Communication as a Practical Discipline: Engaging Theory with Practice

Robert T. CraigUniversity of Colorado BoulderRobert.Craig@Colorado.edu

Keynote for the conference, “Communication as a Discipline and as a Field: Sharing Experiences to Construct a Dialogue” National Research University, Higher School of Economics Moscow, July 9, 2015

Outline The concept of practical discipline. Grounded Practical Theory (GPT) as a way of

engaging communication theory with practice. Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)

as another way, rooted in Russian traditions. Comparison of GPT and CHAT Conclusion

What is a practice?

Practice: “a coherent set of activities that are commonly engaged in, and meaningful in particular ways, among people familiar with a certain culture.” (Craig, 2006) Can be described at levels of granularity:

Social Networking

Facebook Twitter

Liking Unfriending Retweeting Blocking

Metadiscourse & Practice Normative metadiscourse: Talk about a practice

in social communication & media—storytelling, criticism, planning, etc. Negotiates norms of the practice—common beliefs

about how it should be done. Specialized vocabulary develops.

Can become sophisticated—experts develop theoriesof the practice.

Normative discourse is a constitutive element of any practice. Produces shared meaning, regulates conduct.

Grounded Practical Theory (GPT) “The grounded description, critique, and theoretical

reconstruction of communication problems, techniques, and situated ideals…” (Craig & Tracy,1995, p. 250) A kind of normative theory (concerned with “ought”

questions). Grounded in empirical description & critical reflection. Engages theory with normative metadiscourse on

practices. “Weak” normativity: Offers reasoned arguments

potentially helpful for practical reflection and deliberation.

Communication as Practical Discipline Philosophical basis of GPT. In this view, the essential purpose of the

communication discipline is to cultivate the practice of communication in society (Craig 1989).

Informed by Aristotelian practical philosophy (praxis, phronesis) and philosophical pragmatism (Dewey).

To “cultivate” means in part to inform deliberation on practical choices in conduct: “What should I do?”

Aristotle’s Organization of the SciencesTHEORETICAL SCIENCES

PRACTICAL SCIENCES

PRODUCTIVE SCIENCES

SUBJECT MATTERS (Material Cause)

Natural substances(ta physei)

Actions(ta prakta)

Artifacts(ta poieta)

METHODS(Formal Cause)

Induction & deduction

Deliberation about variables and opinions

Techniques of construction

COGNITIVE FACULTY(Efficient Cause)

Intuitive reason (nous) & know-ledge (episteme)

Practical wisdom(phronesis)

Art (techne)

AIM (Final Cause)

To know To act well To make things

Adapted from D. Levine, Visions of the Sociological Tradition (Chicago,1995), p. 111.

Outline of GPT Method Specifying a practice (unitizing, naming, positioning) Empirical data collection & qualitative analysis

(ethnographic context + analysis of situated discourse with a focus on problems, techniques & norms)

Theoretical reconstruction (generalization and idealization of selected elements “such that values and principles implicit in the practice are made explicit and a reasoned basis for ‘good practice’ and critical judgments of practice is constructed”)

Normative claim (implications, recommendations, questions)

A Problem-Centered Ideal Model GPT reconstructs a practice at three

interrelated conceptual levels: Problem: Tensions and dilemmas that typically

arise Technical: Repertoire of strategies and

techniques for resolving problems Philosophical: “Situated ideals” - reasoned

principles to govern the use of techniques

Selected GPT Applications Academic colloquia (Tracy 1997) 911 call-taking (Tracy 1998) Feminist organizing (Ashcraft 2001, 2006) GDSS facilitation (Aakhus 2001) Collegiate classroom discussion (Muller 2002) “The issue” (Craig & Tracy 2005) Crisis negotiation (Agne 2007) International NGOs (Dempsey 2007) Psychic healing (Agne 2010) Patient hand-off among health providers (Koenig et al. 2013) Public meetings (Tracy 2007, 2010; Guttman 2007; & others)

Example: Intellectual discussion(Tracy, 1997)

Site: “colloquium” in university department: faculty & graduate students; presentation followed by questions, discussion

Naming the practice: “intellectual discussion” (non-classroom talk about ideas in an academic group of mixed status)

Data: recorded/transcribed meetings; field notes; interviews with participants

Example: Intellectual discussion

GPT reconstruction (examples): Problem: “Tough” questioning implicates identities:

facultystudent can be “treating as an equal” or “bullying”; studentfaculty can be “intellectually able” or “disrespectful”

Technique: To avoid “bullying,” faculty questioner implies that the student is not expected to know the answer (but beware of “patronizing” the student).

Situated ideal: Participants should balance the “dialectic” goal to pursue intellectual rigor with the “constructive” goal to help others learn & to maintain community in the group.

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory CHAT is an analytical approach to practice

grounded in Russian traditions of dialectical materialism and cultural-historical psychology (Vygotsky, Leon’tev, Engeström)

In the perspective of communication as a practical discipline, how does CHAT compare to GPT as an way of engaging communication theory with practice?

CHAT Principles Praxis involves the purposive use of tools

(material or conceptual artefacts) by a subject (individual or group) to transform an object.

The context of praxis is an historically developing collective activity system.

Contradictions & conflicts in the system create potential for learning & change.

CHAT research intervenes to facilitate change.

Model of Activity Theory as an Activity System(Engeström 1999)

Similarity of GPT & CHAT Theory develops from observation & critical

analysis of “practices” or “activities.” Problems (tensions, dilemmas, contradictions)

are essential to both approaches. Tools (techniques, mediating artefacts) are

also essential. Both approaches are designed to inform

practical reflection.

Some DifferencesGPT emphasizes: Individual action Institutional practices Current practice Dilemmas inherent in a

practice Choice of techniques Indirect intervention

through contributions to normative metadiscourse

CHAT emphasizes: Collective activity Collaborative work Historical development Contradictions that

generate conflict, change Mediation of activity Direct intervention through

exposing contradictions, suggesting new tools

In conclusion, two hopes:1. That these remarks on practical discipline,

GPT and CHAT will stimulate more thought on ways to engage communication theory with practice.

2. That the practice/activity of our conference will become more self-reflexive: What is our object? What dilemmas do we face? What contradictions? What should we do?

Comments? Questions?

Thank you!