Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: A major topic of academic discussion over the last several years has been the problem of religious and moral pluralism in democratic societies. Some, such as John Rawls, have argued for an ideal of public reason, according to which citizens (under normal circumstances) ought to argue for their preferred political positions in terms that can be understood by their fellow citizens regardless of whether or not they adhere to the same religious and moral traditions. Though this ideal is motivated by genuine concerns regarding civility and mutual respect between citizens of different traditions, other scholars, such as Michael J. Perry, have rightly pointed out that the ideal of public reason unfairly disadvantages citizens who might wish to argue for their preferred positions in terms of their religious or moral doctrines—or who might only be able to make their arguments in terms of such doctrines.
Michael J. Perry and others have argued for a more open approach, often referred to as “ecumenical political dialogue.” In this paper, I briefly explain why I support Perry’s more open view. I then turn to the question of whether the experience of ecumenical and interfaith religious dialogue might shed some light on the problem of communication across doctrinal lines. Exploring Jewish-Christian encounter, I examine what can be learned from the experience of interfaith dialogue and attempt to apply those learnings to the realm of political dialogue in pluralistic democratic societies.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this essay, I argue against Rawls's ideal of public reason and in favor of Perry's concept of "ecumenical political dialogue." In doing so, I draw upon work in the field of ecumenical religious dialogue to support my argument.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In this essay, I explore the experience of three interfaith/interreligious dialogues, examining the ways in which ecumenical religious dialogue has been conducted, and apply the learnings from that exploration to the field of political dialogue.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper explores the potential for a dialogical understanding of public relations by tracing crisis communication in the U.S. Roman Catholic clergy sex abuse case. Rather than an organization-centered assessment of crisis communication, with an emphasis on the strategic communication of what might be called the ‘source’ organization, this study decenters the source organization in order to engage the polyvocality in crisis communication. Arguing that a dialogical analysis offers an expanded capacity to understand the way in which crises are constructed discursively, this paper traces how three stakeholder organizations in the crisis orient to dialogue as a concept and practice. By comparing each stakeholder organization’s rhetoric about dialogue to its actual discourse, it is possible to compare and contrast talk about dialogic forms of communication with the use of dialogic forms of communication. In this way, it is possible to trace what Cheney and Christensen (2001) call ‘political’ uses of dialogic terminology in public relations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: As diversity initiatives, diversity programs, and value-in-diversity arguments are being made in management circles, academicians have advanced theoretical frameworks and conducted numerous studies on aspects related to managing organizational diversity. This paper provides an overview of the recent dialogue on diversity and reveals the focal activity of organizational diversity as managing the contributions of different identities. The academic conceptions of four approaches to identity as offered in interdisciplinary literature on diversity are explored. A brief assessment of each approach is offered, along with discussions on theoretical challenges and future areas for scholarship.