Abstract
This article presents an observational case study of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Resource Manager working with community members through a contested project. Using the Aristotelian concepts of ethos, credibility, and character development, I examine ethos appeals the Resource Manager used to align Corps’s sustainability values with the community’s values. Transcribed interviews with community members reveal this alignment evolved through a coconstructed ethos negotiation process between the Resource Manager and the community. The article concludes with rhetorical and pedagogical insights gained from the case study that apply to conflict resolution in organizational communication.
Keywords
A community was in an uproar. A picturesque lake access area could soon be closed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which managed the recreational use area that will be referred to in this article by the pseudonym Grey Cliffs. The community had long used Grey Cliffs as a site for family reunions, picnic gatherings, boating, fishing, and hiking. For generations, families had been building memories at this spot, including summer blueberry picking and family baptisms. Over time, however, Grey Cliffs had become witness to crime, drug use, and environmental degradation. Unauthorized use of all-terrain vehicles had reduced the landscape to muddy hills, causing erosion, loss of plant life, and hazardous slides. Campfires threatened to ignite and burn dried trees and underbrush. Hunters poached deer and other wildlife from these public lands and filled tree trunks with bullets during target practice. The Corps had posted warning signs and other restrictive notices in an effort to curb all of this activity, but they were either destroyed or forcibly removed. Something had to be done, or else the crime would continue to increase, and this beautiful recreational site that the community had loved for so many years would be irreparably damaged.
This article presents a qualitative, observational case study of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Resource Manager, referred to by the pseudonym “David Edwards,” as he tailored persuasive messages to this community to motivate it to help him preserve this public-use area. These messages hinged on Edwards’s creation of a persuasive ethos, which included constructing credibility and character that, ideally, the intended audience would receive well. I connect ethos to concepts of values and identity; these concepts provide a useful theoretical lens for further understanding the complex dynamics of organizational communication in this specific context. Through this case study, I analyze Edwards’s reflective self-narrative to identify the prominent ethos appeals used ultimately to encourage the community to align its environmental values to those of the Corps. I then analyze reflective self-narratives from key community members involved in this conflict to determine how well Edwards accomplished his goals of value alignment, based on community members’ actions to protect and preserve this lake access area. This case study’s findings suggest ways an individual organizational spokesperson can frame ethos appeals to motivate community stakeholders to act.
Following a literature review, I identify types of prominent ethos appeals that the Corps Resource Manager used within the context of an Aristotelian perspective. Excerpts from community members’ reflective self-narratives demonstrate Edwards’s effectiveness in using these strategies. To conclude, I discuss rhetorical insights gained from this research. Parts of this story potentially apply to other sensitive organizational communication conflicts, especially as they relate to culturally diverse audiences.
Literature Review
When the Grey Cliffs conflict reached a crisis point, the Corps and community first approached their discussion from two different value orientations. The Corps wanted its regulations followed in order to ensure environmental sustainability and public safety; the community seemed blind to these issues and wanted simply to use and access this land for recreation freely, as it always had.
Contradictions and Misaligned Values
As scholars have noted, origins of values between organizations such as the Corps and a community as a whole may be different (Lehtimäki et al., 2011), resulting in contradictions that must be addressed in order to accomplish value alignment. For example, asPatterson and Lee (1997)point out when discussing the regulatory discourse surrounding the Kingsley Dam relicensure, governmental language focused on the “technical language of functionalism” (p. 29) while the public “[spoke] in anecdotes about the virtues of a way of life” (p. 29). In this case, values founded in science clashed with those of everyday, lived experiences. WhileLehtimäki et al. (2011)found in their study that sometimes, concrete language denoting facts (p. 445) could be helpful in creatingvalue-neutral communicationthat helped resolve sustainability conflict, these scholars also found that value-neutral communication could limit participants who attempted to highlight ethical concerns unrelated to economic issues (Lehtimäki et al., 2011, p. 445). In other words, the value-neutral communication was not truly value neutral because it privileged the technical language over other diverse voices. These writers raise the question of whether addressing concerns of local people in advance could also prevent the rise of conflict to begin with (p. 447). These community individuals may present slightly different ethical values among themselves, as well, since these values are mediated by personal experience as well as by individual culture and characteristics (Shim & Kim, 2017). The process of negotiating these values and strategic goals can be very difficult between organizations and the public, as a result. Another reason for this is that there is no one way to define the public as a single entity due to thepolyphonyof voices participating in the social construction of discourse (Bakhtin, 1984;Bondi & Yu, 2019;Castelló et al., 2013;Christensen et al., 2011). In organizational communication, this concept of polyphony refers to the need to listen to various stakeholders’ voices, recognize their diversity, and attend to various perspectives when making decisions. Because the public is so diverse, individual rhetors, such as Edwards, must determine ways to construct an ethos that resonates with a particular cultural group. Constructing an effective ethos for a group by addressing the contradictions inhibiting value alignment is a prerequisite for motivating individuals within that group to act.
Ethos and Values Alignment
Simply defined,ethosis the credibility of the speaker (Aristotle, ca. 367-323 B.C.E./2019). However, the concept of ethos presents a lot more complexity when we consider an outsider such as Edwards and his task of constructing a credible ethos to persuade a community of insiders to preserve Grey Cliffs. In Book I of hisRhetoric, Aristotle clarifies that credibility is enhanced by character: “Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him [sic] credible. We believe good men [sic] more fully and more readily than others . . . ” (Aristotle, ca. 367-323 B.C.E./1990, p. 153). As Aristotle discusses a speaker’s character in more detail in Book II of theRhetoric, he clarifies that “good sense, good moral character, and goodwill” will “inspire trust” in the audience (Aristotle, ca. 367-323 B.C.E./1990, p. 161). Since each of these qualities requires goodness, the question remains how a rhetor might demonstrate or construct an ethos of goodness for his or her audience. Goodness can be accomplished through developing character virtues, which Aristotle discusses further in hisNicomachean Ethics(Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./2012).
Contemporary scholars have identified and adapted some of these virtues as they have discussed various dynamics of ethos. For example,Baumlin and Meyer (2018)discuss the process of a rhetor’s constructing an inner self as well as an outward presentation of that self; during this process, the rhetor hopes to display “sincerity, authenticity, and self-consistency” (p. 6).Braet (1992)clarifies that ethos results from the interaction that a speaker has when communicating with an audience: the audience assigns ethos to the speaker, and the speaker argues based on that assigned ethos, and vice versa (p. 311). Because the outward presentation of the self is so important, rhetors must also display an ethos that aligns with the audience’s culture; only then will the audience view the rhetor as having a common and believable connection with it, based on outward actions and communication. AsCampbell et al. (2015)state, ethos refers to “the ways in which you mirror the characteristics idealized by your culture or group” (p. 251). Likewise,Halloran (1982)specifically defines ethos as “manifest[ing] the virtues most valued by the culture to and for which one speaks” (p. 60). Thissimilitude, “the appeal to similarities between the author of the text/speaker and the audience” (Higgins & Walker, 2012, p. 197) or a “perceived similarity . . . or liking between him [sic] and [the] audience” (McCormack, 2014, p. 139), is just one analytical category that some researchers have applied to various types of texts to learn more about communicators’ persuasive techniques regarding differing value orientations, as well as values and social/environmental issues, such as those occurring at Grey Cliffs. Establishing similarity between the speaker and audience is crucial and can be achieved through various types of communication strategies, such as using “familiar, colloquial language, . . . relaxed body language, open and honest facial expressions, and a friendly . . . tone of voice” (McCormack, 2014, p. 139). According toBraet (1992), the audience views the rhetor as good and therefore trustworthy when the rhetor and audience’s preferences, or values, coincide (p. 313). Demonstrating this alignment can be difficult, though, since it relies on the rhetor’sestimationof the values the audience holds (Halloran, 1982, p. 63). In the Grey Cliffs case, Edwards needed to develop aninvented ethosto address this conflict publicly (Mackiewicz, 2010, p. 408) for the specific rhetorical situation of the first community town hall meeting, as well as asituated ethos(Mackiewicz, 2010, p. 408) that indicated credibility over time.
Sustainability efforts, such as the ones connected to the Grey Cliffs lake access area, involve values of environmental protection, repair, and regrowth. Although these values were legitimate ones, the community appeared at first to value its ability to access this area more than sustainability. The community was resistant to change because its long-time use of this area was threatened. Edwards also needed to convince the community of the urgency of this message. If he could not motivate the community to act, it could revolt and resist the Corps’s efforts, deepening the rift that already existed between the Corps and the community, a rift stemming from the land buyouts that had occurred in the area during the 1930s and 1940s. This sensitive situation seemed ripe with risk (DeKay, 2011): while the values seemed clear, reasonable, legitimate, and worth the efforts of implementation from Edwards’s perspective, the dynamics could yield even more conflict with the community than already existed (DeKay, 2011). Negotiating an invented and situated ethos (Mackiewicz, 2010, p. 408) would require Edwards to coconstruct a shared identity with the audience to align differing value orientations and ultimately protect Grey Cliffs.
Negotiating Shared Identities Through Shared Values to Accomplish Social Action
In the process of developing a credible ethos that includes virtuous character, addressing the specific rhetorical situation (Bitzer, 1968;Bowers, 2010;Meisenbach & Feldner, 2011), and attempting to accomplish mutual value alignment with an audience, a rhetor essentially coconstructs shared identities with the audience. These shared identities are based on dedication to the same cultural values as well as trust and respect that the audience develops as it communicates reciprocally with the rhetor. Likewise, the rhetor, in seeing the audience’s understanding of intended ethos reflected back, reciprocates the positive messages received from the audience, generating further goodwill. In this case, Edwards developed a shared identity with the community as he motivated it to value what he and the Corps valued: safety and environmental protection of public lands. Developing shared identities is a complex process and can occur in many ways, but here, I focus on the coconstructed and shared identities that develop based on shared values and on the understanding of shared value terms.
Shared values play a prominent role as communicators and audience coconstruct identities specifically through language because language is necessarily sermonic (Weaver, 1970), meaning it communicates values discursively. AsCheng (2012)discusses, communicators and audiences already display and construct identities individually before they engage in a particular rhetorical situation. However, in the process of accomplishing social action discursively through language, the Burkean concept of identification (Burke, 1969) “overcomes division and unites individuals along various possible lines of interest (beliefs, motives, tastes, etc.) setting the stage for persuasion” (Cheng, 2012, p. 426). Beliefs and motives coincide with values. As a rhetor,identifying(Burke, 1969, p. 55) with an audience through various discursive strategies that emphasize these similar values is essential for the persuasion process. According toWalton (2013), Burke emphasized the process of identification in applying Aristotle’s rhetoric; Burke realized the importance of persuasion through connecting to what others value and find important, indicating a communicator’s similarity to the audience and identification with it (p. 89). A prerequisite to developing shared identities, then, is not only developing shared values but also communicating about them in meaningful ways that will resonate with the intended audience (Heracleous & Klaering, 2014, pp. 134-135).
Because language is a form of social action, and we convey values through language, developing relationships with audience members is one way to construct those shared identities (Cheng, 2012, p. 427), especially through rhetoric (Mackiewicz, 2010); the rhetor and audience are engaged in accomplishing the same tasks, and all of these actions are governed by shared language use. Necessarily, character and ethos play a role in this discursive construction when the rhetor emphasizes affinity with the audience; in other words, “I am like you, and together, we value the same things.” Thesesource relational attributes(Weresh, 2012, p. 234;McCormack, 2014, p. 138) continue to bestow favorable, friendly characteristics on the rhetor that make the communicator appealing to the audience. Feedback on these characteristics from audience members contributes to constructing a communicator’s credibility, and, in some cases, expertise (Mackiewicz, 2010). In fact, these relationships are part of the rhetor’s and audience’s continual revisiting of the ethos construction process, as different parts of it are “negotiated and reshaped” (Mackiewicz, 2010, p. 421) through communication, in this case regarding values.
The discursive relationship between the communicator and the audience (Henderson et al., 2015;McCormack, 2014, p. 152) enables the audience to identify with the communicator (McCormack, 2014). This identification process, accomplished through shared language use, will be even more persuasive if the rhetor demonstrates investment in the audience, especially regarding its cultural values. That relationship can be created and maintained through several ways, such as through shared terms (Allen et al., 2012), in this case, value terms focusing on sustainability. The shared terms indicate ways the organization and community or stakeholders are working together toward a common goal. In Allen et al.’s (2012) work, shared terms between corporate training documents and employee interviews indicated alignment in sustainability values; the study authors were also able to examine areas where additional alignmentcouldoccur, based on terms that did not align. Organizational communicators will be viewed as more persuasive if goals and values are presented consistently to target audiences and can be evaluated as consistent by those audiences (Boyd & Waymer, 2011), contributing even more to a persuasive and sincere ethos. Only when this type of ethos exists will positive community and stakeholder attitudes grow (Pasztor, 2019;Shim & Kim, 2017), aligning with similar public value orientations. This type of shared identity construction process is an example of “engag[ing] reflexively with stakeholders” (Henderson et al., 2015, p. 17), a process which can also involve discursive identification through positioning (Alvesson et al., 2008), involving particular terms connected to strategic goals for both communicators and their audiences (Henderson et al., 2015, p. 15;Hyland, 2012).
For example,Henderson et al. (2015)emphasize that ambiguous value terms such asefficiency,progress,risk, andbenefit(p. 15) can convey different meanings to different individuals.Hyland (2012)mentions how specific words and values manifest themselves in discourses used by groups, as well, that connect these groups’ past and future experiences (p. 29). We can see these connections in the community’s narrative about the Corps’s land takeovers that had been passed down through generations and the loss the community felt, as a result, because members valued their land ownership. Going beyond terms, stories, and narratives (Henderson et al., 2015, p. 16) can be involved in this process, as well, which reflect the history, values, and achieved and potential future goals for change. Stories and narratives also construct and coconstruct identities, as can be seen in this case study, as community members initially solidified an out-group identity in opposition to the Corps as an organization, based on differing values that corresponded to their recreational use of Grey Cliffs. Essentially, while similarly voicing “anecdotes about the virtues” (Patterson & Lee, 1997, p. 29) of this area that focused on recreational values alone, the community found itself out of alignment with Corps’s sustainability values during this conflict. Later, as the case study reveals, the community grew to accept the need to change its behavior in order to accomplish and value what both parties wanted: keeping Grey Cliffs open and accessible to the public. This conflict was a difficult situation to navigate for all parties involved, due to the initial misaligned values and the lack of trust the community had for Edwards, who represented a governmental organization the community believed had harmed their families in the past. This rhetorical situation was certainly one that required Edwards to present a credible ethos and character of goodwill in order to align community values with Corps values to accomplish much needed social action to protect the Grey Cliffs area.
Justification
As I have established, leaders often use rhetoric to influence their audiences (Cheng, 2012;Heracleous & Klaering, 2014;Higgins & Walker, 2012;McCormack, 2014), and scholars have indicated the need to focus on the concept of ethos as part of the communicative context influencing participants’ rhetorical choices (Heracleous & Klaering, 2014, p. 133). This case study, which highlights ethos, value alignment, and shared identity development, helps meet that need.
In addition, this study contributes to the growing research focusing on environmental sustainability and organizational communication, including specific focuses on values and rhetoric adapted to the needs of a local culture with the aim of accomplishing common social action. It addresses needs of individual community stakeholders who are incredibly valuable to and legitimate in negotiating social action with an organization such as the Corps. Focusing on Edwards’s ethos appeals, particularly those highlighting his credibility and character, reveals ways ethos can diplomatically frame an organizationally strategic message. Today, we are experiencing more and more tension between governmental organizations and the public. Analyzing the ethos creation of a governmental representative in a crisis yields data and observations scholars and communicators can use in thoughtfully and intentionally negotiating social action within different sociocultural contexts, including communities and governments, both influenced by discourses of organizational power (Bourdieu, 1986,1990;Foucault, 1980,1983,1975/1995).
Recent research suggests how individual voices can indeed be heard regarding strategic communication and organizational issues management (Henderson et al., 2015;Shim & Kim, 2017). Contributing further to this research, my work highlights thedialogical(Bakhtin, 1983;Meisenbach & Feldner, 2011, p. 567) work of a single organizational rhetor and representative who, through his development of ethos and the process of identification (Burke, 1969;Cheney, 1991;Henderson et al., 2015), attempts to work with individuals and their unique concerns to accomplish Corps environmental sustainability goals. This research also exemplifies anideal/real tension(Meisenbach & Feldner, 2011, p. 566) that highlights potential strategies for negotiating communicative agency between organizations and individual stakeholders. The ideal Corps’s management of the area differed significantly from the real lived experiences of the community members. Highlighting these community voices revealed in their narratives demonstrates a commitment to democratic communication about the environment, which previous scholars have argued as valuable (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1992). These scholars emphasized the overarching need for diverse populations to be able to identify essential information needed to meet their various social needs, goals, and purposes (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1992, p. 265), despite those goals being as seemingly insignificant as camping and blueberry picking, in this case.
Furthermore, Edwards’s reflective observations on his own communicative processes contribute insights into complex communication choices often not available from organizational representatives in retrospect; this rhetor reveals that the identification process is nonlinear and recursive (Pickering, 2018). This textual grounding of analysis (Meisenbach & Feldner, 2011, p. 564) allows for a strong connection among theory, context, and praxis (Meisenbach & Feldner, 2011) so useful for the fields of organizational communication as we work to make implicit knowledge more explicit (Cyphert et al., 2019).Higgins and Walker (2012)stress that discourse analysis alone can sometimes overlook individual feelings, thoughts, and actions (p. 196) related to social and environmental issues (Higgins & Walker, 2012, pp. 195-196). Discourse analysis alone therefore leaves a huge gap of missing information that analysis of reflective self-narratives can provide regarding social actors’ thinking, feeling, and acting (Higgins & Walker, 2012). My work provides data that contribute to an increased understanding of why and how audiences, such as the Grey Cliffs community, change their actions based on persuasive discourse and socially mediated action regarding environmental and safety issues, based on negotiated ethos development.
Research Questions, Methodology, Method, and Data
Research Questions
Two research questions guide this case study.
Methodology
Methodological perspectives for this observational case study include a grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;MacNealy, 1999;Strauss, 1987), interpretive approach (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001;Heracleous & Klaering, 2014;Kvale, 1996). When applying a grounded theory approach, “The researcher does not begin the research with a pre-identified list of concepts. Concepts are derived from data during analysis” (Corbin & Strauss, 2014, p. 15). Furthermore, “Concepts derived from initial analysis guide collection of subsequent data” (Corbin & Strauss, 2014, p. 15). The interpretive approach considers discourse as “[c]ommunicative action, which is constructive of social and organizational reality” (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001, p. 756). This view of discourse considers “[s]ubjects’ social reality [as] constructed through language as a symbolic medium” (Heracleous & Barrett, 2001, p. 756). When applying these approaches, I paid particular attention to the unique cultural context of this conflict (Heracleous & Klaering, 2014, p. 138), since rhetors must adapt their rhetorical techniques to each individual rhetorical situation. When answering Research Question 1, I used a rhetorical framework for analyzing Edwards’s reflective self-narrative (seeTable 1).
Rhetorical Framework for Narrative Analysis.
As other scholars have demonstrated (Higgins & Walker, 2012;Mackiewicz, 2010;Walton, 2013), this type of specific analysis of rhetorical strategies provides an in-depth perspective of specific statements rhetors use when attempting to negotiate a credible ethos with audiences. Because I addressed the process of negotiating a shared identity with the audience using values, as well, the modified grounded theory and interpretive approach allowed me to discover that Edwards’s use of value terms was part of the process of negotiating ethos with the community because sustainability values stood out as prominent ones in this conflict. In other words, value terms surrounding the relationship of the land to the Corps and community were a critical part of this cultural and rhetorical context that necessitated Edwards’s unique ethos negotiation with this community.
For Research Question 2, I again applied the modified, grounded theory and interpretive approach to analyze the reflective self-narratives of five other community participants to identify ways the interviewees indicated their actions had changed, based on Edwards’s ethos development. While I analyzed the transcript for specific actions taken, I was also looking for changed attitudes and perceptions, based on Edwards’s involvement. Using the critical-interpretive approach, I evaluated this success using participants’ words that represented participants’lived experiences(Boussebaa & Brown, 2017, p. 14) in as accurate a way as I could present them. I realize, though, that the inherent subjectivity of language inhibits both my interpretation of these participants’ observations as well as my ability to discuss their language use objectively. Nevertheless, limiting my role as a participant in this conflict to the role of observer as well as reproducing participants’ own words helps mitigate, though not eliminate, this subjectivity. In other words, I acknowledge the introduction of my own involuntary, interpretive lens during this research process, as well.
Method
While analyzing the transcript of Edwards’s reflective self-narrative, I applied the rhetorical analytical framework outlined inTable 1to identify the ethos appeals in response to Research Question 1. I then analyzed Edwards’s narrative, looking for specific references to ways he referred to his credibility and character. For credibility, I focused on statements of authority. Appeals to authority, such as those of position, indicate credibility, since a position of authority should convey privileged knowledge on a social actor in that role. Importantly,Herndl and Licona (2007)clarify that, because social identity “emerges from a set of social practices” (p. 142), ethos and authority are related. Viewing ethos and authority as potentially negotiated and constructed allows us to analyze many different types of possible ways to address power and discourse (Schneider, 2007, p. 195).
Experience or expertise also establishes credibility, since one’s personal experience and testimony contribute evidence that enhances credibility (Higgins & Walker, 2012;Isaksson & Jørgensen, 2010;Mackiewicz, 2010;Walton, 2013), especially if the experience is related to tasks accomplished in an authoritative role. Based on Aristotle’s list of virtues (Aristotle, ca. 367-323 B.C.E./2007, pp. 62-65 and 76-77), I focused onhonor(Aristotle, ca. 367-323 B.C.E. /2007, p. 63) as honesty or sincerity (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018) andsimilitudeas commonality (Higgins & Walker, 2012, pp. 197-198) or friendship/affinity (Braet, 1992, p. 311) when discussing character and ethos appeals. Sincerity and affinity correspond to Aristotle’s virtues of truthfulness, honor, friendship, and goodwill, which Aristotle discusses in theRhetoric. Griffin (2009)highlights how goodwill addresses safety and well-being of the audience (p. 65); Edwards narrated this concern especially for protecting the audience as well as the land while still providing public use access to Grey Cliffs. I allowed the data and Edwards’s characterization of them to suggest the appeals being made; I could then be assured that the ethos appeals were indeed grounded in Edwards’s experience as a communicator. For example, Edwards specifically used the wordsincerityin his reflection. In turn, I incorporated the modified grounded theory, interpretive approach to identify examples of appealing to his ethos of character by way of affinity as a category, using the constant comparison method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;Mara, 2008, p. 432). Based on my analysis, the categories and virtues of sincerity and affinity corresponded to the majority of Edwards’s efforts in connecting with this difficult audience through character development. Similar toHenderson et al. (2015), I also “attempt[ed] to capture participants’ own meanings as evidenced in the language used in the interviews . . . ” (p. 21). The data, then, include Edwards’s reflections on the persona of ethos he was intending to portray during the meetings. For the sake of accuracy and authenticity, Edwards reviewed a draft of this article.
An important part of this analysis was determining ways that Edwards attempted to portray a persuasive ethos through an identity of shared values. As I read through the transcript of Edwards’s interview, I made notes in the margins of recurring themes related to this effort. For example, I could tell from the interview that Edwards was initially somewhat shocked by the community’s hostile reaction to possible closure. As a result, he realized the need to negotiate a shared value identity and connect with the community to motivate it to share his environmental perspective and values, to some degree. I analyzed the transcript using the modified grounded theory and interpretive approaches, including in vivo coding (Saldaña, 2016), to identify value terms that showed potential for alignment between the Corps and community. Part of this process included locating, analyzing, and conducting word frequency counts of several Corps source documents that discussed Corps mission statements and values (see theappendix) so that I could verify that the values Edwards advocated were indeed ones the Corps espoused. Of the many selected value terms that appeared in Edwards’s narrative, I chosepublicandmanageto discuss here because, based on the interpretive approach, these terms represented values most in need of alignment between the Corps and community; the community did not really understand what these terms (and therefore values) meant for the Corps. These value terms also appeared most frequently of those chosen for transcript analysis, based on a word count. In addition, rhetorical analyses indicate that, when communicators and audiences share the same values, audiences assign a positive ethos to communicators (Griffin, 2009;Heracleous & Klaering, 2014;Mackiewicz, 2010;Mara, 2008;Walton, 2013). This rhetorical connection between values and ethos prompted me to include a discussion of values within theaffinitycategory, since audiences see similarity between themselves and communicators with similar values.
For Research Question 2, incorporating the modified, grounded theory and interpretive approach again, I analyzed transcripts of five other interviews to present participants’ own words in assessing how well Edwards’s efforts succeeded in aligning Corps’s values with those of the community through the tangible actions of community members. I identified these categories of tangible actions based on community members’ descriptions of them and then grouped similar actions together. Based on these categorical themes, I chose which parts of the narratives to focus on for this analysis. Importantly, this alignment related to changed attitudes and perceptions of Edwards, as well as tangible actions taken by members of the community.
Data
This observational case study includes qualitative data such as field notes taken during town hall meetings, documents distributed at meetings, maps, and semistructured interviews with key participants involved in the discussion and resolution of the issue. (SeeTable 2for an annotated timeline of data collection as it relates to each research question.) Some data necessarily duplicated themselves in the field notes as well as the transcribed interviews. For example, Edwards stated his position title as Corps Resource Manager as he began his presentation at the first town hall meeting, and he reiterated his position title during our first interview. Similarly, he reflected on statements he made at the meeting during the interview. While all types of data I collected were helpful in providing information about this conflict, for the purposes of this study, I focus on reflective self-narratives as documented through the transcribed interviews. The rich data I gained from analyzing the self-narratives is especially helpful in revealing participants’ reflections on the events I observed at the meetings, as well as other conversations that occurred before and after the meetings. The transcribed interviews revealed perspectives, intentions, and contexts that simply were not available from my observations alone. I transcribed all interviews by hand with the help of Express Scribe to ensure the transcriptions were as accurate as possible.
Annotated Research Timeline Totaling Approximately 18 Consecutive Months.
Results and Discussion
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How does Edwards’s reflective self-narrative reveal ethos appeals used to encourage the community to align its environmental values to those of the Corps through a shared identity?” Based on the interview transcript analyzed, I present and discuss ethos appeals relating to credibility and character that Edwards’s self-narrative revealed as he reflected on his efforts to communicate with community members during the meeting and throughout the conflict.
Credibility
For the purposes of this analysis, I focus on two categories that potentially could build a credible ethos in the minds of an audience: authority and experience or expertise. These two characteristics not only are ones Aristotle emphasized in hisRhetoricbut also reflect categories other scholars have used for their own analyses of rhetorical situations.
Appeal to authority
David Edwards’s official title is Corps Resource Manager of the X District for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He mentioned this title in the interview that I transcribed, and he began the first town hall meeting with the community by stating this title. Edwards also indicated that one of his roles within the Corps was to enforce Title 36 of the Federal Code of Regulations, which prohibits the kind of environmental and safety problems that had damaged Grey Cliffs so severely. To emphasize this, Edwards states, So I came to [District X] in 2011, and one of the first things I did as the Resource Manager, my job is to ensure that the public lands that we’ve been entrusted with protecting are managed in a way that's conducive to the type of activity and specifically safe for public use.
In other words, part of Edwards’s authority as Corps Resource Manager for this area was enforcing these regulations. In addition, he also possessed the authority to close the area, and the first town hall meeting began with that option. Edwards emphasized that he never wanted to close the area, but, because of the problems occurring there, he certainly had the authority to do so. During the interview, he indicated that before making a final decision, he was required to involve the public.
Well, as a resource manager, my primary mission is to ensure that the public lands, that the public has entrusted with us to protecting, are preserved, maintained for future generations. That’s basically our mission. And the secondary component of that is for the public to be safe, when they are using our facilities.
Working to support the Corps mission in his official role, Edwards worked to protect Grey Cliffs and public safety. Edwards indicated that he was responsible for all 41 access points at this lake, and Grey Cliffs was just one of those points. However, it was the site of the most “nefarious activity.” In fact, the Corps had developed a public service announcement and the slogan “Keep your wheels on the street; use your feet” to promote sustainable behavior at all of these points, but, according to Edwards, the Corps took a “[Grey Cliffs] approach” when it created this public service announcement, due to the rapid decline in this area. Using this statement in the narrative also boosted Edwards’s authority because it was such a public way of encouraging responsible use of the area. He managed the area that this announcement targeted. All of these statements in the narrative reiterated what Edwards had said at the first meeting, and they were meant to emphasize his authority as Corps Resource Manager.
Appeal to experience
Another appeal to credibility Edwards drew on as he discussed options for solving Grey Cliff’s problems was his appeal to experience. Not only did Edwards appeal to his authority, but he had also read documentation about these problems at Grey Cliffs and witnessed them firsthand. One form of documentation that Edwards cited to bolster his argument that problems had gotten out of hand was county sheriff reports: . . . we need to do something, we . . . have a lot of ATVs, illegal drug use, we have a lot of . . . these aren’t instances of just assumption, these are documented cases that the County Sheriff's Office prosecuted, and arrested people based on, what they found through their investigations. And I have a documented County dispatch report; it’s from 2016-2018, I requested that they provide me with, any call that [the] County received in regards to [Grey Cliffs]. Ninety pages of report were given to me. And a lot of the reports were domestic related, rape related, drug use related, assault; there was a kidnapping with the individual threatening to murder their son, there was a murder investigation, I mean, there were very significant crimes that were of concern to me and to a lot of the Corps of Engineers leadership because we’re, again, public safety’s paramount, and if we have an area that has that type of activity, we have to do something to stop it, to deter it, to, you know, change that dynamic.
In addition to these reports, Edwards had also visited Grey Cliffs and had observed some of the problems documented in the reports. Below are some of the problems he witnessed, which he emphasized also at the meeting to clarify to the community exactly what was taking place: . . . syringes and needles that were left on the ground that I found, you know, that was an example, I’ve seen that more than one time. [Grey Cliffs] was a dump. I mean, I cannot tell you the amount of trash I picked up there. . . . the trash that we don’t see that’s under the leaf litter, that, that you step on when you’re walking, and just off, you know, the road, it is significant. I mean, the glass bottles I mean, it’s all through the bank, I mean, it’s the worst I’ve ever seen.
Based on this knowledge, Edwards thought that he could use his experience to improve the area. He had knowledge gained from his position and training as Corps Resource Manager, but he also had witnessed the problems that had occurred, to lesser degrees, at other lake access points in the region. This type of experience would benefit this situation in particular, according to Edwards: . . . and then this is where I think my experience, my expertise comes in is that we can lay out a facility that will be sustainable for the environment, and you know, reduce, less runoff and less erosion issues which affects water quality there. And then obviously also increases the type of use and the behavior of people.
Clearly, this appeal to experience and expertise as part of credibility was a recursive process that developed over Edwards’s experience in this role that spanned close to a decade. Specifically, After Action Reviews, required by the Corps after occurrences such as those at Grey Cliffs, contributed to this recursive development of ethos that would improve future Corps practices by resource managers like Edwards. Edwards demonstrates the recursive nature of this process when he states, And there’s a lot of examples out there, too, that I’ve fortunately been a part of in my experience and career to kind of see, use, and learn from, and, you know, what didn’t go good, what went well, what didn’t go so well. We do After Action Reviews, and through those there’s a network of resources that I have available to me that I utilized, brought in, and gathered their ideas and so I knew going into this that it wasn’t going to be easy but that there was, you know, light at the end of the tunnel because what we were doing was the right thing.
Edwards’s process of appealing to credibility seems fairly straightforward based on his appeals to authority and experience. After all, his authority could not be disputed as Corps Resource Manager, and the sheriff’s report and Edwards’s personal observations could not be challenged because they had been sufficiently documented. However, the communitydidchallenge Edwards’s credibility. Instead of accepting these appeals based on experience, they rejected Edwards’s testimony about the points he mentioned. While the community had no choice but to accept evidence of the environmental damage that the off-roading had caused because it was in plain view, in interviews, community members characterized Edwards’s testimony of other problems at Grey Cliffs as “lies.” In other words, Edwards’s appeals to credibility failed; the community was not receptive to them overall, based on his ethos of credibility.
Mackiewicz (2010)discusses how, sometimes, this type of failure can occur because the audience believes the communicator may have something personal to gain from the changes proposed (pp. 407-408). The knowledge that the speaker has may be eclipsed by an assumption of personal gain, and the audience therefore does not trust the speaker. Given the tense past relationship between the Corps and the community due to the land buyouts, the audience very well could have been suspicious of Edwards as they rejected the evidence of his credibility presented to the community.Mackiewicz (2010)emphasizes the dialogic nature of the development of credibility; sometimes, credibility can be deconstructed between communicators and audiences (p. 408). This type of deconstruction is what happened, at first, when Edwards began communicating with the community at the first town hall meeting. Although Edwards was not thinking about the rhetorical construction of his ethos and what he needed to do to address this community resistance, the character-development part of his ethos proved to be a crucial part of the process of negotiating a working relationship with this originally hostile community.
Character
Many virtues can affect the ethos and character of a communicator. Here, I focus onsincerityandaffinity.
Appeal to sincerity
Sincerity for Edwards was linked to values such as being ethical and trustworthy, which are in turn related to goodwill. These values connect with Aristotle’s concept of ethos: a credible, persuasive persona. Edwards mentioned several times during the interview the need to show how sincere he was in communicating about the issue of possibly closing Grey Cliffs; he understood the sensitive nature of the proposal to close the area, given the previous tense interaction between the community and the Corps, and he wanted to create a relationship of sincerity and trust between himself as a Corps representative and the community. He states, I make sure that I conduct myself responsibly and professionally and ethically and that the person receiving the information can see that. How I’m treating them, how I’m providing information and relaying that information in a positive manner help take the edge off of the message that they’re receiving. And maybe opens their mind, broadens their perspective a little, and then helps me form more of a connection when they see that I’m trustworthy and that I’m sincere in my desire to make a difference.
Part of being sincere also involves making sure the message is received by the intended audience in a way it can understand. Based on the community response at the first meeting, which was very hostile, Edwards changed his focus and pivoted from discussing closure as one of several options to negotiating ways the community could help improve the area in order to keep it open, such as by participating in clean up days, helping informally police the area, getting the word out to others via social media channels about what is allowed and not allowed, and helping to put up barricades and gravel to make clear what areas are for public use and to increase safe use of the area. By suggesting legitimate ways the community could be involved, Edwards attempted to portray himself as someone who sincerely wanted to work with the community. As Edwards reflects in his narrative, But I hoped that I was pretty clear, I hope that I was more sincere and that I wanted to make a difference there for their families and for their kids that they could go there, and I thought that I did.
In Edwards’s eyes, this sincerity would result in a long-term relationship that would have lasting effects on the area regarding sustainability and safety. Edwards continued, And so, you know, my actions, the actions that we’ll have, at [Grey Cliffs] will demonstrate, continue to demonstrate, that we’re sincere and that what we’ve done to this point is not going to just, you know, go away and be wasted; it’s going to make, I hope to have a, you know, long-term, major impact to the overall dynamic and mindset of the visitor to [Grey Cliffs]. You know, it’s no longer a place they can go to get out of the eyes of the law.
These efforts would affect the area as well as relationships. Specifically, Edwards wants to emphasize his role as a continued participant in maintaining the area through contributing resources; providing this material help was yet another way that Edwards hoped to indicate his sincerity through future interactions with the community: And I think that’s what this all boils down to, in that, you know, I think they see, I hope they see, the sincere and willing participant that, um, I could bring a lot of resources to the table, and I’m willing to commit those resources to bettering the services that the public has at [Grey Cliffs].
While establishing sincerity was important to Edwards’s creation of a persuasive ethos with the community, expressing affinity with the audience was also important to convince it to change its behavior and coconstruct an identity with the audience. The audience could have accepted Edwards’s sincerity and, relatedly, his trustworthiness and honesty, but, based on the unpleasant historical relationship between the community and the Corps, Edwards needed to demonstrate that he was like the audience in some ways and that he and the audience valued similar things.
Appeal to affinity
A few ways Edwards demonstrated affinity with the audience were expressing common interests, reaching out to members of the community audience as a friend, and introducing value terms that indicated an ideal, shared value alignment. Edwards basically was trying to communicate to the audience, “I am like you,” “We can be friends in these efforts,” and “We have (or should have) common values, as a result.”
About 200 community members and government officials were present at the first community meeting when the option to close Grey Cliffs was discussed. The huge crowd and polyphony (Bondi & Yu, 2019;Castelló et al., 2013) of voices coming from the participants were powerful as many individuals expressed different ideas about why the area should be kept open. Each individual also had different experiences with the area, similar to the “anecdotes about the virtues” thatPatterson and Lee (1997, p. 29) mentioned have occurred with some public discussions of beloved areas that are environmentally challenged. At some points, these voices were operating in symphony (Bondi & Yu, 2019), since they were based in a common cultural history. Seeing this united front in opposition to closure, Edwards decided to make some personal connections in order to move forward: “When I’m able to make a connection with an individual, I’m able to gain more compliance. This is in direct conflict sometimes with rules and regulations because rules and regulations are black and white” and therefore do not seem to allow for relationship. This effort allowed Edwards to create affinity with the audience, helping him cocreate a strong ethos with the community. One way Edwards tried to establish affinity with the audience was through establishing common interests. For example, he stated, “I like to hunt, too;” “I like to go off-roading, too,” but he emphasized the need to ask permission and not do these activities in prohibited areas. His hope was that these common interests would help build a relational bridge between himself as a government representative and the community. He also tried to use his own experiences about asking permission as a model to encourage similar behavior from the community.
Another way Edwards made personal connections was by asking individuals to help him with his efforts as though these community members were friends. Friendship is one of the virtues Aristotle mentions in hisRhetoricthat help create a persuasive ethos. Edwards singled out meeting participants who were active in resisting his efforts in order to establish a friendship, hoping that the community members would be more likely to help him, as a result. Referring to two men at the meeting who were publicly very vocal against closure and the restrictions against off roading, he states, I just basically approached them and asked for their help. I said, “Guys, we’ve got to stop this; this is something that we have to do; I need your help.” And I think when I approached them on that personal level, individually, after the meeting, it kind of made a connection with them.
Others who used the area to prepare for off-road racing in other locations said, “Okay, I understand.” These new friends then used their influence in the community to tell others of these new restrictions and therefore helped infiltrate the hostile community to motivate key members to change their behavior.
By making personal connections with key individuals in the community and asking for their help, Edwards enlisted community support, addressed cultural issues in the area, and influenced opinion sharing (Shim & Kim, 2017) among individuals at the meeting. At first, the community did not have a positive opinion of Edwards and the Corps in general; it assumed the government was coming in to take away arightthat the community had, a right it perceived as always existing. This was a very strong, publicly shared opinion, and it surprised Edwards in its magnitude. However, once Edwards made personal connections with community members, not only did they spread the word about following the Corps’s regulations about Grey Cliffs; they also began sharing more positive opinions about Edwards as a Corps representative, especially as improvements to the area were realized while the area was kept open. Edwards had become, to some degree, a trusted friend who could help them with their problems.
Affinity can also refer to negotiating shared values with an audience, even its need to know and understand those shared values. The community didn’t seem to understand Corps values that Edwards was promoting, at first. Based on the community’s initial hostile reaction towards him, Edwards realized he needed to demonstrate understanding to this audience, especially if he ever wanted to make progress in aligning the Corps’s values with the community’s. Edwards attempted this task by presenting value words regarding the Corps’s mission, effectively introducing the public to Corps’s values to educate the public and begin aligning Corps values with the community by showing the community exactly what the Corps values were.
During his communication with the community, Edwards encountered a challenge to affinity that he had to confront: the Corps and the community discussed what they valued using different terms and narratives. For example, even though ultimately the Corps and community wanted the same result—an accessible, protected, and revitalized lake access area—their words for talking about these values were different. Reflecting their values, community members’ discussions continued to be grounded in experiential narratives of time spent in this beautiful area, such as stories of fishing, swimming, family gatherings, camping, hiking, and generally enjoying the remoteness of this natural area. Edwards’s pivoting midtalk by indicating possible acceptance of other options for Grey Cliffs besides closure indicated his awareness of the public’s desire to keep the area open. This was one value that the Corps and the community could share, but the audience needed to know more about Corps’s values before any type of significant value alignment could begin. While preserving the area environmentally and promoting human safety were Edwards’s ultimate goals, another goal he attempted to accomplish was aligning these conflicting environmental values between the Corps and the community. Edwards realized that only when the community accepted its role in protecting this area would members follow the Corps regulations consistently. It is in this space of rhetorical tension that Edwards continued negotiating his ethos with the community by appealing to affinity even more through potentially shared value terms.
Because words are value laden, they shape social and cultural realities (Burke, 1968). These words make up a particular lexis for specific interactions and contexts, a lexis which also represents values (Jaworska, 2018;van Dijk, 1995). During the conversation surrounding Grey Cliffs, Edwards used particular words that reflected the Corps’s mission, culture, and values. The repetition of the words in Edwards’s public presentation and in the interview transcript indicates the perceived (and in some cases real) relationship between an organizational communicator such as Edwards and the intended audience (Verboven, 2011;Walton, 2013). Both are necessarily involved in the dialogic process of negotiating value alignment and tangible social action.
Among the many value terms that Edwards used, both in his interview and at the first town hall meeting, two I discuss here to illustrate this difference arepublicandmanage. These words reflect a key function of the Corps, managing public lands for the use of future generations. While these terms seem relatively clear, their use represents how value terms can mean different things for different audiences, depending on their backgrounds and values. The wordpublic, for example, has a different meaning for the Corps than it would for non-Corps discourse community members. In general,publiccould mean open to all, althoughallwould need to be further defined and most likely would not be all-inclusive. It could also mean open for general use. However, for the Corps, the concept of public lands, withpublicused as an adjective, relates closely to maintaining land for future generations, for the use of those generations;public landsentails land used by the public but not owned and maintained by the public, based on the public’s relationship to the government and the Corps. These terms clearly reflect the Corps values of its required relationship and duty not only to its land but also to the public, from a government and management perspective. When Edwards used the phrasepublic landswith the community audience, he was using it in the context of the lands’ cultural history with the Corps, not really considering that the public may have been interpreting it as simply “lands to be used by the public.” This disconnect might explain the community’s previous use of the land; it was for open use, including all of the activities the public might desire to carry out there. This differing interpretation indicated an area in need of potential value alignment, since the Corps and community understood these value words differently. Likewise, the community appeared not to understand the relationship of the public land and Corps management of it; it did not understand the value the Corps assigned to land management.
The general public did not even know who managed Grey Cliffs; it had heard it was Corps property, but the Corps had been invisible up to this point. Individuals had had little or no interaction with the Corps before, a problem which could also contribute to the degradation suffered at Grey Cliffs specifically because of the apparent lack of ownership, management, and, therefore, enforcement. However, because the public did not maintain or own the land, it had essentially entrusted the Corps with protecting and managing these lands by default, even though it was an invisible entity. The wordmanagecommunicates the value that these lands have been entrusted as a resource to a manager who will care for them for future generations. Here,managerelates to a basic value that the Corps communicates, since it conveys the need to care for the land, anticipating the current and future public’s needs. Up until the point the community met Edwards, though, it was not really possible for the community to understand that Edwards or the Corps managed the land. The community had not seen any evidence of that process or relationship because regulations and signage had been removed and had therefore not been thinking about that connection.
Obviously, when Edwards used these words when speaking with the community, he did not do so to consciously instruct the community on the relationship between the Corps, the public, and managing the lands. Likewise, the community did not realize the need for its values to align with those of the Corps by attempting to learn the meaning of these specific words from Edwards’s value perspective. Yet presenting these value terms and discussing them with the community allowed Edwards, although subconsciously, to highlight for this community where some of the value differences lay, differences related to environmental sustainability values. Helping the community realize these values using an understanding of shared terminology is one way Edwards attempted to develop this negotiated, shared identity with the community, an identity that reflected the Corps and community as being similar and on the same team with the same environmental sustainability goals.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “Through reflective self-narratives, how did community members indicate Edwards was accomplishing his regulatory goals of value alignment, based on community members’ actions?” Two main issues prompted the Corps to consider closing the Grey Cliffs lake access area originally: crime and environmental degradation caused by off-roading, littering, shooting, and camping in nondesignated areas. Based on information gained through the interviews, it appears that community members attending the town hall meetings were not involved in the crime occurring in the area. Therefore, the main issue to consider in assessing whether Edwards’s goals were met was the community’s impact on activities that were causing the environmental damage. These actions of compliance would indicate some degree of alignment with Corps’s values.
Before the town hall meetings began, the areas surrounding Grey Cliffs were turning into mud slides. Erosion due to lost plant life caused deep ruts to appear in the earth leading down to the lake, causing some run-off issues, as well, depending on trash and other residue uphill from the lake. Fire pits from camping in the undesignated areas contributed to the lack of plant growth. Beer bottles and cans, general trash, and even used baby diapers were strewn across the area. Hunters and those engaged in target practice had damaged many trees. The visible damage to the area was shocking. In addition, people on off-road vehicles often went beyond the Corps land onto neighboring private properties, trespassing on those private lands, causing additional environmental damage, and introducing possible security concerns. These were the environmental problems Grey Cliffs faced; no one could blame the Corps, really, for beginning the discussion to close the area.
To assess the effectiveness of Edwards’s rhetorical strategies, I present excerpts and summaries from five community members’ interviews (all names are pseudonyms). My inclusion of these individual voices indicates these members’ importance in experiencing and addressing this conflict; in their own words, they describe the effects that community efforts had in efforts to protect the area. While part of the public affected by these events, these members were unique individuals who each responded with concrete actions to Edwards’s appeals within a community that was determined to keep this area open and usable.
Lee and Trisha
Lee and Trisha own a small farm that borders the Corps land that in turn adjoins Grey Cliffs. An old logging road on this farm leads down to the Corps land, and this couple is one of two families who often experienced off-roaders trespassing onto their land. After driving up the rough, rocky road, off-roaders would appear literally at this couple’s back door. Unable to back down the steep road they had just climbed, they often required assistance with directions on how to return to Grey Cliffs by paved road. Although a less frequent concern, people could also go down to Corps property from Lee and Trisha’s land at the top of this logging road, gaining unauthorized access that way for those determined to do so. Lee mentioned that he felt his safety was compromised, as a result, and Trisha had always felt that their land was insecure based on the inability to keep people from coming onto their property whenever they wanted. Specifically, Lee stated, I was willing to do whatever I needed to do to help keep it [Grey Cliffs] open, even putting gates up on my end, you know, which is an expense out of my pocket, to try to keep it accessible, um, to that, to the main boat ramp area but lock it down on the other end of it [to keep people out], so.
Lee’s efforts kept trespassers from leaving the Corps land and accessing his property. Installing gates on his property confined the activity more specifically to the Grey Cliffs area, which could be policed more easily and minimized trespassing. In addition, Lee indicates that his involvement in maintaining Grey Cliffs as a recovered area will be ongoing: Um, I think my role is really going to be more policing the area, um, reporting those who are committing crimes, those who are shooting down there that shouldn’t be shooting down there and so on, you know, um, to really stay on top of that and, you know, reporting, the uh, head guy on the Corps of Engineers, he’s asked me, if I hear any kind of shooting, to give him an immediate call, and he would come here. So, I can see my part is policing the area.
Lee specifically was motivated to install gates on his land to not only protect his property but also keep people on the Corps land. This action also discouraged off-roading, since a large part of the roads used for that purpose could no longer be accessed.
In general, Lee commented on the overall changes happening in the area that the community participated in: So with a lot of arguing and fighting to come up with a different plan, [Edwards] decided to keep it open but barricade off one section [of the woods] where all the crime was happening. So, um, so it went from it’s definitely going to, the sheriff was definitely going to do all he could to shut it down, to barricade the whole area to the point of now it’s going to stay open, and we’re going to make it, you know, the community is going to make it nice, you know.
The community overall, based on its love of the area and the desire to continue using it, agreed to be a part of barricading certain sections to restrict the areas for public use. While the Corps provided some of the materials, such as concrete barriers and gravel, the community helped put the barricades and gravel in place to restrict and clean up the area. Non-designated-use areas would regrow, and the public would still be able to access the lake and participate in limited primitive camping.
Tom and Denise
A local auto shop owner, Tom had grown up in an area near Grey Cliffs and lived about two miles from the lake access point. He had a long history of fishing there, and his wife Denise had been baptized there. The couple had taught their sons to swim at Grey Cliffs. Initially, Tom was very upset about the possibility of closing the area. One of his sons trained for off-road races at Grey Cliffs, and, when Edwards mentioned the growing crime in the area as a reason to close it, Tom simply did not believe crime was an issue. However, he could not deny the mud slides and erosion issues due to the off-roading. He did ask his son to stop using the area for off-roading, and then, he turned to social media to let others know about changes taking place in the area.
And I, I took a lot of pictures around [Grey Cliffs], the water’s up, and I try to post it, everything, you know, how beautiful it is, and what a beautiful spot it is. But now I went down there and took pictures when they put the fences up, you know, and I, I tried to write something like uh “Progress,” you know. [Y]ou’re just going to be able to camp on one side until they get another side cleaned up. And I said, one side is going to be camping; the other side’s going to be for boats and parking. I said we’re trying to organize it to where it’s a better place for everybody.
On the one hand, Tom took his job seriously of keeping everyone updated on social media about the positive efforts being accomplished at Grey Cliffs to motivate people to visit. On the other hand, Tom was concerned about letting the public know via Facebook that violators of Corps’s regulations would, indeed, be prosecuted. Ultimately, he wanted to ensure the success of the community’s efforts to minimize the risk of future closure if the area’s condition went downhill again. Even though enforcing those regulations was the Corps’s responsibility, Tom tried to extend that message to social media, as well: Anybody can go; you know, and we went down there and took pictures, and I even took some close ups of the, the posts and, you know, [the signs about the] four wheelers, and you’ll be prosecuted if you pass this point, you know. Even I put on there, not to scare nobody, but you go past this point, you’ll be prosecuted. And um, [I] just tell them, you know, hey, this is what’s happening, and I’m sorry, you know, you can’t take your jeep down there no more, but it’s a, it’s a public and a family place, it’s not an all-terrain area.
Tom continued by using social media to encourage visitors to throw away trash and not use the area for target practice, which had been other environmental concerns: I put on there [Facebook], pick your trash up, please. You do, you know, we expect, you know, everyone to keep their trash picked up . . . . [I]t’s actually, it looks real good; last time we was down there, it was clean. And I said there can’t be a shooting range down there. [Y]ou’re putting up a target on a tree that’s a Corps tree; you’re shooting against something, you’re tearing up, so you’re destroying property.
Tom mentions also that the community’s efforts and the partnership with Edwards have paid off so far; he reflects: we need[ed] to do a Facebook page, and I said I’ll be glad to do it because we felt like it’s social media, we need to get it out there to them, you know, to people that we couldn’t reach, that had been down there, we was looking for more supporters to be able to help, you know, keep it open and help keep it clean, and let it grow. [W]e’re doing most of the free labor [to maintain the area], you know, and that’s, it works out good, so, I mean, you know, [Edwards is] keeping it open, and . . . shut the four wheelers and jeeps down, and all that stuff. So far. But, I mean, you know, we came to, if the community hadn’t came together, I actually think they [temporarily] would have closed things up with barriers, but in the end of it, nobody would have ever been back down there.
Tom was persuaded to help Edwards accomplish the goals of rejuvenating the area. Part of this participation was motivated by Tom’s relationship with Edwards. Early on, Edwards singled Tom out as someone who could spread the word in the community, and Tom took that task to heart personally, first by asking his son not to off-road race there, then by going above and beyond by creating and maintaining the area’s Facebook page and keeping it updated about the progress made and the regulations being enforced. Viewers of the page could in turn be motivated to participate in these efforts, as well, based on real-time updates.
Norma
Not all interactions with community members developed smoothly, at least not from their perspective, even though Edwards had initially persuaded them to act. Before the first meeting, Norma interacted with Edwards “when I happened to meet [him] at [Grey Cliffs], [and] was given facts about Corps of Engineers’ intentions during an hour +/- long chat.” From that point, Norma decided to begin a grassroots effort to organize the first town hall meeting. She canvassed the neighborhood on foot and distributed fliers about the meeting, continued communicating with Edwards, and emailed and made “phone calls to other county and state officials.” She “promot[ed] [a] public forum [she] organized (acting as liaison between C of E, county officials, other interested parties and ‘neighbors’) thru face-to-face canvassing of neighborhood and social media.” Norma was very pleased at the early positive result and confirmation of her efforts from the community, which was “[s]uch a large turn-out for public forums.” She summarizes her efforts: [I] made inquiries with accountants, attorneys, business assistants, etc., about forming a 501(c)(3) [organization]. I envisioned forming a lasting organization . . . that it should be of a “legal” structure in preparation for incorporating into a legal entity, at some point.
Norma, being persuaded by Edwards that something needed to be done to help the area, chose the solution of creating a non-profit entity that would provide the overarching framework of these efforts. However, the community was not at all interested in this process.
[M]y written suggestions were not followed because the members did not understand, nor seek to understand, the importance of the organizational structure being formed, or the written notes required. They took off on a tangent which has stopped the process forward. So, back to square one.
While the Grey Cliffs area improved visibly, as documented by Tom’s and other community members’ observations, as well as through Edwards’s acknowledgement that the area was “quieter” regarding criminal activity, in Norma’s mind, these results were not evidence of a complete success. Edwards had persuaded her to act, but Norma had additional goals in mind beyond what the Corps wanted, and those goals were not as easily accomplished as what Lee and Tom had done through their work on installing gates, conducting surveillance in the area, and keeping the community updated on progress and regulatory efforts through social media.
To date, the persuasive collaborative efforts between the Corps and the community are working fairly well: crime has been reduced, the community has been helping police the area and keep it clean, updated information continues to be presented on social media, and communication between the Corps and the community is open. There is afaceto the Corps now, through Edwards, and that face has changed from a negative one to the face of a collaborator and helper, someone who is receptive to negotiation and new ideas. According to Edwards, this is the face and identity he desired to portray all along; however, this identity needed to be negotiated with the community and reflected back to him.
Rhetorical and Pedagogical Insights
While a specific case study such as this one has limited generalizability, it does yield several useful insights that could apply in general to addressing difficult communication conflicts in organizational settings. For Edwards, developing a credible ethos and character truly was a recursive, discursive process, aided by the After Action Reviews required by the Corps. This essential reflection process allowed Edwards to reflect on his persona and how the community perceived him officially. This reflection contributes to developing arevisedethos, if needed. Edwards narrated about his interactions with the community in retrospect: . . . the public meetings really brought the community and the Corps together and gave us the opportunity to have some credibility in the area because we were making the investment both, you know, from a financial, fiscal perspective, as well as respecting what the community’s wishes were.
Edwards mentions that another purpose of After Action Reviews is to ensure he is ready for “the next occurrence, the next meeting.” The reflection process includes not only assessment of past events but also consideration of what strategies would foster better communication channels and what the results of those improved efforts might be for the future. In this case, successful interaction with and persuasion of the community required Edwards to convey a different ethos than the one he originally presented. The concepts of a negotiated ethos and coconstructed, shared identity demonstrate how recursive this process is, especially during such a sensitive context involving differing values. Once Edwards heard at the first meeting how open the community was to helping physically, he began negotiating with it about the specific actions that would help, using his authority. He understood the audience’s desire to help, expressed affinity for that desire as a way to accomplish Corps’s goals, and agreed with suggestions the community proposed about helping. He also tried to make personal connections to establish a greater affinity with the audience as a way to demonstrate that he sincerely wanted a relationship with community members, and he continued reflecting on how he could improve this relationship. Edwards wanted the community members to see that he was not as different from them as some thought, at first. Both he and the community ultimately wanted the same thing: to maintain the area for future community (public) use and to help manage the area based on Corps Regulations. This case study illustrates how, even in cases when organizational communicators and their audiences seem to be dialoging from polar opposites, all parties may have some common ground to build upon when resolving conflict, even though it might take some effort to find it.
As this case further illustrates, communicators may have to adapt their ethos quickly during the negotiation process, based on unexpected initial audience feedback. Edwards’s first, informal audience analysis of a few community members led him to believe the community would be open to closure, which would be the simplest and least expensive solution to this problem. However, during the first town hall meeting, Edwards had to pivot mid talk and demonstrate his identification with the audience, sympathize with their feelings, and present other options in response to community members’ resistance to closure, which caught Edwards by surprise. At that time, he realized that he needed to develop an ethos of sincerity and affinity, not one of only credibility; his audience did not react the way Edwards thought it would to his documented experience with these problems. These needs for affinity and sincerity continue to the present time because, even though the community and the Corps have acknowledged that improvements have been made, the conflict could reemerge at any time, necessitating additional restrictions and enforcement. Edwards’s narrative and public presentation conveyed the desire for harmony between the community and the Corps. Yet in the process of communicating about the conflict, he and the community also experienced marked disharmony. While not comfortable at all, this disharmony brought to light the community’s willingness to help, and the community viewed Edwards as a supporter and community sympathizer eventually, since he appeared open to other options besides closure. This case is a reminder that this negotiation process is not always neat or linear as efforts are impacted by the discursive construction of language.
Accepting this ambiguity could encourage communicators in a similar situation to be more patient about the evolution of desired harmony in the face of conflict. Because of Edwards’s background as an engineer and government representative, he could easily have privileged “the technical language of functionalism” thatPatterson and Lee (1997, p. 29) observed in their research. Plenty of evidence existed to contribute to that language, including the dispatch reports from the sheriff’s office, the number of trash bags full of beer bottles Edwards himself had hauled off, the visible evidence of the deteriorating landscape, and the number of needles from illicit drug use picked up from the shoreline. However, in the first town hall meeting, Edwards immediately switched to speaking about virtues the community valued about the area in an attempt to establish needed affinity. In switching to these anecdotes, Edwards not only made crucial personal connections with the audience, but he also avoided the dichotomy between technical functionalism and virtuous anecdotes by explaining the extra steps that needed to be taken to ensure these activities are done legally in the right places with permission. Mediating this dichotomy illustrates ways communicators can negotiate a shared identity with key audiences and stakeholders using ethos development and presentation strategies. In response to Edwards’s efforts, the community, through its deliberative function, asPatterson and Lee (1997, p. 35) described in reference to their work, negotiated its identity with the Corps, as well, through their individual actions, as illustrated through their reflective self-narratives.
Some might view this rhetorical situation as one in which values were not aligned at all: Edwards, with the Corps being his power source, is obligated to represent it at all costs. His actions are grounded almost subconsciously in institutional motives (Kinsella, 2005, p. 307). Likewise, just because the community did what it was told, those actions do not indicate value alignment with the Corps in full. However, I propose that the results do indicate that the identity and ethos negotiation between Edwards and community individuals worked to the point of creating a working relationship with the Corps, and values were aligned to the point of accomplishing the goals that needed to be accomplished at that time. The community has chosen values that are close enough in alignment to accomplish the goals that all wanted. This negotiated work is certainly unstable, though: new areas of conflict will necessitate additional rhetorical communication strategies for a workable value alignment that functions dialogically at that discursive moment.
This study also suggests that even when organizations and stakeholders identify workable solutions to a sustainability issue, for example, some voices might be left out, such as Norma’s. While her communication efforts were undoubtedly a success as she volunteered to help Edwards accomplish his ultimate goals, Norma’s voice did not join in with the symphony (Bondi & Yu, 2019) of other voices in accepting a compromise that was close enough to what the community wanted overall. Her voice, continuing to demonstrate polyphony, attempted to unite the community in the goal of creating an official, nonprofit organization that would have more power to negotiate with the Corps. For now, her voice has been rejected to some degree, as the community and the Corps are content with the actions that have been accomplished so far. This type of continuing dissonance indicates the rhetorical tension that can still exist after conflict resolution has been negotiated.
Such a tension is one that instructors can help students confront, as well. While all of us, including students, would like to hope that communication conflicts can be addressed with thorough preparation and following tried and tested effective principles for organizational communication, such as conducting audience analyses and drawing conclusions based on them, this case and others can serve to illustrate how unpredictable real-life scenarios and audiences can be, especially when local, cultural concerns are taken into account. While instructors cannot prepare students for every difficult communication scenario, they can use cases such as this one to illustrate different options communicators have when negotiating ethos with others, whether in the community, workplace, or other settings. A rhetorical framework focusing on ethos, such as the one I used in this study, could become a tool for invention to identify new communication strategies, especially ones needed in crisis communication, when audiences may respond unexpectedly. Such strategies could aid students learning to navigate a range of global and local communication environments that offer potential for jointly accomplished action based on common values, though those values may be constantly changing.
Conclusion
Unifying this community to act was no small task, since conflict produces emotional energy that helps unify participants (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017;Mason, 1996), sometimes resulting in strong oppositional efforts. In addition to emotional energy, conflict can also be generative in nature (Castelló et al., 2013;Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017), which can help in creating solutions to conflict. That type of resolution can be seen in the Grey Cliffs scenario; however, assuming this stability will extend forward indefinitely is a naïve assumption. Differences in sensemaking (Henderson et al., 2015, p. 14;Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017;Weick, 1995) could result in future conflict and challenges (Meisenbach & Feldner, 2011, p. 561), and the Corps and community could experience cycles of paradox and “assimilation” (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017, p. 331) again in a continually recursive process. For example, because of variations in weather, activities at Grey Cliffs tend to rise and fall, suggesting that, during warmer months, more people might be in the area with the potential to challenge the Corps boundaries or participate in unsanctioned activities. The tension between the Corps and community could resurface if different publics begin using the area or if some of the stories about the relationship between the Corps and community change or are lost over time.
Rhetorical analysis is well suited to providing insights and even solutions to this type of conflict. While seemingly formulaic at times, such as the way I separated credibility and character into two analytic categories, this type of analysis highlights the complexity of the concept of ethos and how closely it relates to values and value alignment. While ethos can be referred to as a general term, this analysis indicates how a communicator can develop character and virtues to the point of reaching a hostile audience when appeals to authority and experience alone are not persuasive enough. Likewise, persuasion includes addressing other complex rhetorical appeals, as well, such as pathos and logos, which I did not include in this rhetorical, analytical framework. Yet these elements are important to communication, as well, and deserve attention in future work. Also, highlighting the appeals the community used in responding to Edwards would further complicate these observations in future analyses. Additional research can continue to focus on the multiple voices (Castelló et al., 2013) involved in conflict surrounding sustainability issues and discover more of the “available means of persuasion” (Aristotle, ca. 367-323 B.C.E./2019) and identification (Burke, 1969) needed for each community and rhetorical situation.
Referring to types of potentially dynamic communicative situations,Cyphert (2010)states, “a sustainable global society will require robust rhetorical systems with which to make increasingly complex collective decisions that simultaneously involve economic, environmental, social, political, and moral issues” (p. 360). Such discursive, rhetorical efforts are no doubt enhanced by careful, diplomatic organizational communicators who address community and stakeholder concerns as well as environmental ones. Astute communicators will realize and address the fact that, in addition to environmental sustainability issues impacting a community, for example, other sustainability needs exist, as well, such as the need to sustain communication and relationship channels between a government organization and community members, as well as a community being able to sustain itself through a continued connection to a beloved geographic space in need of beautification and preservation. Various sustainability needs may require attention within the same physical, relational, and rhetorical context, addressing multiple communities, individual identities, and relationships.
Footnotes
Appendix
The following websites were consulted for identifying values and value words for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its missions, goals, regulations, and purposes:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.).U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headquarters website. http://www.usace.army.mil
The main site for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this page provides information on and links to Corps missions, locations, careers, and media, for example. It also includes efforts related to current events, such as weather-related impacts on lakes, rivers, and dams, as well as other issues, such as Coronavirus response.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2000, May 5).Rules and regulations governing public use of Corps of Engineers water resources development projects. https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/EP1165-2-316.pdf
This document provides specific guidance about rules and regulations applying to items of concern for the Corps on its properties, including regulations about the use of vehicles and activities of swimming, picnicking, camping, and hunting, for example. Regulation 327.2.C refers specifically to operating unauthorized vehicles on Corps property, and 327.2 focuses on vehicle use more generally.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2014, April 7).USACE acquisition instruction. https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/Contracting/UAI_FINAL_UPDATE1_HCASigned_07APR14.pdf
This document, accessible through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers main site, covers topics such as the federal acquisition regulation system, including policies about conflicts of interest, publicizing contracts, and acquisition planning. This 330-page document also covers ethical concerns such as acquiring properties owned by non-profit organizations employing people who are blind or severely disabled, privacy and freedom of information, applying government acquisitions to labor law, and handling protests, disputes, and appeals.
U.S. Office of Federal Register and Government Publishing Office. (2021, March 23).Electronic code of federal regulations: Part 2635—Standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=06f812f26e7ed9f364bb87944757b912&rgn=div5&view=text&node=5:3.0.10.10.9&idno=5#se5.3.2635_1101
Covering Part 2635 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifically, this electronically available document provides details on this regulation’s subparts, including general ethics advice, honesty, financial conflicts of interest, and use of official time. Part 2635 begins with “Basic obligation of public service.” Many subparts of this regulation address values and ethical behavior supported by the Corps as a governmental organization.
U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2004, June 25).Code of federal regulations, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of Defense: Part 326—Enforcement.https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title33-vol3/pdf/CFR-2012-title33-vol3-part326.pdf
This specific section of the Code of Federal Regulations applies specifically to Corps of Engineers enforcement of regulations. It covers topics such as handling unauthorized activities on Corps properties, including various strategies for addressing them. This Part of the Regulations also addresses non-compliance issues and legal action that may need to be taken due to non-compliance, including the process of administering penalties. This document illustrates the authority that Corps of Engineers managers, for example, have in enforcing Corps regulations, as established by the Code of Federal Regulations.
U.S. Office of Government Ethics. (n.d.).Standards of conduct for employees of the executive branch.https://www2.oge.gov/Web/oge.nsf/Resources/5+C.F.R.+Part+2635:++Standards+of+ethical+conduct+for+employees+of+the+executive+branch
This site provides resources for employees of the Executive Branch seeking information on codes of conduct, such as The Fourteen General Principles, Summary of the Standards of Conduct, and Compilation of Federal Ethics Laws.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the case study participants for their time and transparency in helping increase understanding about this important conflict resolution process. She also thanks theBPCQeditors and anonymous reviewers who helped shape the draft into its current form.
Author’s Note
This study was approved as exempt by the Institutional Review Board of Tennessee Technological University (Approval No. 2096). All identifying information has been removed, and pseudonyms have been used throughout the study. Participant comments are reproduced with permission.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biography