Ventajas (de la IRT en general y del modelo de Rasch en particular)  Las ventajas de la IRT (y del modelo de Rasch) respecto a la Teoría Clásica

To be sure, much present-day apologetic discourse does originate from pub-lic organizations. A recent example of such discourse is President Clinton’s May 16, 1997, apology for the Tuskegee experiments, which sought to ac-count for the federal government’s syphilis experiments on African-Ameri-can men that resulted in considerable harm (Harter et al., 2000). Other examples of institutional apologiae include President Reagan’s defense of his administration’s actions in the Iran-Contra affair (Benoit et al., 1991), the Canadian government’s apology to the Inuits (“Canada Says Sorry,”

1998), as well as the Australian government’s apology to the Aborigines, to name but a few (Corder, 1999).

Contexts

Institutions face criticism when their behaviors are perceived to demon-strate an incongruence with the values of the larger social system in which

they operate (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). Like corporations, institutions may face criticism for accidents that have occurred and resulted in tragedy and death. Concomitantly, institutions also face scandals and illegalities in which their officers are guilty of wrongdoing and face civil or criminal liabil-ity. Other potential causes of institutional crises may be inadequate re-sponses to natural disasters, terrorism, economic crises, or public health failures (Seeger et al., 2003). The largest context of actions for which insti-tutions are likely to face criticism, however, concerns the area of public irre-sponsibility, or what Seeger et al. (2003) described as “crises of public perception” (p. 54), because public institutions are uniquely vulnerable to allegations that their conduct has violated the values that reflect their stated charter or mission.

One unique feature of the context of institutional apologia is the notion of a nondenial apologia (Kruse, 1977). As earlier demonstrated, individual and corporate apologiae almost invariably start with strategies of denial that the apologist has done nothing wrong whatsoever. It is only when the facts become clear, or challenges are made to an apologist’s claims, that such apol-ogists tend to adopt a more conciliatory stance that features nondenial strat-egies. Conversely, when institutions respond to allegations (as discussed in the following section), it is likely that the negative judgment is based on strong or incontrovertible evidence and, as a result, the charge cannot be denied. Because of this, such institutions avoid a whole host of issues that characteristically are featured in the apologetic exchange: countercharges, minimizations, and the whole back-and-forth nature of the drama. Instead, institutions tend to be much more concerned with how posterity will judge their actions and, as a result, try to frame their response in such a way that historians will record that the organization in question dealt with the less than honorable chapter in an admirable manner.

Substantive Characteristics

Although institutions do rely on well-documented justificatory strategies, their apologetic discourse appears to feature a distinct set of factors. In par-ticular, there are five strategies that tend to be highlighted in institutional apologetic address. The first is confession or mortification (Benoit, 1995;

Hearit, 1995a). In this way, institutions are likely to take a conciliatory strategy and come clean as to the nature, extent, and duration of their wrongdoing. The mortification strategy is one of ritual suicide whereby in-stitutions accept guilt rather than deny it (Burke, 1970).

The second strategy, corrective action, tends to accompany mortification (Courtright & Hearit, 2002). This is the case because institutions must show what they propose to do in order to prevent a recurrence of the prob-lem that precipitated the wrongdoing in the first place. In this way, a

correc-tive action strategy is an effeccorrec-tive tool of suasion, in that it puts an institution in a position to show that it has learned from its wrongdoing, and draws on the well-instantiated myth that institutions are led by rational managers capable of making wise decisions because they have learned from their mistakes (Hearit, 1995a).

Another strategy accompanying mortification is that of compensation.

When used in regard to institutions, compensation becomes much more im-portant; otherwise, an apology is no more than empty and hollow words.

Compensation, in effect, is a form of restitution whereby an institution makes good on the wrong that it has perpetrated; by doing so, it adds weight to the mortification strategy (Courtright & Hearit, 2002). This occurs for two reasons: First, institutions are large, and their size tends to be accompa-nied by considerable economic resources; second, and more important, institutions are beholden to their publicly stated values.

A corporation, for instance, might attempt to clothe its outputs in a mis-sion statement in order to legitimize its profit-making activities (Levy, 1986), yet almost everyone recognizes that a corporation’s fiduciary obliga-tion before the law is to return a profit for its stockholders. An instituobliga-tion, conversely, has a purpose larger than profit, be it a government that exists to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens as well as promote the com-mon good; a religious institution, whose purpose is to promote its gospel and perform a social good; or an educational institution, whose purpose is to pro-mote inquiry and instruction. Because of this, it is much easier to demon-strate that an institution has acted in a manner that violates the spirit of its mission and, consequently, calls for an apology become much more compel-ling. (For more on compensation and restitution, particularly as it relates to the guilt of nations, see Barkan, 2000; Brooks, 1999; Minow, 1998; Torpey, 2003; Wallace, 1998; Wiesenthal, 1998.)

In addition to mortification and the accompanying strategies of correc-tive action and compensation, institutions also tend to emphasize a tran-scendent stance. Such an approach deals with the problem of guilt through a redefinition of a situation by translating it into another context (Burke, 1973). In such an instance, misconduct is redefined through a pro-cess Burke described as “debunking,” whereby guilt is lessened by showing its similarity to familiar human emotions (Burke, 1961, p. 338). In this way, institutional apologists are able to defend an act by referencing altruistic or high-level motives (Burke, 1961, 1970). Other forms of transcendence in-clude underscoring common characteristics or motives, or using common symbols by which people who previously disagreed can come together (Burke, 1969).

Transcendence is powerful rhetorically in that not only is it able to restore order in order to remove guilt, but it is also uniquely suited to corporate or institutional use. Burke noted:

One may “transcendentally” organize his interpretation of human motives by the following broad emphases: a human act is done for God, for an ideal (humanity, culture, justice, truth), for a corporate grouping (political or oth-erwise), for oneself. Historical-collectivistic emphases generally play about an intermingling of ideal and corporate grouping. (Burke, 1984, p. 338)

A final characteristic of institutional discourse is that there is consider-able sensitivity to the ritualistic components of apologetic speech due to the often moral, ethical, or religious vocabularies that surround public institu-tions. The guilt that organizations face through their negligence is not just symbolic, but substantive as well. Because of this, institutions restore their damaged image through scrupulously animated and dramatic means. Here their institutionalism works in their favor, because they are able to call on the ceremonial aspects that inhere in their mission, be they a church or tem-ple with all their religious rituals by which they enact their values, or a gov-ernment with its inherent collection of ceremonies and pageants (Goffman, 1971). The quality of the performance, then, can be evaluated in order for observers to judge the sincerity of the effort, be it in a personal letter, a public apology, or a moving service or official state event.

This emphasis on the ritual and symbolic can be seen quite clearly in the first case study of this chapter—the apologetic efforts on the part of the U.S.

government in its explanations for the tragic sinking of a Japanese fishing boat due to a collision with a nuclear submarine.

CASE STUDIES OF INSTITUTIONAL