The Social Perspective and Professional Communication: Diversity and Directions in Research
Charlotte Thralls and Nancy Roundy BlylerThis article was written in 1993 for Professional Communication: The Social Perspective. Thralls states that it gives newcomers in the field a sense of the “enormous impact” “the social turn” (quotes in original) had on professional communication research. It also provides a starting point for comparing research trends in the early phases of “the social turn” with the later evolution of those trends (125).
With the rejection of positivism, where knowledge is a direct apprehension of reality, reality is now unknowable apart from language. Language and culture are intimately related; and the importance of the communal and local are emphasized, leading to the centrality of socially mediated meaning and interpretation. Current theoretical movements at this time included poststructuralism, radical feminism, and the philosophy and sociology of science.
The purposes of this article are twofold:
1) Describe the three different and sometimes competing theoretical approaches within the social perspective (social constructionist, ideologic, and paralogic hermeneutic),
2) Use the three approaches to conceptualize important patterns and differences emerging in studies of professional writing.
Each of the three approaches are examined using the four concepts of community, knowledge and consensus, discourse conventions, and collaboration.
Social ConstructionistAccording to this approach, knowledge is not “individual, internal, and mental” (127), but rather is social in nature. It focuses on community and views “communal entities as the sources of knowledge maintained by consensual agreement; as the repositories of discourse conventions by which communities are defined and shaped; and as the bodies to which nonmembers must—through collaboration—be acculturated” (131).
CommunityThe concept of community is central to the social constructionist theory because communal entities are sources of knowledge. There is a presupposition of like-mindedness on the part of community members, although even within this approach there is disagreement over the definition of community. Central to this part of the approach is the idea that communities shape discourse and vice versa. Researchers have been particularly interested in the normative aspect of community, particularly on the way these regulate discursive practices.
Knowledge and Consensus According to Bruffee, one of the theorists most cited in the portion on the social constructionist approach, knowledge results from a community’s consensus about what it will call true; Bruffee terms this consensual knowledge socially-justified belief. This concept has influenced research in the field because it has shifted attention away from universals ensuring truth to the means by which beliefs are incorporated into a community’s knowledge store.
Discourse ConventionsAccording to Bruffee, communities are constituted by the language its members use. Discourse conventions are indices of community member ship and have a regulatory effect. The simplest form research in this area has taken has been to study the conventions that identify various communities. Because discourse conventions are so closely tied to communities and member ship in them, constructionists have stressed how nonmembers can internalize community norms and language to acquire membership; Bruffee focused specifically on collaboration as a means to this end.
CollaborationAccording to constructionists, collaboration the social process implicit in all writing as well as a pedagogic tool for teaching writing; writing is a “communal and collaborative act” (130). Research in this area has focused on how collaborative writing projects can assist in the acculturation of students to their academic disciplines and professions.
The Ideologic ApproachWith this approach comes the thought of power and responsibilities of indivduals to challenge established institutional order. Scholars taking this approach wish to extend social inquiry to include the ideologic frameworks that shape language practices with thought and identifies within professional communities.
CommunityThe ideologic likes to think that academic and corporate communities are powerful mechanisms of reproductive ideoogy. Some feminists critics scrutinize the way academic and business communities reproduce sexism and hierarchical social arrangements. One last thought is a leftist critique of community is leading researchers to a more self-conscious examination of the larger cultural.
Knowledge and ConsensusAn ideologic critique on consensus has important implications for research and pedagogy in professional communication. Knowledge and its means of production are distributed in an unequal, exclusionary social order and embedded in hierarchical relations of power (some interests are suppressed while others comminute). The ideologic approach also redirects the analysis of discourse conventions because, if consensus is the production apparatus for reproducing communal values, discourse conventions reflect and reify that consensus.
Discourse and ConventionsThe ideologic identifies discourse conventions as complex semiotic systems or symbolic orders that signify and sustain the relations of power implicit in consensual knowledge. There is one more worry and that is neutral discourse elements can mask ideology.
CollaborationScholars argue that collaboration should demonstrate to students not merely that knowledge is socially constructed and collaborative activities should also "change the social character of production". Collaborative pedagogy, the power might be distributed more equitably among students in collaborative groups and between students and teachers in technical and business writing classrooms.
Summary of Ideologic ApproachThe ideologic approach is one of the ages and has been around for many years, just different ways. There will always be the fine line between language practices in the professional communities. Once they figure out the balance of power in all fields it will benefit all. Wells study says it all with an ideologic approach to knowlege and consensus is directing attention away for constructionists' notions of this concept as indicating agreement among community members and toward the relations ofpower that authorize some knowledge claims and exclude othiers.
The Paralogic Hermeneutic ApproachThe name of this approach comes from concern with the interpretive or hermeneutic act and as other approaches it is concerned with social negotiation of meaning. The paralogic hermeneutic theorists claim that all interpretation and understanding come out of communicative interaction (Thralls & Blyler, 1993, p. 136).
This approach is fundamentally different from the social constructionist and ideologic approaches discussed previously.
CommunityThe social constructionists look at the community members as people who share commonalities in their beliefs and language use, as well as interpret and attach meanings to their experiences within interactions of the community. The argument of paralogic hermeneutic theorists is that despite belonging to certain communities, we have a variety of beliefs and statements that we regard as true besides the ones that are preferred in our communities and we also understand others who live in different communities.
The paralogic hermeneutic theorists redefine the concept of community by brining focus on the interaction experiences of each communicant. Emphasis is primarily on communication and the meaning it creates for each participant.
Knowledge and ConsensusThe paralogic hermeneutic theorists also disagree with social constructionists’ understanding of knowledge and consensus. According to the paralogic hermeneutics approach, each participant engages in so called hermeneutic guessing until they arrive at the understating of other interactant’s values, beliefs and language use. During the hermeneutic guessing, interactants use concepts of “prior” and “passing”; “prior” is assumption about the interactant and his/her beliefs, values and language-use, and “passing” is adjustment to prior assumptions as they continue the interaction. Consensus in this case is when two interactants share passing theory; however, the consensus is always temporary and will need readjustment next time they communicate.
Discourse ConventionsThe paralogic hermeneutic approach again opposes the other two theories on how we communicate. “Paralogic theorists claim that the discourse conventions derive meaning from their use by communicants (Kent, 1989)” (Thralls & Blyler, 1993, p. 138). Essentially according to this theory, meaning is in people, not in words.
Communicators try to match their beliefs about the language use to the beliefs of others, share those beliefs and reach agreement. Paralogic theorists state that discourse conventions should never be equated with effective communication, but only used in combination with valuable background knowledge and perceptive hermeneutic guessing in each interaction.
CollaborationThe interpretive or hermeneutic act is fundamentally collaborative; therefore, the paralogic theorists agree that the interpretive act should be the focus in writing pedagogy. The paralogic hermeneutic approach suggests to look at the writing as an accommodative activity and to transform the classroom into a one-on-one student/teacher collaborative environment. This further suggests rethinking the purpose of many collaborative activities presently used in a writing classroom. Theory also emphasizes that group members cannot base their writing on a set of rules that will produce an effective document. These conventions could be used as a useful background knowledge (previous experience with writing similar documents) only.
Summary of the paralogic hermeneutic approach
The paralogic hermeneutic approach represents a very different look at professional communication. It differs from the social constructionist and ideologic approaches on fundamental issues of interpretation and communication emphasizing the external and uncodifiable (non-systematic) nature of communication process.
Assessment and Directions for Future ResearchThe social constructionist theory has contributed a lot to the field of professional communication studies. As a result there is a widened research agenda in professional communication that includes qualitative and quantitative studies of the organizational and classroom contexts in which writing occur (Thralls & Blyler, 1993, p. 141).
The social constructionist theory has also helped to establish professional communication within a larger field of cultural studies thus linking professional communication to other disciplines.
Ideologic and paralogic hermeneutic approaches have contributed to the discussions of social theory consequently deepening our understanding of communication as a socially based activity. Both approaches also encouraged us to scrutinize some of the constructionist claims and their implications. The ideologic and paralogic hermeneutic approaches offer important and dramatic directions of future professional communication research.