COMM 6440

Fall 2007

Grounded Practical Theory*

Overview

Grounded practical theory (GPT) refers to a range of concepts and methods for theorizing communicative practices. The seminar will explore GPT through assigned background readings and individual research projects. Readings will include units on GPT methodology with applications to discourse analysis of group interaction (Craig, Tracy, et al.), the concept of social practice (MacIntyre, Schatzki, et al.), sociocultural activity theory and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger), reflexive practice theory (Bourdieu), and genealogy of social practices (Foucault). For the semester project, each student will select a sample of discourse (consisting of public documents, media texts, field observations, and/or recordings of interaction) from any field of social practice of interest to the student. Writing assignments will include short papers exploring the application of unit readings to the student's discourse sample and a major paper developing a selected analytical approach in depth.

Note: COMM 6440 will apply for credit toward the graduate certificate in Culture, Language, and Social Practice. See http://www.colorado.edu/linguistics/faculty/kira_hall/clasp/index.html for additional information on the CLASP certificate program.

Assigned Readings

All required and recommended articles will be available electronically on CULearn.

Books to ordered through the UMC Bookstore:

1. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London & New York: Routledge.
4. Foucault, M. (2003). The essential Foucault (P. Rabinow & N. Rose ed.). New York: The New Press.

Assignments and Evaluation

Discourse Sample. For the semester project, each student will obtain a sample of discourse (consisting of public documents, media texts, field observations, and/or recordings of interaction) from any field of social practice of interest to the student.  Human Research Committee (HRC) approval will be required for any data to be collected originally from human participants (we will apply for approval as a class if several people will need to do this). The discourse sample, which may accumulate during the semester or be collected all at once near the beginning, will be analyzed through papers and discussions throughout the semester. 

Participation, Discourse Sample, and Short Papers (50%). Students will regularly attend and participate in seminar discussions, obtain appropriate discourse samples, complete assigned readings each week, and submit short papers (about 5-7 pages) on the dates assigned.  Short papers will apply analytic concepts drawn from readings in the most recent units of the course to the student's discourse sample. 

Seminar Project (50%). Each student will submit a research paper (20-25 pages) explicating and applying a method of analysis of social practice to the student's discourse sample.

All papers will be submitted both in hard copy and electronically by uploading them to the Course Resources area on CULearn by the assigned deadlines.

Course Outline

Weeks 1-4: GPT - Principles, Methods, and Applications

Weeks 5-6: The Concept of Social Practice

Weeks 7-8: Communities of Practice

Weeks 9-10: Reflexive Practice Theory

Weeks 11-14: Genealogy of Social Practices

Weeks 15-16: Seminar Projects & Wrap-up

Bibliography

Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(4), 341-371.

Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411-435). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Agne, R. R., & Tracy, K. (2001). 'Bible babble': Naming the interactional trouble at Waco. Discourse Studies, 3(3), 269-294.

Ashcraft, K. L. (2001). Feminist organizing and the construction of "alternative" community. In G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 79-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.

Ashcraft, K. L. (2006). Feminist-Bureaucratic Control and Other Adversarial Allies: Extending Organized Dissonance to the Practice of “New” Forms. Communication Monographs, 73(1), 55 - 86.

Barge, K. J., & Craig, R. T. (forthcoming). Practical theory. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Handbook of applied communication research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.

Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded Theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online. Retrieved 17 August 2007 from <http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433113_ss1-72>.

Craig, R. T. (1996). Practical-theoretical argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 461-474.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 21-29.

Craig, R. T. (2006). Communication as a practice. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as …: Perspectives on theory (pp. 38-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Craig, R. T. (Ed.). (2007). Issue forum: Theorizing communication problems. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 103-130.

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248-272.

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2005). "The issue" in argumentation practice and theory. In F. H. v. Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), The practice of argumentation. (pp. 11-28). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Foucault, M. (2003). The essential Foucault (P. Rabinow & N. Rose ed.). New York: The New Press.

Harrison, T. R., & Morrill, C. (2004). Ombuds processes and disputant reconciliation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(4), 318 - 342.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rouse, J. (2007). Social Practices and Normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(1), 46-56.

Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London & New York: Routledge.

Tracy, K. (1998). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 315-343.

Tracy, K. (2005). Reconstructing communicative practices: Action-implicative discourse analysis. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 301-319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tracy, K., & Ashcraft, C. (2001). Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(4), 297-316.

Tracy, K., & Muller, H. (2001). Diagnosing a school board's interactional trouble: Theorizing problem formulating. Communication Theory, 11, 84-104.

Tracy, K., & Tracy, S. J. (1998). Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research, 25, 225-251.

Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal Of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 119-146.

Turner, S. P. (2007). Explaining Normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(1), 57-73.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.