Organisational Communication In The Field Of Child Protection. Passing From Fatalism To Organisational Democracy In The Romanian Public Space

• Authors: Ion Petrică , Mihaela Tomiţa
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Considered a fundamental element of human existence, communication has been used since ancient times for the purpose of “transmitting something to the others also”. Although the term of “communication” has Latin origin, the first practical preoccupations for this issue are found in the Ancient Greeks’ works and were related to oratory which, in its turn, was promoted as “art of the word”. Even if in the literature the notion of “communication” was defined in a complex manner, being assigned numerous valences. Theoreticians found that, on the level of human communication, two common elements clearly appear for each of the meanings of this term. Thus, on the one hand, communication is perceived as a true process of information transmission, and on the other hand no human action, irrespective of the level of its realisation, can be conceived outside this process. Beyond the completion of the main theoretical models for the phenomena of organisational communication, the present article attempts to forward the author's personal diagnosis of a child protection institution, more precisely the General Division for Social Work/Assistance and Child Protection Caraş-Severin (DGASPC), valuing a wide-range methodology (analysis of social documents, interview, and structured observation). Thus, by combining the quantitative endeavour with the qualitative one, we highlighted the existence of a formal ascendant vertical communication, opposed or complementary to the descendant vertical one characterising most of Romanian organisational practices. The special institutional specificity of DGASPC turns this organisational territory into a possible model of interpersonal relationing, different from the general specificity existing in Romanian public institutions where the boss dictates.

Keywords

EN

organisational communication; social work; child protection; vertical communication; organisational democracy

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: European Review Of Applied Sociology
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 10
• Pages: 42-50

Dates

published

2015-06-01

online

2015-06-15

Contributors

author

Ion Petrică

• University “Eftimie Murgu” of Resiţa, Romania

author

Mihaela Tomiţa

• West University of Timisoara, Romania

References

• Abric, J.-C. (1999). Psychologie de la communication. Paris: Armand Colin.
• Bogathy, Z. (1999). Negotiation in organisations. Timişoara: Eurostampa.
• Bogathy, Z. (2002). Conflicts in organisations. Timişoara: Eurostampa.
• Cândea, R. (1996). Managerial communication. Bucharest: Expert.
• Chelcea, S. (2008). The Self. With referral to the Romanian self in transition. In Psychosociology / Theories, research, applications, ed. Septimiu Chelcea, 2nd edition, revised and completed, 377-401. Iaşi: Polirom.
• Dinu, M. (1997). Communication. Bucharest: Scientific Editions.
• De Peretti, A. & Legrand, J.-A. & Boniface, J. (2000). Communication techniques. Iaşi: Polirom.
• Doron, R. & Parot, F. (2006). Dictionary of psychology. Bucharest: Humanitas.
• Drăgan I. (1996). Paradigms of mass communication. Bucharest: Şansa.
• Edelman, M. (2000). Politics and use of symbols. Iaşi: Polirom.
• Fiske, J., (2003). Introduction to communication sciences. Bucharest: Polirom.
• Gavreliuc, A. (2006). From interpersonal relations to social communication. Iaşi: Polirom.
• Haineş, R. M. (2000). Televisual communication. Bucharest: Eficient.
• Iacob, D. & Cismaru, D. M. (2005). Organisational communication. Course of lectures in pdf. format.
• Ionescu, Gh. Gh. & Toma, A. (2001). Organisational culture and management of transition. Bucharest: Economic Editions
• Johnson, A. G. (2007). The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Bucharest: Humanitas.
• Luca, M. R. (2005). Organisational communication. Braşov, course of lectures in pdf. format
• Marshall, G. (ed.) (2003). Dictionary of Sociology. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic.
• Mattelart, A. & Mattelart, M. (2000). History of Theory of Communication. Iaşi: Polirom.
• Marinescu, V. (2003). Introduction to the theory of communication. Principles, models, applications. Bucharest: Tritonic.
• Miley, K. K. & O`Melia, M. & DuBois, B. (2006). Social Work Practice. Iaşi: Polirom.
• Moscovici, S. (1998). Social psychology of the relations with the others. Iaşi: Polirom.
• Petrică, I. (2010). Organisational communication. Case study: Organisational communication in the General Division for Social Assistance and Child Protection Caraş-Severin. Arad: “Aurel Vlaicu” University Press Arad.
• Petrică, I. (2012). The Church and Social Work In Romania. Iaşi: The European Institute.
• Pop, D. (2000). Mass-media and Politics. Iaşi: The European Institute.
• Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Champaign: Univ. of Illinois Press.
• Stoiciu, A. (2000). Political Communication. Bucharest: Humanitas.
• Tran, V. & Stănciugelu, I. (2001). Theory of Communication. Bucharest: SNSPA.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/eras-2015-0005