Communication in the Columnist’s Brown Bag Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Shift in the Climate of Discussion
How the Shift Affected the Interactions in the Seminar
What Could Cause the Shift Toward a More Relaxed Direction
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The Columnist’s Brown Bag case focuses on a brown bag lunch seminar that encouraged a free discussion with a prestigious newspaper’s columnist until one of the participants asked the speaker an uncomfortable question. The case demonstrates how conflicts of different viewpoints can cause a shift in a mood of a room full of people. Situations like this where an individual with a biased opinion carries his unhidden dislike into conversation with an individual representative of an organization are common in modern society. Such conflicts tend to make other people uncomfortable to witness the discussion’s process and significantly impact their mood.

The Shift in the Climate of Discussion

To examine the shift in the climate of the discussion, one needs to analyze the events that caused the shift. There are certain elements provided in the text of the case that predicted the conflict, or at least, the hostile attitude of the student who asked the last question. The text notes that the contradictory question arisen in the last ten minutes of discussion primarily consisted of open communication of the columnist with the audience. Thus, one could suggest that the student who proposed the uncomfortable question was well aware of the nature of the issue and strategically decided to wait until the end of the seminar.

However, this could also mean that the student was willing to ask the question earlier or not participate but failed to resist the urge due to possible personal relation to the topic. The next segment states that the student was sitting at the back of the room, emphasizing that the student had negative intentions before the discussion. Additionally, the student made sure that all people in the room witnessed his conversation with the columnist by raising everyone’s attention by asking the question in a louder voice than anyone else.

If only the student kept his regular speaking voice and did not force everyone in the room to focus on his question, the shift in the climate of the discussion would not be so prominent. The fact that a journalism professor decided to immediately interrupt the discussion and inset his remark prior to the guest’s speech indicated to other participants that something went wrong. The professor’s visible frustration with the question made the audience sympathize with him and look back at the challenger student. The student’s open hostility and the professor’s frustration, combined with the columnist’s vague explanation of the reasons for the newspaper’s delay of the editorial comment, created an urge of the audience to choose a side. The sudden urge to pick sides amidst of relaxed and almost reverent environment made the audience uncomfortable.

The sudden urge to choose the right side of the discussion is explained by the third-party approach to interpersonal conflicts, which requires an individual to take a role. According to Schwabe and Gollwitzer (2020), there are five roles in total that the third party individual could utilize in a conflict situation: the victim supported, perpetrator supporter, arbitrator, escalator, and bystander. The individuals in the audience choose one of the five roles in accordance with their personal moral beliefs, insight, and religious background.

The challenger student’s actions could be perceived as rude, based on the traditional moral beliefs. However, the religious aspect suggests that the columnist is wrong for lying and hiding the true reasons for the editorial delay. Thus, the combination of the abovementioned factors resulted in a shift in the climate of the discussion.

How the Shift Affected the Interactions in the Seminar

The shift in climate affected the interactions in the seminar, which could be noted by the self-conscious tone of voice of the second professor and the abrupt end of the seminar. Moreover, the columnist felt the need to explain himself and point to the years of experience at the newspaper in response to the challenger student’s mistrust. According to Harrison and Tanner (2018), the professor’s self-explanation and defense could be explained by the fact that the students’ mistrust presents a case of microaggression. The authors define microaggression as biased attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors communicated through verbalizations or behaviors (Harrison & Tanner, 2018). The audience started to engage in side conversations about the main discussion.

What Could Cause the Shift Toward a More Relaxed Direction

The discussion could have ended on a more positive note if the professors were able to handle the confrontation. In dealing with microaggressions, Harrison and Tanner suggest taking five steps: acknowledging the microaggression, validating their feelings, confrontation, and private discussion with the offender (2018). However, if the seminar had begun with a confrontational climate, the shift of the climate toward a more relaxed direction could be performed through the collaborative mode of conflict handling. One of the main factors that help prevent conflicts in youth, according to Elsaesser et al. (2020), is focusing on the positive development of issues.

To de-escalate the tension in the audience, the columnist could focus on telling about positive changes in the years of his experience of working in the newspaper. From personal insight, asking the audience what positive changes they notice in current media culture could help establish active discussion and promote further open communication in question-answer format.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper analyzed the case of the columnist’s brown bag lunch and how the combination of different factors could instantly change the mood and climate of the conversation. The paper discussed the factors that predicted the shift in the climate of discussion and explained how it affected the interactions in the seminar. Lastly, the paper introduced possible methods for dealing with confrontations that suit the case and made suggestions on how the columnist could cause a shift in the confrontational climate toward a more relaxed direction.

References

Elsaesser, C. M., Patton, D. U., Kelley, A., Santiago, J., & Clarke, A. (2020). Avoiding fights on social media: Strategies youth leverage to navigate conflict in a digital era. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(3), 806-821. Web.

Harrison, C., & Tanner, K. D. (2018). Language matters: Considering microaggressions in science. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), 1-8. Web.

Schwabe, J., & Gollwitzer, M. (2020). Explaining third-party reactions in interpersonal conflicts: A role-taking approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1-19. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Communication in the Columnist’s Brown Bag Case

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)