1. COMM 411 Communication in Conflict Management Dr. Amy M. Bippus
Ethics in conflict
COMM 411
Communication in Conflict Management
Dr. Amy M. Bippus
DEPARTMENT: Communication Studies
NAME: Amy M. Bippus
ADDRESS:
TITLE OF THIS MODULE:
Integrating ethical thinking into Communication in Conflict Management (COMM 411)
Background on the course:
 Communication and Conflict Management (COMM 411) is an upper division undergraduate course I have taught continuously since my appointment at CSULB in Several years ago, it was made a capstone course, so it attracts students from across the university and focuses on advanced critical thinking, skill building, and research integration on the topic of effective conflict management. The course enrolls approximately students per year. The design of the course is very interactive and applied, with students contributing their own ideas and examples during class discussions and interacting with each other via online week-long conferences about supplemental readings and topics. They also have major presentation assignments in which they present and analyze conflict situations, suggest alternative communication strategies, and reenact the scenarios to demonstrate recommended improvements.
Rationale for the ethics module:
This course is designed to help students to analyze problematic communication behaviors, explain how communication behaviors escalate conflicts, and identify more productive communication behaviors to both prevent and manage specific conflict episodes. As such, it is an obvious forum for the discussion of ethical interpersonal thinking and conduct. While the course does emphasize issues of collaborative (A. K. A. “Win-Win”) approaches to conflict, much of the text and supplementary readings discuss the benefits of these approaches in terms of indirect self-gain; that is, doing what is good for others so that they will be more likely to reciprocate in kind. I believe that this emphasis amounts to an oxymoronic “strategic altruism”, without consideration of the moral or ethical grounds for striving for promoting the rights and dignity of other people in conflicts.
Part of this problem may be borne of the communication discipline’s emphasis on message strategies. This focus tends construe outcomes in terms of efficacy in achieving the immediate goals of the speaker. Research in the area of conflict and communication rarely considers the ethical implications of communication strategies in any depth. The sum total impression that this gives is that this emphasis on self-interested expediency is normal and expected, perhaps even admirable.
I have made some fledgling efforts to implement ethical reasoning into the course, encouraging discussion of the subjective meanings of fairness, justice, and integrity, and their impact on people’s conduct in conflict. However, I have recognized that we are missing a shared vocabulary and conceptual foundation in the class for discussing these issues. Therefore, I have developed this ethics module for the course, to lay the groundwork early in the semester for a reflexive consideration of ethics in the all areas of the course.
Contents of the module:
This model depends heavily upon student-based examples, and class discussion. While existing case studies of moral dilemmas (e.g., “The Overcrowded Lifeboat”) provided rich illustrations of complex ethical quandaries, they do not reflect the reality of students’ everyday lives. Instead I want to bring ethical thinking to where students are likely to use it - in their daily conflicts. This follows research suggesting that class discussion and case studies are the instructional practices that produce the most significant change sin students moral reasoning (Canary, 2007).
The module itself takes a four-part approach to the topic of ethics in conflict. First, have introduced the idea of people’s motivations for learning about conflict communication, and discuss how these motives and the strategies we learn in class may engender ethical challenges. Next, we review models of moral development (Kohlberg, 1973), moral decision making (Rest, 1984) and fairness (Segev, 2006) to create a basic shared framework for thinking and talking about ethics in conflict situations. Third, I have provided students with opportunities to apply these principles and receive feedback. I have developed three short, accessible case studies to allow students to reflect on ethical issues in interpersonal conflict. Students also will be given a short ethics-related reading between the two classes that broaches the influence of culture on ethics. This will be homework and so will not require class time, but will start the next class discussion. Finally, I elicit ethical dilemma case studies from students, which they will then discuss in a more extended online forum. This will enhance the accessibility of the ethics cases for students and give them a chance to receive feedback on their analysis of the issues from peers and myself.
I also have reviewed the materials in the remainder of the course to identified areas in which ethical reasoning can be applied. Establishing the foundational vocabulary and analytical processes in the module will make it easier and more effective to systematically facilitate ethical thinking throughout the course.
In total, this module will give students an introduction to ethical constructs and opportunities to apply these concepts to hypothetical situations and real life cases. They will receive continual reinforcement of the material through the remainder of the course. Ethical analysis will therefore be integrated into such course topics as conflict tactics, emotions, power, interpersonal aggression, negotiation and third party interventions, and forgiveness.
Canary, H. E. (2007). Teaching ethics in communication courses: An investigation of instructional methods, course foci, and student outcomes. Communication Education, 56,
References
Hesse, M. (2007, August 18). Good Samaritans, no middle ground: Some say exploiting another's loss isn't so bad, but to others, it's still a sin. Houston Chronicle, p. 1. Retrieved April 26, 2008, from ProQuest Newsstand database.
Jensen, J. V. (1997), Ethical issues in the communication process. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rest, J.R. (1984). Research on moral development: Implications for training counseling psychologists.  Counseling Psychologist, 12,
Kohlberg, Lawrence (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. Journal of Philosophy ,70,
Segev, R. (2006). Well-being and fairness. Philosophical Studies, 131,

2. Why do you want to study conflict communication?
To learn how win arguments?
To understand yourself better?
To be a better family member/friend/romantic partner/co-worker?
To understand conflict as a social dynamic?
Other reasons?
In this section, we will first encourage students to share their own reasons for wanting to study conflict communication. After they have brainstormed, we will review (the perhaps redundant) ones listed, and discuss why we need to consider the ethical implications of these different motives.

3. What is ethical communication?
How can we be unethical in our communication during conflicts? What sorts of behaviors would constitute ethical conflict?
This will be a brief, whole class discussion to get students to brainstorm about their conceptions of what ethics means applied to conflict and communication, and to acknowledge what behaviors are not ethical.

5. Objectives:
Sensitize us to the inherency of potential ethical issues in conflict communication process
Highlight the complexities and difficulties involved in making evaluations of communication ethics
Encourage us to develop thoughtfully our own workable approach to assessing communication ethics
Enhance our ability to make specifically focused and carefully considered ethical judgments
Adapted from R. L. Johannesen’s (2002) Ethics in Human Communication .
In this section, we will outline the focused objectives we have for this module. We will stress that there will be no objective standards for ethics to be learned and applied; rather, ethics is a more complicated issue that requires us to think carefully about the factors and values that guide our decisions.

6. Ethics vs. morals
“Ethics refers to theory, to abstract universal principles and their sources, whereas moral implies practicing those principles of applied ethics, or culture- bound modes of conduct.”
From J. V. Jensen’s (1997), Ethical Issues in the Communication Process.

7. Conflict Case Study I
Mr. Hernandez is the newly chairman of the city council as Chairman. The city must close one of the local parks for financial reasons, but there is no agreement over which one. Parks are the heart of the community – they have green spaces, community meeting places, and recreational programs for citizens, not to mention their effect on the surrounding property values.
During his election to the city council, Mr. Hernandez had proposed a series of “Open Meetings” in which members of the community could voice their opinions. He hoped that the dialogue would make the community realize the necessity of closing a park and foster support for the council’s decision. But at the first Open Meeting, speakers were openly hostile toward the idea and the council, and the meeting barely closed without fist-fights. Some council members later received threatening phone calls.
Mr. Hernandez considers cancelling the next Open Meeting.

8. Kohlberg’s Moral Stages Level I Pre-moral Kohlberg, Lawrence (1973)
Kohlberg’s Moral Stages Level I Pre-moral Kohlberg, Lawrence (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. Journal of Philosophy ,70,
Stage 1: Obedience and punishment Person thinks that rules are prescribed by a powerful authority, which/he must unquestioningly obey; threat of punishment makes something wrong i.e., Is Mr. Hernandez required by law to have Open Meetings? Stage 2: Individualism and exchange Person realizes that not all people see rules the same way, so people are free to pursue their individual interests; give to others in order to get in return i.e., Will it make it easier for Mr. Hernandez not to have an Open Meeting?
Level I: Pre-moral
Stage 1: Obedience and punishment
Person thinks that rules are prescribed by a powerful authority, which/he must unquestioningly obey; threat of punishment makes something wrong
i.e., Is Mr. Hernandez required by law to have Open Meetings?
Stage 2: Individualism and exchange
Person realizes that not all people see rules the same way, so people are free to pursue their individual interests; punishment is something simply to be avoided.
i.e., Will it make it easier for Mr. Hernandez not to have an Open Meeting?

9. Kohlberg’s Moral Stages Level II: Conventional morality
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships
Person moves toward consideration of motives, focuses on “good” character traits, and looks to standards of family or community
i.e., Do good council members take input from their constituents?; or Will I look bad to my colleagues if I don’t preserve the safety of the council?
Stage 4: Maintaining social order
Person thinks of behaviors in terms of society as a whole – how would the world be if we all did/not act this way?
i.e., How can the city’s government work if citizens aren’t allowed input?
Level II: Conventional morality
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships
Person moves toward consideration of motives, focuses on “good” character traits, and looks to standards of family or community
i.e., Do good council members take input from their constituents?; or Do good colleagues preserve the
safety of the council?
Point out at this point that each stage represent broader potential thinking, not necessarily “better” or “more ethical” thinking.
Example: On airplanes during safety demonstration, they explicitly advise people to put their own air masks on before their child’s. Logistically this makes sense (if the parent passes out, both will die) but strong moral grounding at this stage (good parents put their children first) may make such a pragmatic decision unlikely.
Stage 4: Maintaining social order
Person thinks of behaviors in terms of society as a whole – how would the world be if we all did/not act this way?
i.e. How can the city’s government work if citizens aren’t allowed input?

10. Kohlberg’s Moral Stages Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights
Person recognizes that society needs to preserve individual rights; rules = social agreements that can be changed through democratic procedures
i.e., How can Mr. Hernandez give residents a chance to participate in the decision process in an orderly way?
Stage 6: Universal Principles*
Person feels that inner conscience takes precedence over social order or specific laws
i.e., Is the chaos of the meetings justified given the importance of this issue to residents?
Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights
Person recognizes that society needs to preserve individual rights; change should come through democratic procedures
i.e., “How can we give residents a chance to participate in the decision process in an orderly way?”
Stage 6: Universal principles
Person feels that individual justice takes precedence over social order, so civil disobedience is appropriate.
i.e., “Is the chaos of the last meeting justified given the importance of this issue to residents?”
*This stage was actually dropped later by Kohlberg, because it occurs only rarely, and is seen as more of a theoretical construct.
Summary :
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.
At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.
At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

11. Class activity
In groups, share conflicts you have had that involved ethical decisions or dilemmas. The situation must present a behavioral dilemma, requiring a decision about two courses of action. It can be based on a situation in your family, workplace, school, or elsewhere.
Decide on 1 scenario from each group to be turned into a short (<250 word) case study. We will then make these the basis for discussion on this week’s conferences. I will edit them for appropriateness. Include the following:
False names for the main parties involved
A description of the central dispute
A description of the issues or factor involved
This slides ends the first class, giving students 15 minutes to share their own conflicts, and to identify and analyze the ethical dimensions. Student-based examples will enhance the relevance of the module for them, but will be modified and/or supplemented to ensure that they exemplify module concepts.

12. For next class…
Read “Good Samaritans: No middle ground” article (e-reserve) Next Topic: Moral decision making in conflict

13. “Good Samaritan” article
Main points?
This will be a discussion of the article “Good Samaritans, no middle ground: Some say exploiting another's loss isn't so bad, but to others, it's still a sin.” This brings up the topic of cultural difference in ethical perspectives, and can lead into a review of concepts from last class.

14. Conflict Case Study II Deanna is struggling in her chemistry class
Conflict Case Study II Deanna is struggling in her chemistry class. She has fallen behind due to an illness, and now has to take a make-up exam for which she is not well prepared. Her professor seats her alone in a conference room to take the exam and then returns to his office. She realizes that he has given her the answer key along with her exam.
This case study will be used to review Kohlberg’s stages from last class, as well as the basis for the moral decision making model we will cover in this class.
What would reflect reasoning at each of Kohlberg’s stages?
Stage 1: Obedience and punishment: Cheating is wrong.
Stage 2: Individualism and exchange: She shouldn't cheat because she might get caught.
Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships: Honest people and good students don’t cheat.
Stage 4: Maintaining social order: Grades only have meaning if people earn them on their own.
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights: She is a willing member of the academic community and so needs to follow its rules. If she is unprepared for reasons beyond her control, she should work through proper channels to get fair treatment.
Stage 6: Universal Principles* Not easily applicable.

15. Moral Decision Making
Moral sensitivity: interpreting a situation in terms of how one’s actions affect the welfare of others
Moral judgment: formulating what a moral course of action would be
Moral motivation: deciding on an action among competing possibilities
Moral character: acting out what one intends to do
Rest, J.R. (1984). Research on moral development: Implications for training counseling psychologists.  Counseling Psychologist, 12,
Moral sensitivity: to interpret the situation in terms of how one’s actions affect the welfare of others
Involves being aware that a particular situation has ethical implications; Can a person see that there might
be an ethical dilemma in a situation?
Moral judgment: to formulate what a moral course of action would be
What would be a moral ideal be here?
Moral motivation: to select an action among competing value outcomes;
This recognizes that moral values are not the only ones at stake in a given situation. Which course of action will a person take, given a range of differing values?
Moral character: to execute and implement what one intends to do; aka, “ego strength” or “self regulation”
Will a person go through with what she decides is best?

16. What is fair in conflicts?
Two principles for fairness in interpersonal conflicts:
Equal chance principle - the harm for each person should be minimized to a roughly equal degree; if not possible, each person should receive the highest equal chance to avoid harm
Importance principle – the importance of each party’s interests are weighed; the stronger the interest, the more reason to favor the person to whom it belongs
Segev, R. (2006). Well-being and fairness. Philosophical Studies, 131,
This slide gets more in-depth into the details for making moral decisions by exploring conceptions of fairness.
Points out that the examples used so far have involved personal decision that had distal effects on others. What about situations where the other affected party is more proximal?
An example of saving two people from drowning can be used as a simple example to demonstrate these concepts.
The Equal Chance Principle considers the fate of each party equally important. It is based on the idea that “the independent value of each person and the fact that a loss for one is not annulled by a benefit to another”
“The crucial first step towards a proper resolution of the clash between the Equal Chance Principle and the Importance
Principle is to acknowledge its existence.”

17. Conflict Case Study III
Derek and Heidi are dating and are moving into an apartment together. They disagree about how to split the rent. Derek earns about 2/3 of what Heidi does, and has medical bills from a car accident to pay back. Heidi has no debt, but is saving for an extended trip abroad with her family.
Class discussion:
Have the class get in groups for 5-10 minutes to discuss this case. Then have each report how they divided the rent.
List on the board the factors that groups considered in their decision. Which principle of fairness did the class tend to embrace? Why?

18. National Communication Association
We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.
We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.
We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.
We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.
We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences for our own communication and expect the same of others.
From
We will discuss this statement from discipline’s national organization, to reflect on how it compare to the models and theories we have discussed in this module.
Ask students to reflect on what, if anything, is missing from this statement.
Finally, pose the question “If you were generating your personal ethical code for conduct in conflict, what would it say (in your own words)?”

19. Conference board discussion
After reading the conflict dilemma presented to your group (from last class), discuss the following questions in with your group this week : a. What are reactions that people might have to this dilemma reflecting each of Kohlberg's stages? b. What would be the moral “ideal” in this situation? What are some other deciding factors to be considered? What are some factors that might prevent the parties from acting on this ideal? c. What would YOU do in this situation, and why?

20. You’re now ready for the test!