they would plan to
use in the negotiations with an accompanying rationale for their use. (A sample
negotiation scenario is provided in Appendix 1.)
One of the current authors has used this option for a final exam, with positive results. The
students knew the form that the test would take but expressed some initial uncertainty
about expressing their bids and arguments in written form. Most students needed about
ten to fifteen minutes to process the scenario and formulate their thoughts. Most then
were able to proceed with the exercise and produce their written responses. Evaluative
comments noted that they enjoyed the opportunity to be reflective about their
argumentation and consider the personalities of the people involved as well as the issues
at stake.
Trial and error with this activity have also allowed the author to identify a few of the
most likely difficulties that might arise. In the performed version of the exercise, anxiety
and newness of the exercise can leave some students with mental blocks during their
performance. It can be helpful for students to develop a modified debate brief for the
negotiation exercise. This can serve the purpose of a flow or notes but more importantly
it can serve as a reference for the student about to offer a bid or argue a concession.
In the written version of the exercise, there will be a tendency among some students to
write in detail about the argument to be made in the negotiation to the exclusion of why
those arguments are being made. In the written exercise, the instructor will need to know
why the students are offering specific arguments. It will be quite difficult to evaluate a
students use of assumptions, for example, if the answer does not explain the assumption.
This is easily avoided with clear directions to the student before administering the
scenario.
Students might have difficulty in researching individuals for the scenario. Instructors will
likely need to provide boundaries for this research. For example, key individuals will
likely become annoyed by 25 student requests for interviews on a class project. The
instructor should provide guidance on other means of discerning information about local
individuals that can be useful, but not intrusive.
Finally, grading of this activity might need some elaboration. The prepared brief (if used)
on the relevant issues can be incorporated into the grading scheme although the majority
of the grade should be based on the oral presentation. A distinction can be made between
the creation of briefs and the actual blending of that information into the negotiation
session in an effective manner. Creating the brief might move the student toward a "C"
grade but no higher if they are not used or simply read verbatim. The more
extemporaneous use of the briefs such that they are only used as reference can move the
grade higher. Students will learn more from the oral performance of the activity if they
view the videotape as a class, with instructor commentary and debriefing, and then
receive a detailed written evaluation from the instructor. Admittedly, it will be difficult to
grade some elements such as trust and cooperation. These issues should be discussed
during the debriefing allowing students to compare insights without the consequence of
grade reduction. Trust and cooperation should only affect the grade if obvious deceit or
trickery is evidenced by the instructor.
This essay has sought to offer instructors of argumentation and debate courses a means
for teaching professionally relevant and applicable skills beyond those taught in formal
debates. Negotiation is offered as a practice that is based in argumentation, but seeks a
cooperative practice and outcome. The practice of negotiation both serves as a good
compliment to traditional debate instruction and helps demonstrate the transferability of
argumentation skills to more informal situations in which consensus or compromise is the
primary objective for the interlocutors. The negotiation unit also allows for instructor
creativity with regard to persuasion, interpersonal, and psychological concepts that could
be added to the instruction.
The use of negotiation in the argumentation and debate classroom is one means of
introducing students to the concept of cooperative argumentation. This theoretical and
practical addition to the course will help students as they enter business and civic
situations that require a negotiated settlement. The skills developed in a traditional course
format would be complemented with the cooperative perspective's focus on mutually
agreed conclusions and benefiting from the other's knowledge and expertise. As our
culture is criticized as become overly adversarial, the cooperative perspective can teach
students how to reach compromise with less conflict. This unit is not meant to replace inclass debates. However, negotiation does provide a useful extension and application of
the skills that are learned during in-class debates.
(n1) Not everyone agrees that reasonable, rational argumentation would exclude reliance
on emotion. See Garrett (1993), Makau (1990b, 1992), and McGee (1998).
(n2) The history of "discussion" is beyond the scope of this essay. Several scholars
defended discussion at one time as a necessary prerequisite to debate, while others
described discussion as a laboratory exercise or competitive event of equal or greater
pedagogical value when compared to debate. For whatever the reason, interest in the
comparison of discussion and debate appears to have declined in the 1960s and 1970s,
with discussion eventually mentioned more often by small group communication scholars
than by students of argumentation. On discussion and debate, see Baird (1928), Ehninger
and Brockriede (1963), McKean (1934), Nichols (1942), Shepard (1955), Thompson
(1979), and Thonssen (1939).
REFERENCES
Arnold, M. (1932). Culture and anarchy (J. D. Wilson, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Baird, A. C. (1928). Public discussion and debate. Boston: Ginn & Co.
Bartanen, M. D., & Frank, D. A. (1991). Debating values. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick.
Baskerville, B. (1963). The cross and the flag: Evangelists of the far right. Western
Speech, 27, 197-206.
Booth, W. C. (1974). Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Brockriede, W. (1975). Where is argument? Journal of the American Forensic
Association, 11, 179-182.
Colbert, K. (1987). The effects of CEDA and NDT debate on critical thinking. Journal of
the American Forensic Association, 23, 194-201.
Colbert, K., & Biggers, T. (1985). Why should we support debate? Journal of the
American Forensic Association, 21, 237-240.
Colburn, C. W. (1972). Strategies for educational debate. Boston: Holbrook.
Crusius, T. W., & Channell, C. E. (1995). The aims of argument: A brief rhetoric.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Darsey, J. (1997). The prophetic tradition and radical rhetoric in America. New York:
New York University Press.
Donohue, W. A. (1981). Analyzing negotiation tactics: Development of a negotiation
interact system. Human Communication Research, 7, 273-287.
Donohue, W. A. (1978). An empirical framework for examining negotiation processes
and outcomes. Communication Monographs, 45, 249-257.
Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Freeley, A.J. (1990). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision
making (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Garrett, M. M. (1993). Pathos reconsidered from the perspective of classical Chinese
rhetorical theories. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79, 19-39.
Gehrke, P.J. (1998). Teaching argumentation existentially: Argumentation pedagogy and
theories of rhetoric as epistemic. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 76-86.
Gulley, H. (1942). Debate versus discussion. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 28, 305-307.
Guyer, M., & Rapoport, A. A. (1970). Threat in a two-person game. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 11-25.
Haiman, F. S. (1967). The rhetoric of the streets: Some legal and ethical considerations.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 53, 99-114.
Harnack, R. V. (1951). Competition and cooperation. Central States Speech Journal, 3(1),
15-20.
Hoffer, R. (1963). The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New
York: Time. (Original work published 1942)
Hollihan, T. A., & Baaske, K. T. (1998). Arguments and arguing.' The products and
process of human decision making. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. (1997). Critical thinking in communication: The use of reason
in argument (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Klopf, D. W., & Cambra, R. E. (1979). Academic debate: Practicing argumentative
theory (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Morton.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Makau,J. M. (1996). Notes on communication education and social justice.
Communication Studies, 47, 135-141.
Makau, J. M. (1992a). Raising consciousness in the classroom. Paper presented at the
Second National Communication Ethics Conference, Kalamazoo, MI.
Makau, J. M. (1992b). Revisioning the argumentation course. Women's Studies in
Communication, 15, 79-91.
Makau, J. M. (1990). Reasoning and communication: Thinking critically about
arguments. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Matlon, R. J., & Keele, L. M. (1984). A survey of participants in the National Debate
Tournament, 1947-1980. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20, 194-205.
McGee, B. R. (1998). Rehabilitating emotion: The troublesome case of the Ku Klux
Klan. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 173-188.
McKean, D. D. (1934). Debate or conference? Quarterly Journal of Speech, 20, 222-236.
Mitchell, G. R. (1998). Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academ.ic
debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 41-60.
Nichols, A. (1942). The discussion-debate duality. Southern Speech Bulletin, 7, 100-102.
Nierenberg, G. I. (1995). The art of negotiating. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Patterson, J. W., & Zarefsky, D. (1982). Contemporary debate. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Pfau, M., Thomas, D. A., & Ulrich, W. (1987). Debate and argument: A systems
approach to advocacy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. S. (1982a). Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of
bargaining interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 171-191.
Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. S. (1982b). The role of communication in bargaining. Human
Communication Research, 8, 262-280.
Renz, M. A. (1987). Argumentative form and negotiating strategy in three United Nations
Security Council debates. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 166-180.
Rieke, R. D., & Sillaxs, M. O. (1984). Argumentation and the decisionmaking process
(2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co.
Rothwell, j. D. (1971). Verbal obscenity: Time for second thoughts. Western Speech, 35,
231-242.
Rubin, J., & Brown, B. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation.
New York: Academic Press.
Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press
Scott, R. L., & Smith, D. K. (1969). The rhetoric of confrontation. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 55, 1-8.
Shepard, D. W. (1955). Some observations on high school discussion. Speech Teacher, 4,
191-195.
Simerly, G., & McGee, B. R. (1991). A conceptual schema for assessing the educational
function of a forensics program. Speech and Theatre Association of Missouri Journal, 21,
5-14.
Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York:
Random House.
Thompson, W. N. (1979). The early history of the National Contest in Public Discussion.
Communication Education, 28, 104-109.
Thompson, W. N. (1971). Modern argumentation and debate: Principles and practices.
New York: Harper & Row.
Thompson, W. N. (1944). Discussion and debate: A re-examination. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 30, 288299.
Thonssen, L. (1939). The social values of discussion and debate. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 25, 113-117.
Turner, D. B. (1990). Intraorganizational bargaining: The effect of goal congruence and
trust on negotiator strategy use. Communication Studies, 41, 54-75.
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An
analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Windt, T. O., Jr. (1972). The diatribe: Last resort for protest. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
58, 1-14.
Wood, J. T. (1993). Diversity & commonality: Sustaining their tension in communication
courses. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 367-380.
Wood, R. V., & Goodnight, L. (1990). Strategic debate (4th ed.). Lincolnwood, IL:
National Textbook.
Ziegelmueller, G., Kay, J., & Danse, C. (1990). Argumentation: Inquiry and advocacy
(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
APPENDIX 1 NEGOTIATION SCENARIO O'HAIR SHUTTERS
You will be negotiating for either "All Neighbors United" or O'Hair Shutters. You
choose. O'Hair is a shutter manufacturing company located in Lubbock, Texas.
Negotiations (hypothetically) will take place between the company and a group known as
"All Neighbors United, Inc." All Neighbors United developed when O'Hair announced
that it would be using an incinerator to burn its wood debris.
O'Hair had previously used other means of disposal for the wood debris including
recycling and allowing a particle board company to haul away the material. However,
O'Hair determined that using a particle trench burner would be the most efficient means
of disposing of the waster. In March 1996 O'Hair put a legal notice in the Avalanche
Journal newspaper indicating its plan to use the burner. The Texas Natural Resource
Commission (TNRC) granted O'Hair a temporary burning permit to operate the
incinerator on a limited basis.
All Neighbors United quickly developed in protest to the planned use of the incinerator.
The group claimed that the burner would put dangerous chemicals in the air that could
cause breathing problems for area citizens and children who attend a nearby elementary
school. The group also claimed that O'Hair could return to recycling the debris and that
would be a better option that burning.
All Neighbors United, in April, filed a lawsuit against the TNRC in response to the
temporary permit that was granted to O'Hair. In May the group tried, unsuccessfully, to
get the Lubbock Zoning Board of Adjustment to overturn a decision that granted O'Hair
the opportunity to use the incinerator.
You are to assume that the negotiation is to take place in late May. You should tell me
which side you will be negotiating for and then explain all that you have done to prepare
for the negotiation and which strategies you would employ in the negotiation and why.
Good Luck.
[This scenario was accompanied by eight newspaper articles about the O'Hair situation.]