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

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 229-243

  Craig, Robert T ^a   Tracy, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Action Implicative Discourse Analysis (AIDA); Grounded Practical Theory (GPT); Normative Communication Theory; Qualitative Methodology; Theory Construction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900800679     PISSN: 00909882     EISSN: 14795752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00909882.2014.916410     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 341-371. doi:10.1080/00909880128113
2. 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.
3. Agne, R. R. (2007). Reframing practices in moral conflict: Interaction problems in the negotiation standoff at Waco. Discourse & Society, 18, 549-578. doi:10.1177/0957926507079634
4. Agne, R. R. (2010). Self-assessment as a dilemmatic communicative practice: Talk among psychics in training. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 306-327. doi:10.1080/1041794x.2010.504438
5. Agne, R. R., & Tracy, K. (2001). 'Bible babble': Naming the interactional trouble at Waco. Discourse Studies, 3, 269-294. doi:10.1177/1461445601003003002
6. Aristotle. (c. 350 B.C.E). Nichomachean ethics. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
7. Ashcraft, K. L. (2006). Feminist-bureaucratic control and other adversarial allies: Extending organized dissonance to the practice of "new" forms1. Communication Monographs, 73, 55-86. doi:10.1080/03637750600557081
8. Barbour, J. B., & Gill, R. (2014). Designing communication for the day-to-day safety oversight of nuclear power plants. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 168-189. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.859291
9. Barge, J. K. (2001). Practical theory as mapping, engaged reflection, and transformative practice. Communication Theory, 11, 5-13. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00230.x
10. Barge, K. J., & Craig, R. T. (2009). Practical theory in applied communication scholarship. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 55-78). New York, NY: Routledge.
11. Barnes, B. (2001). Practice as collective action. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. Von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 17-28). London: Routledge.
12. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 31-57). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
13. Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127-154). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
14. Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
15. Craig, R. T. (1989). Communication as a practical discipline. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O'Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication; volume 1: Paradigm issues (pp. 97-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. 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.
17. Craig, R. T. (in press). Grounded practical theory. In K. Tracy (Ed.), International encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
18. Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248-272. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00108.x
19. Dempsey, S. E. (2007). Negotiating accountability within international contexts: The role of bounded voice. Communication Monographs, 74, 311-332. doi:10.1080/03637750701543485
20. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company.
21. Dimock, A. (2010). Styles of rejection in local public argument on Iraq. Argumentation, 24, 423-452. doi:10.1007/s10503-009-9175-6
22. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
24. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the development of conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56-83. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00233.x
26. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
27. Guttman, N. (2007). Bringing the mountain to the public: Dilemmas and contradictions in the procedures of public deliberation initiatives that aim to get "ordinary citizens" to deliberate policy issues. Communication Theory, 17, 411-438. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00305.x
28. Hughes, J. M. F. (2014). Reconstructing online neurodiversity advocacy (Unpublished paper). University of Colorado Boulder.
29. Jackson, S., & Aakhus, M. (2014a). Becoming more reflective about the role of design in communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 125-227. doi:10.1080/00909882.2014.882009
30. Jackson, S., & Aakhus, M. (Eds.). (2014b). Special issue: Communication and design. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 125-227. doi:10.1080/00909882.2014.882009
31. Koenig, C. J., Maguen, S., Daley, A., Cohen, G., & Seal, K. H. (2013). Passing the baton: A grounded practical theory of handoff communication between multidisciplinary providers in two department of veterans affairs outpatient settings. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(1), 41-50. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2167-5
32. Pal, M., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). Breaking the myth of Indian call centers: A postcolonial analysis of resistance. Communication Monographs, 80, 199-219. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.776172
33. Pearce, W. B. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.
34. Pearce, W. B., & Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning: The creation of social realities. New York, NY: Praeger.
35. Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2000). Extending the theory of the coordinated management of meaning (CMM) through a community dialogue process. Communication Theory, 10, 405-423. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00200.x
36. Tracy, K. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 195-215. doi:10.1177/0261927X95141011
37. Tracy, K. (1997a). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. Tracy, K. (1997b). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 315-343. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3004_3
39. Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 119-146. doi:10.1080/0090988042000210025
40. 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.
41. Tracy, K. (2007). The discourse of crisis in public meetings: Case study of a school district's multimillion dollar error. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 418-441. doi:10.1080/00909880701617133
42. Tracy, K. (2010). Challenges of ordinary democracy: A case study of deliberation and dissent. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
43. Tracy, K., & Anderson, D. L. (1999). Relational positioning strategies in police calls: A dilemma. Discourse Studies, 1, 201-225. doi:10.1177/1461445699001002004
44. Tracy, K., & Ashcraft, C. (2001). Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 297-316. doi:10.1080/00909880128115
45. Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1993). Intellectual discussion in the academy as situated discourse. Communication Monographs, 60, 300-320. doi:10.1080/03637759309376315
46. Tracy, K., & Coupland, N. (Eds.). (1990). Multiple goals in discourse. Avon: Multilingual Matters.
47. Tracy, K., & Craig, R. T. (2010). Studying interaction in order to cultivate communicative practices: Action-implicative discourse analysis. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction (pp. 145-165). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
48. Tracy, K., & Durfy, M. (2007). Speaking out in public: Citizen participation in contentious school board meetings. Discourse & Communication, 1, 223-249. doi:10.1177/1750481307076008
49. Tracy, K., Martinez-Guillem, S., Robles, J. S., & Casteline, K. E. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and (US) communication scholarship: Recovering old connections, envisioning new ones. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 35 (pp. 239-286). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
50. Tracy, K., & Muller, H. (2001). Diagnosing a school board's interactional trouble: Theorizing problem formulating. Communication Theory, 11(1), 84-104. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00234.x
51. Tracy, K., & Naughton, J. (1994). The identity work of questioning in intellectual discussion. Communication Monographs, 61, 281-302. doi:10.1080/03637759409376339
52. Tracy, K., & Tracy, S. J. (1998). Rudeness at 911: Reconceptualizing face and face attack. Human Communication Research, 25, 225-251. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00444.x
53. Ulmer, R. R. (2012). Increasing the impact of thought leadership in crisis communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 523-542. doi:10.1177/0893318912461907
54. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55. Witte, K., & Roberto, A. J. (2009). Fear appeals and public health: Managing fear and creating hope. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 584-610). New York, NY: Routledge.