Practice Approaches and the Ethnography of Communication: Investigating for the Possibility of a Mutually Beneficial Relationship

In this essay, I explore areas of accord and discord between two efficacious modes of research: "practice" approaches and the Ethnography of Communication (EOC). As an interpersonal and intercultural scholar, I carefully analyze these approaches in order to find innovative ways to describe the diversity that I see in modern social interaction. Working against paradigms that suggest using "either" one approach "or" another, I engage this project hoping (expecting?) to find "and/both" alternatives for communication study. I argue that, in spite of their differences, practice and EOC traditions co-exist in a "mutually beneficial relationship" for the study of communication. Key words: Ethnography of Communication, Practice Approaches, Ethnography, Pluralist Research, and Qualitative Methods. ********** There are many different ways to study human behavior. How do I make sense of two viable approaches to the study of interpersonal and cultural communication? In what ways does the description of social "practices" relate to the research interests of the Ethnography of Communication (EOC)? Is this a relation of connection, distance, or both? As a scholar who is interested in maximizing, rather than reducing, the layers of understanding available in qualitative research, I pursue answers to these questions in this essay. In my research experience, I primarily use phenomenology and ethnography to study the intrinsic connection between communication, culture, and identity. These scholarly traditions stress heavy description of communicative phenomena, an emphasis that compels me to foreground contingency in varying degrees. We can never fully describe all that we experience. Therefore, rather than seeking "closure, certainty, and control" (Stewart, 1991, p. 356), I assume that communication research is more "partial, partisan, and problematic" (Goodall, 2000, p. 55; see also Eisenberg and Goodall, Chapter 2). There will always be alternate ways of describing communication. Working from an assumption of contingency involves numerous opportunities to categorize with binaries. I frequently must answer whether phenomena are "personal" or "political," or whether "micro-" or "macro-" social phenomena influence communication, etc. I make choices between research approaches. For example, I chose hermeneutic phenomenology over standard rhetorical criticism and written scholarship instead of staged performance. Once I select an approach, I feel obliged to perform in some ways over others. For example, I write by using more modernist and standard forms of representation instead of those that are more postmodern and esoteric. This experience of choice within binaries is likely influenced by the reality that many scholars assign greater "rigor" and "validity" to privileged approaches. A comprehensive treatment of why we choose certain methods, and the subsequent complications of these choices, is beyond the scope of this essay. To be sure, endemic to research is some aspect of choice and, to varying extents, a need to negotiate with binaries. This negotiation takes many forms. Instead of foregrounding "either" practice approaches "or" EOC, I engage both in one conversation to better understand their areas of accord and discord. There are a variety of benefits related to this form of analysis. First, my goal to analyze these approaches in tandem does not mean that I hope to find a superior method for studying communication. Each has specific aspects that make the approach more helpful than the other. However, I offer this essay as a model of how to constructively study two research traditions with an overall goal of seeking connection, rather than distance. Second, and similarly, I describe how such a connection might be performed. This enables an understanding of the ways scholars can use these traditions to enrich each other. Thus, I suggest communication research to be an open-minded search for possibilities, rather than a hostile, mean-spirited critique. …