Affiliations: [a] Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburg, PA 15260, U.S.A. | [b] Graduate School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, U.S.A.
Abstract: Organizations, in our view, are epistemological systems, bodies of knowledge which are the accumulation of past debates with regard to goals, purposes, and beliefs. Policies, plans and strategies are current dialogues intended to change that corpus of knowledge. Consequently, a theory of argumentation is a requisite paradign for studying organizations and for solving their problems. This paper explores this point of view. The question, “How can we uncover policy arguments and assess their structure, strengths and weaknesses?” is posed and, drawing on recent developments in logical theory, some preliminary answers are provided. In summary, we see stakeholders as the basic logical entities of organizations. Assumptions are made about the status and behavior of these entities and these assumptions are treated as claims in an argument. The support for a claim is provided by data and warrents which are either stated explicitly or derived through the logical process of retroduction. The resulting collection of claims, data and warrants generally contain inconsistencies which may, in turn, be studied by means of plausibility analysis. The paper develops a logic adequate to carry out this perspective and identifies a series of research questions. The outcome is a new approach to policy and planning.
