1) Eisenberg (2000) contended that “respectful dialogue among differences in perspective is the best choice we have for perpetuating both individuality and community, difference and cohesion” (p. 118), and Fairhurst (2000) argued that such dialogue is often the result of academic skirmishes, like those that occur during the review process among authors, reviewers, and editors.
By promoting dialogue not merely as a means to an end, but also an end itself, these authors (and all of this week’s readings) clearly demonstrated to me the organizational communication discipline’s unique respect and appreciation for multiperspectivalism.
- How might newcomers like us and those established scholars to whom we look up form an alliance within our respective disciplines to challenge some of the structural and cultural barriers to multiperspectivalism?
2) Krone (2000) discussed some of the challenges and risks associated with becoming multiperspectival in graduate school.
- In what ways does our ability to explore and express our scholarly identities depend upon the creation of a “safe” educational environment in which to respectfully debate diverse opinions?
- Do you feel safe to express who you are here at UNL? Why or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment