Robert T. Craig

Building Grounded Practical Theory in Applied Communication Research: Introduction to the Special Issue

This special issue of the Journal of Applied Communication Research presents five studies, each using principles and methods of grounded practical theory (GPT) to investigate a topic in applied communication. GPT is a metatheoretical and methodological framework for developing empirically grounded, normative theoretical reconstructions of particular communication practices with regard to their problems, techniques, and situated ideals. GPT uses qualitative methods, especially action-implicative discourse analysis (AIDA). In the traditions of Aristotelian practical philosophy and Deweyan pragmatism, GPT is distinguished from empirical scientific theory, which does not advance normative claims, and philosophical normative theory, which may lack empirical relevance. GPT potentially complements several related approaches including constructivist grounded theory, critical discourse analysis, and other forms of practical theory, especially communication as design (CAD). Problems and challenges of GPT include managing tensions inherent to the approach (descriptive-normative, theoretical-applied, and positioning-universalizing), expanding the technical repertoire, and questioning assumptions about agency. The studies comprising this special issue extend and adapt GPT methodology, while contributing normative theory and applied recommendations for: (1) physician-patient exchanges regarding the need to move to daily injections for diabetes, (2) language selection choices in international healthcare teams, (3) managing disagreement in deliberation groups, (4) citizen testimony in public hearings, and (5) instructor-facilitated college classroom discussions.

Growth and Transformation of Communication Studies in U.S. Higher Education: Towards Reinterpretation.

Systematic data on the recent history of communication studies in U.S. higher education are much needed. Statistical data can mislead, however, when numbers are reported without careful attention to the shifting classification schemes that underlie them. The work that is needed in order to understand the recent emergence of a communication discipline is at least as much theoretical and interpretive as it is empirical. To illustrate this point, we explore two types of indicators of growth and transformation of communication studies: statistics on degrees granted and trends in the classification of books and serials. For each type of indicator we show that the emergence of communication as a category has involved qualitative transformation of the category itself as well as quantitative growth within the category. This categorical transformation, and its deeper roots in the evolution of communication as a cultural practice, will be basic to any adequate interpretation of our disciplines increasing centralit...

Studying interaction in order to cultivate communicative practices: Action-implicative discourse analysis

Action-implicative discourse analysis (AIDA) is an ethnographically informed discourse-analytic approach that works to provide normative understandings of situated communicative practices that are action-implicative for social life. Extending the logic of grounded practical theory (Craig and Tracy 1995), AIDA develops reconstructed accounts of the communicative problems, interaction strategies, and normative ideals of a practice. We introduce AIDA and illustrate the approach with an example from recent research on school board meetings in an American local community. We compare AIDA with other approaches to language and social interaction, focusing on interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz) and conversation analysis (Schegloff). We argue that to understand the distinctive character of these approaches requires recognizing each one’s orientation to the discursive context of a particular academic discipline.

Practical-theoritical argumentation

This essay explores the dialectics of theory and practice in terms of argumentation theory. Adapting Jonsen and Toulmins (1988) notion of a Theory-Practice spectrum, it conceives Theory and Practice as extreme ends of a continuum and discourses as falling at various points along the continuum. Every theoritical discourse has essential practical aspects, and every practical discourse has essential theoretical aspects. Practices are theorized to varying degrees but every practice is thorized to some degree. Reflective discourse, which is discourse about practice, moves to and fro along the Theory-Practice continuum. Reflective discourse involves argumentation. Practical argumentation connects theory to practice; it appeals to general warrants, which may be simple or may tap into elaborate conceptual structures, in order to establish grounds for practical judgments. A practical discipline is a relatively coherent intellectual-professional enterprise that cultivates a field of social practice by engaging within itself and with practitioners in a reflective discourse. The argumentation of a practical discipline, like ordinary practical reflection, moves to and fro along the Theory-Practice continuum but in more methodical steps informed by systematic methodological reflection on the reflective process itself.

Galilean rhetoric and practical theory 1

Bold claims have been made for the practical usefulness of Galileo Theory as well as its potential to become an explanatory theory of human communication with scope and precision comparable to the fundamental theories of physics. This essay concludes that the arguments that have been offered to support those claims are weak, not only because the empirical evidence on which they are based is weak, but because the philosophy that warrants the relevance of the evidence is incoherent. The theory is not, however, without value. It makes useful technical contributions to communication science, and it suggests a “practical” notion of theory which, properly understood, would have profound implications for a discipline of communication.

Issue Forum Introduction: Cultural Bias in Communication Theory

When viewed from standpoints in particular cultures, does mainstream communication theory appear to be culturally biased? The question invites us to reflect on culturally based assumptions that characterize current theories of communication and to imagine how our field might be enriched or perhaps even fundamentally transformed by concepts derived from different cultural traditions. Would the result be a more comprehensive, universal theory of communication? Does every concept become universal, in some sense, as it is theorized and enters into the global discourse on communication? On the other hand, are communication theories necessarily relative to particular cultural traditions*different theories for different cultures? Are some theories or concepts potentially universal while others remain culture specific? Is the very idea of communication*hence the very idea of communication theory*the expression of a particular culture? How is communication theory involved, and how should it be involved, in processes of sociocultural change and globalization? Four scholars of communication and culture were invited to address the issue of cultural bias in communication theory. While all agree that mainstream communication theory is limited by Eurocentric cultural assumptions and all envision ways of broadening and transforming the field, their four essays, presented in this issue forum, approach the question from diverse cultural and methodological standpoints, seeding fertile grounds for further conversation on this issue. Approaching the issue from an African American cultural standpoint and a social constructionist epistemology, Brenda J. Allen notes the virtual absence of race as a concept in mainstream communication theory. Race is a fundamental aspect of identity in the culture of African Americans, and communication theories informed by African American experience would, therefore, highlight race as a consequential factor in all interaction while also revealing the dependence of ‘‘color blind’’ views on

Practical criticism of the art of conversation: A methodological critique

If conversation is a practical art, then a discipline that studies conversation should “assume the full burden of the critic. “In an effort to clarify and extend this notion, the present essay offers a tentative account of the methodological requirements of practical criticism, and examines six research studies representing various methodological approaches from that perspective. The critique suggests both the unique contributions of each method and the necessity for intense interaction among methods within the framework of a critical discipline.

What Kind of Difference Do We Want to Make

Behind the question of whether communication research has made a difference in communication practices or outcomes lies a deeper question about the specific quality of our discipline’s contribution to society, however large or small that contribution may have been to date: What kind of difference do we want to make? The Forum essays give careful consideration to professional practices, methods, and means by which communication research (potentially) makes a difference while tending to describe the difference itself either in broadly utilitarian terms (solving problems, having a positive impact on society or people’s lives) or as specific utilitarian outcomes such as psychological well-being, public health, or social justice. The essays assume that communication research can make a difference because communication makes a difference in practical outcomes. They assume that communication consists of particular practices or behaviors that researchers can influence, thus influencing the outcomes of communication. Only Condit (2009) steps back from this instrumental view to reflect on the specific kind of difference communication makes and, therefore, the specific kind of difference a communication discipline can make. Lacking a deeper understanding of the epistemological and ontological implications of communication itself, Condit argues, we rely too heavily on concepts and methods derived from other disciplines and fail to realize the full potential of our own discipline’s specific contribution. Condit characterizes communication as ‘‘an emergent phenomenon’’ that works on a cultural and social level ‘‘to produce interhuman (and/or transhumant) interactions that vastly exceed what is possible for individuals without communication (whatever the media)’’ (2009, pp. 9 10). While Condit explores some methodological implications of this characterization and concludes by calling for ‘‘a disciplinary paradigm that fits the contours of the phenomenon we want to study and improve’’ (p. 11), our response is to draw a further implication. If the specific kind of difference that communication makes is emergent and historically sedimented primarily on cultural and social levels, then so is the specific kind of difference that a discipline of communication (potentially) makes and ought to make.

Issue Forum Introduction: Theorizing Communication Problems

What is a communication problem? Although the field of communication theory suggests many interesting answers to this question (Craig, 1999), everyday practical discourse still too often relies on a simplistic transmission model that separates process from content, framing communication problems as technical breakdowns in the flow of information caused by blocked channels, unclear messages, poor listening, or lack of feedback. Our discipline’s Mission Impossible (should we choose to accept it) is to cultivate in the general society more sophisticated and potentially more useful ways of talking about communication problems informed by relevant theory, research, and criticism. Sophistication and relevance are both key terms in the formula that are necessarily somewhat in tension with each other. Academic discourses with their subtle distinctions, elaborate arguments, and convoluted debates, as they become richer and more sophisticated inevitably diverge from ordinary language and practical concerns. If our mission (at least in part) in theorizing communication is to cultivate better alternatives to commonplace ways of thinking and talking about communication problems, we need to consider how we are managing this essential tension between sophistication and relevance. Our opening question, ‘‘What is a communication problem?,’’ leads then to the higher order question that is the subject of the present issue forum: How should we theorize communication problems? The four essays that follow address the issue of theorizing communication problems from distinct viewpoints. ‘‘Sit down and get your butt wet’’ (that is, immerse yourself in a research context) is figuratively the solution proposed by Sarah J. Tracy in the first essay. Problem-based research can advance toward theorizing problems from the ground up, conceptualizing problems as they emerge from deep qualitative studies in local research sites. Although a priori theory generally takes a back seat in this approach, Tracy recommends using the lens of critical poststructuralist theory to focus the researcher’s attention on situated power relations and

The handbook of communication science: A review

HANDBOOK OF COMMUNICATION SCIENCE. Edited by Charles R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee. Newbury Park, Beverly Hills, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1987; pp. 946.