![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In this essay, we propose a double helix of critical inquiry; one that binds both critical theory and appreciative inquiry through critical pragmatism. We first situate the double helix within the paradigmatic, theoretical, and praxeological commitments of the critical paradigm followed by anchoring dialogue as a methodology that activates the double helix through pragmatism. We then introduce three specific methods of dialogue that bring to life how critical communication scholars can use dialogue as a means for socially situating dialogue within historical power dynamics for envisioning and creating social change. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications for communication scholars to consider when conducting critical communication research and teaching this area of inquiry in their communication courses. Our hope is that this framework of a double helix produces communication inquiry that engages communities in the cocreation of a just society.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Sarah J. Tracy for her critical questioning as an advisor and colleague. The initial question for understanding how appreciative inquiry and critical scholarship relate came from an advising session with her. The authors would also like to thank R. L. and the reviewers for their support on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Stanley A. Deetz, “Critical Interpretive Research in Organizational Communication,” The Western Journal of Speech Communication 46 (1982): 131–49; Sarah J. Tracy, Qualitative Research Methods. Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).
2 Deetz, p. 148.
3 Stephen John Hartnett, “Communication, Social Justice, and Joyful Commitment,” Western Journal of Communication 74 (2010): 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310903463778.
4 Leslie McCall, “The Complexity of Intersectionality,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (2005): 1771–800.
5 Gregory Castle, The Literary Theory Handbook (Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2013), 84–90.
6 Dominic Strinanti, An Introduction to the Theories of Popular Culture, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2004), 48–49.
7 For example, Alessia Contu, “Decaf Resistance: On Misbehavior, Cynicism, and Desire in Liberal Workplaces,” Management Communication Quarterly 21 (2008): 364–79; Olga Idriss Davis, “(Re)framing Health Literacy: Transforming the Culture of Health in the Black Barbershop,” The Western Journal of Black Studies 35 (2011): 176–186; Shiv Ganesh, Heather Zoller, and George Cheney. “Transforming Resistance, Broadening Our Boundaries: Critical Organizational Communication Meets Globalization from Below,” Communication Monographs 72 (2005): 169; Rona Tamiko Halualani, S. Lily Mendoza, and Jolanta A. Drzewiecka. “‘Critical’ Junctures in Intercultural Communication Studies: A Review,” The Review of Communication 9 (2009): 17–35; Thomas Rosteck, “Approaching the Intersection: Issues of Identity, Politics, and Critical Practice,” At the Intersection: Cultural Studies and Rhetorical Studies (New York: The Guilford Press, 1999), 1.
8 Kent A. Ono, Critical/Cultural Approaches to Communication.” 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009), 74–82.
9 Ono, p. 74.
10 Michelle Fine, “Working the Hyphens: Reinventing Self and Other in Qualitative Research.” In The Landscape Of Qualitative Research: Theories And Issues, ed. by Norm Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1994), 72–73.
11 Halualani et al., p. 18.
12 Lawrence Grossberg, “Culture.” In Key Concepts in Critical Cultural Studies, ed. Linda Steiner and Clifford Christians (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 73–87.
13 Julia T. Wood and Robert Cox. “Rethinking Critical Voice: Materiality and Situated Knowledges,” Western Journal of Communication 57 (1993): 283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319309374452.
14 Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 36–38; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Ellen Rooney, “In a Word: Interview with Ellen Rooney,” Differences: Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 1 (1989): 126. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-1-2-124.
15 Michael K. Middleton, Samantha Senda-Cook, Aaron Hess, and Danielle Endres. “Contemplating the Participatory Turn in Rhetorical Criticism,” Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies 16 (2016): 571–80.
16 Patricia Hill Collins, Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), 189–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616655821.
17 David Loy Cooperrider, “Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understanding and enhancing organizational innovation,” Doctoral Dissertation. Case Western Reserve University (1986), p. ii; David L. Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, “A Contemporary Commentary on Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life,” In Research in Organizational Change and Development, ed. Richard W. Woodman, William A. Pasmore, and Abraham B (Rami) Shani (Bingley, U.K.: JAI Press, 2013), 129–69.
18 Fiona Cram, “Appreciative Inquiry,” Mai Review 3 (2010): 1; Jan Reed. Appreciative Inquiry Research for Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007), viii.
19 Cooperrider and Srivastva, “A Contemporary Commentary,” pp. 129–31.
20 J. Kevin Barge, “Hope, Communication, and Community Building,” The Southern Communication Journal 69 (2003): 63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940309373279
21 Patrice M. Buzzanell, “Resilience: Talking, Resisting, and Imagining New Normalcies into Being,” Journal of Communication 60 (2010): 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01469.x.
22 Vincent R. Waldron and Douglas L. Kelley, Communicating Forgiveness (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008), ix.
23 Ryan S. Bisel, Pavitra Kavya, and Sarah J. Tracy, “Positive Deviance Case Selection as a Method for Organizational Communication: A Rationale, How-to, and Illustration,” Management Communication Quarterly 34 (2020): 282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919897060.
24 Stephen Fineman. “On Being Positive: Concerns and Counterpoints,” The Academy of Management Review 31 (2006): 282. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208680.
25 Fineman, p. 282.
26 Albert. L. Spencer, American Pragmatism: An Introduction (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity, 2019), 4.
27 Spencer, p. 85.
28 Nancy Fraser, “Another Pragmatism: Alain Locke, Critical ‘Race’ Theory, and the Politics of Culture.” In The Revival Of Pragmatism: New Essays On Social Thought, Law, And Culture, ed. by Morris Dickenstein (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998): 157–75.
29 Tim Huffman, “Pragmatic Fieldwork: Qualitative Research for Creative Democracy and Social Action,” Journal of Social Justice 3 (2013), 1–24; Howard Winant, The New Politics of Race: Globalism, Difference, Justice (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2004).
30 Roberto Frega, “Between Pragmatism and Critical Theory: Social Philosophy Today,” Human Studies 37 (2014): 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-013-9290-0
31 Stanlie Myrise James and Abena P. A. Busia, eds., Theorizing Black Feminisms: The Visionary Pragmatism of Black Women (New York: Rougledge, 1993).
32 James and Busia, p. 3.
33 Collins, Fighting Words, 189–90.
34 David Bohm, On Dialogue (New York: Routledge, 2013), 22.
35 Martin Buber, “The I-Thou Theme, Contemporary Psychotherapy, and Psychodrama,” Pastoral Psychology 9 (1958), 57–58.
36 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), 65.
37 Myles Horton and Paulo Freire. “We Make the Road by Walking : Conversations on Education and Social Change,” Convergence (Toronto: International Council for Adult Education, 1992), 124.
38 Nina M. Lozano-Reich and Dana L. Cloud. “The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality,” Western Journal of Communication 73 (2009): 223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856105; Allison Hawn, “The Civility Cudgel: The Myth of Civility in Communication,” The Howard Journal of Communications 31 (2020): 225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2020.1731882; Jennifer Lyn Simpson, “The Color-Blind Double Bind: Whiteness and the (Im)Possibility of Dialogue,” Communication Theory 18 (2008): 139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00317.x.
39 Benjamin Broome, “Managing differences in conflict resolution,” In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, ed. D. J. Sandole and H. van der Merwe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), 95; Sara DeTurk, “Intercultural Empathy: Myth, Competency, or Possibility for Alliance Building?” Communication Education 50 (2001): 375. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379262.
40 Ronald C. Arnett, “Dialogic Civility as Pragmatic Ethical Praxis: An Interpersonal Metaphor for the Public Domain,” Communication Theory 11 (2001): 327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00245.x; C. Kyle Rudick, Kathryn B. Golsan, and Kyle Cheesewright. Teaching from the Heart : Critical Communication Pedagogy in the Communication Classroom (San Diego, CA: Cognella Academic Publishing, 2018).
41 Robert T. Craig, “For a Practical Discipline,” Journal of Communication 68 (2018): 291. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx013.
42 Stacey L. Connaughton, Jasmine R. Linabary, Arunima Krishna, Kai Kuang, Agaptus Anaele, Kelly S. Vibber, Liliya Yakova, and Christina Jones, “Explicating the Relationally Attentive Approach to Conducting Engaged Communication Scholarship,” Journal of Applied Communication Research 45 (2017): 517. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.1382707.
43 Deanna L. Fasset and John T. Warren. Critical Communication Pedagogy (Thousand Oaks:Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007).
44 Rudick et al., p. 73.
45 John Gennett, Clark D. Olson, and Jennifer A. Linde. Hot Topics, Cool Heads: A Handbook for Civil Dialogue (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2018), 17.
46 Robert J. Razzante, Katrina N. Hanna, and Jennifer A. Linde, “Dialogic Prudence: Promoting Transformative Conflict Through Civil Dialogue®. In Peter Kellett, Stacey L. Connaughton, & George Cheney (eds.), Transforming Conflict and Building Peacebuilding: Community Engagement Strategies for Communication Scholarship (New York: Peter Lang, 2021), 221–42.
47 Robert J. Razzante, “Crystalising Whiteness: Engaging White students’ Whiteness Through Civil Dialogue®,” Whiteness and Education 5 (2020): 17–36. doi:10.1080/23793406.2019.1682466; Robert J. Razzante, “Torpefieds, Intellectualizes, and Cynics, Oh My!: Complicating Performances of Whiteness.” In Communicating Across Differences: Negotiating Identity, Privilege, & Marginalization in the 21st Century, ed., Lena M. Chao and Cynthia Wang (San Diego, CA: Cognella, 2021), 1–18; Razzante et al., “Dialogic Prudence: Promoting Transformative Conflict Through Civil Dialogue®.”
48 Robin McTaggart, “Guiding Principles for Participatory Action Research by Robin McTaggart,” In Participatory Action Research (State University of New York Press, 1997), 1.
49 Davydd J. Greenwood, William Foote Whyte, and Ira Harkavy, “Participatory Action Research as a Process and as a Goal,” Human Relations 46 (1993): 175. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600203.
50 Anna Wiederhold Wolfe and Tyler Champine. “Developing a Grounded Practical Theory of Engaged Scholarship: Theorizing Communities of Practice in NCA Journals.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 51 (2023): 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2022.2127120.
51 Caryn Medved, Kelly Morrison, James Dearing, Sam Larson, Greg Cline, and Boris Brummans, “Tensions in Community Health Improvement Initiatives: Communication and Collaboration in a Managed Care Environment,” Journal of Applied Communication Research 29 (2001): 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880128107.
52 Mohan Jyoti Dutta, “Culture-Centered Approach in Addressing Health Disparities: Communication Infrastructures for Subaltern Voices,” Communication Methods and Measures 12 (2018): 239. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1453057.
53 Emily Polk and Jan Servaes. “Sustainability and Participatory Communication: A Case Study of the Transition Town Amherst, Massachusetts,” Management Communication Quarterly 29 (2015): 161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914563572.
54 Shiv Ganesh, and Heather Zoller. “Organizing Transition: Principles and Tensions in Eco-Localism.” In The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization, ed. Martin Parker, George Cheney, Valerie Fournier, and Chris Land (New York: Routledge, 2014), 236.
55 Heather M. Zoller, “‘A Place You Haven’t Visited Before’: Creating the Conditions for Community Dialogue,” The Southern Communication Journal 65 (2000): 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940009373167.
56 Shiv Ganesh, Cynthia Stohl, and Young Ji Kim, “Membership Matters: Organizing Archetypes, Participatory Styles, and Connective Action,” Management Communication Quarterly 36 (2022): 288. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189211032621.
57 Lissette Marroquín Velásquez and Adriana Angel, “Engaging With Society: Organizational Communication as Social Change,” Management Communication Quarterly 30 (2016): 256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915621590.
58 Christine Rogers Stanton, “Crossing Methodological Borders: Decolonizing Community-Based Participatory Research,” Qualitative Inquiry 20 (2014): 573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413505541.
59 John N. Warfield, Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity (New York: Wiley, 1976).
60 Robert J. Razzante et al., “Interactive Management Research in Organizational Communication.” Management Communication Quarterly 37 (2023): 971–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231159386.
61 ISM isolates two ideas at once and works through a matrix of relational questions. For example, the software asks participants, “In the context of creating an inclusive workplace, does [idea 1] significantly influence [idea 2]?” then switches to “ … does [idea 2] significantly influence [idea 1]?” and so on with each idea until all ideas have been cycled through. The participants critically engage the relationality of the factors and, in the process, each others’ localized knowledge. The product of the exercises is a flowchart that represents the collective thinking of the group. For more on how ISM operates, refer to existing communication scholarship that details the method in greater detail (Razzante et al., 2023, p. 5).
62 Michael J. Hogan, Helen Johnston, Benjamin Broome, Claire McMoreland, Jane Walsh, Bryan Smale, Jim Duggan, et al. “Consulting with Citizens in the Design of Wellbeing Measures and Policies: Lessons from a Systems Science Application,” Social Indicators Research 123 (2015): 857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0764-x.
63 Christine Domegan, Patricia McHugh, Michelle Devaney, Sinead Duane, Michael Hogan, Benjamin J. Broome, Roger A. Layton, John Joyce, Marzia Mazzonetto, and Joanna Piwowarczyk, “Systems-Thinking Social Marketing: Conceptual Extensions and Empirical Investigations,” Journal of Marketing Management 32 (2016): 1123. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1183697.
64 Benjamin J. Broome, “Reaching Across the Dividing Line: Building a Collective Vision for Peace in Cyprus,” Journal of Peace Research 41 (2004): 191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343304041060.
65 Benjamin J. Broome, “Collective Design of the Future: Structural Analysis of Tribal Vision Statements: Document View,” American Indian Quarterly 19 (1995): 205.
66 Broome, “Reaching Across,” p. 191.
67 Benjamin Broome, Ian Derk, Robert Razzante, Elaina Steiner, Jay Taylor, & Aaron Zamora, “Building an Inclusive Climate for Intercultural Dialogue: A Participant-Generated Framework,” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 12 (2019), 234–255. doi:10.1111/ncmr.1215.
68 Razzante et al., “Interactive Management Research in Organizational Communication.”
69 Tom Barone and Elliot W. Eisner, Arts Based Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2011).
70 David Boje M., Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research (London, UK: SAGE, 2001).
71 Amber Johnson, “What We Do,” Justice Fleet: Fostering Healing Through Art. Dialogue. And Play, 2021. https://www.thejusticefleet.com/.
72 Amber Lauren Johnson, “Practicing Radical Forgiveness in the Political now: A Justice Fleet Exhibit Fostering Healing through Art, Dialogue and Play,” Journal of Art for Life 10 (2019): 3.
73 Johnson, p. 4.
74 Sarah J. Tracy and Shawna Malvini Redden, “Markers, Metaphors, and Meaning: Drawings as a Visual and Creative Qualitative Research Methodology in Organizations.” In Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods, ed. Kimberly D. Elsbach and Roderick Kramer (Routledge, 2015), 238–48.
75 Patricia Hill Collins, “Piecing Together a Genealogical Puzzle: Intersectionality and American Pragmatism,” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 3 (2011): 1–10. doi:10.4000/ejpap.823.
76 V. Denise James, “Theorizing Black Feminist Pragmatism: Forethoughts on the Practice and Purpose of Philosophy as Envisioned by Black Feminists and John Dewey,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 23 (2009): 96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20721554.
77 Collins, “Piecing Together,” p. 18.
78 Hartnett, p. 75.
79 David H. Kahl and Ahmet Atay, eds. Pedagogies of Post-Truth (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2022).
80 Lore/tta LeMaster and Amber Johnson. “Speculative Fiction, Criticality, and Futurity: An Introduction,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 18 (2021): 280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2021.1953699.
81 Sarah J. Tracy and Margaret M. Hinrichs, “Big Tent Criteria for Qualitative Quality,” The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (2017): 1–10. doi:10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0016.
82 Fighting to Understand, “Here’s the Intro to … Dinner and a Dialogue,” Fighting to Understand. https://fighting-to-understand.us/intro-to-daafd/.
83 Amber Johnson, “What We Do.”
84 Dutta, “Culture-Centered Approach.”
85 Mary Jane Collier, and Brandi Lawless, “Critically Reflexive Dialogue and Praxis: Academic/practitioner Reflections Throughout a Formative Evaluation of Circles® USA,” Journal of Applied Communication Research 44 (2016): 156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2016.1155724.
86 Lauren Mark, Tyler Rife, Jennifer Linde, and Robert J. Razzante, “Storycircling the Virtual: Creating Space in a Pandemic with Storyscope,” Storytelling, Self, Society 17 (2021): 46. doi:10.1353/sss.2021.a845565.
87 Elizabeth K. Eger, “Co-Constructing Organizational Identity and Culture With Those We Serve: An Ethnography of a Transgender Nonprofit Organization Communicating Family Identity and Identification,” International Journal of Business Communication 58 (2021): 254. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419893738.
88 Erin K. Willer, Emily Krebs, Nivea Castaneda, and April Samaras, “Mad to the Bone: Learning Outcomes of Critical Grief Pedagogy,” Communication Education 70 (2021): 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1834118.
89 Fasset and Warren.
90 Connaughton et al.
91 Richard G. Jones, “Putting Privilege into Practice Through ‘Intersectional Reflexivity:’ Ruminations, Interventions, and Possibilities,” Narratives of Professional Helping 3 (2010): 122; Benny LeMaster, “Embracing Failure: Improvisational Performance as Critical Intercultural Praxis,” Liminalities 14 (2018): 1. http://liminalities.net/14-4/embracing.pdf.
92 Collier and Lawless; Rudick et al.
93 Connaughton et al.
94 Linda L. Putnam and Sarah E. Dempsey, “The Five Faces of Engaged Scholarship: Implications for Feminist Research,” Women and Language 38 (2015): 11.
95 Michael Middleton, Aaron Hess, Danielle Endres, and Samantha Senda-Cook, Participatory Critical Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric in Situ (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015).
96 Fasset and Warren, p. 55.