Institutional argumentation and conflict prevention: The case of the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner

- Combines semantic-pragmatic analysis with argumentation analysis.
- Offers a case in point of argumentation in the context of public organizations.
- Highlights the value of argumentation for conflict prevention.
- Introduces the analysis of the act of “recommendation”.
- Considers a case of institutional ombudsman.

By focusing on a case study of institutional argumentation in the sector of data protection and transparency, this paper offers a view on the role of institutional argumentative discourse aimed at conflict prevention in public organizations. In particular, the context we are analyzing is that of a Swiss institutional role named Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC). Among other tasks, the person who serves as a FDPIC has the right to monitor data protection in the whole territory of the Swiss Confederation, with the possibility of issuing recommendations to subjects who are found in violation of the law on this matter. The FDPIC's role appears similar to that of ombudsmen; his or her recommendations are not binding for the parties, but they represent powerful argument-based warnings that serve the function of preventing escalation to a court proceeding. The specific nature of this type of recommendation is explored in this paper both at the level of a semantic-pragmatic analysis of the speech act “to recommend”, and at the level of argumentation. Integrating an argumentative level is necessary to fully explain the intended effect of this specific type of speech act of recommendation in this context. Argumentation is also advanced by the FDPIC to support his decision: by devising a comprehensive, convincing and well-structured argumentative discourse, the FDPIC pursues the ultimate pragmatic goal of preventing the emergence of conflicts between citizens and legal authorities.