Ethnography of Communication
Our key method for today’s readings is Ethnography of Communication. This method stems
largely from the work of Gerry Philipsen, based on the prior work by Dell Hymes. Hymes, a
sociologist, began looking at how groups used communication specifically. Philipsen got his
doctorate under Hymes and began incorporating his approach full-scale, first to look
specifically at speech (the “ethnography of speaking”), but later applied also to silence and
use of nonverbal communication, hence the broader name, the Ethnography of
Communication. Hymes has actually developed a theory surrounding this method, called
Speech Codes Theory. Here is another link by a class where students summarize and do
projects specifically using this theory.
ETHNOGRAPHY
Ethnography is alternately both a research methodology and a way of writing up research.
Some say that the methodology itself is observation, with varying roles of participation by
the observer (from strict observer to participant observation, in which the observer is also
participating in the activities). Frequently the observation will be followed up with
interviews, in which the researcher verifies conclusions drawn from observation. In this
sense, the research is observation, and the write-up, or report of the research, is an
ethnography. However, ethnography is not simply observing—it might also include
document analysis, interviews of people in the social setting, and other methods, such as
conversation analysis. For our purposes, ethnography will be considered to be the detailed
observation of a society--a holistic analysis and description of a society. Hammersley and
Atkinson (1983) state:
For us ethnography (or participant observation, a cognate term) is simply one social
research method, albeit a somewhat useful one, drawing as it does on a wide range of
sources of information. The ethnographer participates, overtly or covertly, in people's
daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is
said, asking questions; in fact collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the
issues with which he or she is concerned. (p. 2)
Purpose: Ethnography has its roots in anthropology, in the early work of Branislow
Malinowski (Conquergood, 1991). It is used frequently in both anthropology and sociology
today. More recent discussion of ethnography frequently looks to the work of Clifford
Geertz, Dell Hymes, and others. Hecht (class notes) in his discussion of interpretive theory
(see Tools for Research II) notes that much of interpretive theory is based on Geertz' Cultural
Approach, in which "the researcher seeks to described the surface level artifacts and events,
and then figure out the deeper levels of meaning by 'peeling' back the layers of meaning"
(referring to Geertz' notion of "onion peeling"). Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) take the
reader through the steps involved in doing ethnographic research and writing up the report
(see also van Maanen, Wolcott, 1990).
Ethnography of Communication: Several scholars have borrowed from concepts of
ethnography to look at communication specifically. Thus, Philipsen (1989) bases his work on
the assumption of communicative meaning: "In general, interlocutors establish, through
their actions and interpretations of actions, a sense of shared meaning, such that interlocutors
orient to each other and each other's acts as if they expressed a common sense" (p. 258). He
goes on to say that interlocutors (or, if we can use Conquergood's metaphor, social actors),
coordinate their actions; communicative meanings are "created and the particular patterns of
conduct that are enacted vary across communities" (p. 259). These communities of
communicative resources are cultures. Thus, he defines culture as a "historically transmitted
system of symbols, meanings, premises, routines, and rules" (p. 259).
Philipsen’s Propositions of Speech Codes Theory (1989)
Assumptions
1. Fundamental Axiom:
2. Coordinated Action:
3. Particularity in Meaning and Action:
4. Cultural Particularity
For our purposes, we nearly need a summary of the theory as a whole—specifically that
communicative action is specific to each group. That is, each group creates a set of resources
for the people within that group for when, how, and to whom to communicate. People
“coordinate” their meaning, but that meaning is specific to a culture. (Organizational
researchers, such as Putnam, Pacanowski, and O’Donnell-Trujillo apply this principle even to
the level of an organizational culture!)
Many ethnographers of communication use Dell Hymes' descriptive framework to research
and present their findings. This framework (Hymes, 1972), is intended to be used to look at
any naturally occurring speech to discover the rules for speaking (modes of speaking, topics,
message forms within particular settings and activities). The key elements [SPEAKING] are:
Scene: physical setting where talk occurs, cultural definition of the
scene
Participants: the actors in the
scene and their role relationships
Ends: the purpose(s), outcomes,
goals of talk
Act Sequence: the relationship
between what is said and how it is
said
Key: the tone, manner, or spirit in
which the talk [or silence] occurs
Instrumentalities: particular channel, language, dialect speech variety
of the talk
Norms: normative aspect of interaction; normative aspect of the
interpretation of talk
Genre: the cultural category of talk (e.g., insults, compliments,
apologies)
Examples of Ethnography of Communication
Typically, a single study will not walk through each of these, but will use the ones that are
most relevant. For example, if we wanted to look at shaking hands, we could start at the
“genre”—shaking hands as a sign of showing friendship (e.g., flipping someone off might be
an insult or a gesture of camaraderie). We could then find out who shakes hands in a culture
(participants), the scene (only upon first meeting, or do you always shake people’s hands
when you see them again. Hmmm. ‘Hi Mom! Glad to be home (hand shake).” “Hey, dude,
whassup” (handshake). . . No, I don’t think so.
We could determine why people shake hands, the “key” or tone (for example, in the flipping
off example, one might flip a stranger (participant) off in traffic or at a grocery story (scene),
following either a traffic goof-up or someone saying something rude to begin with (act
sequence). Here the key would be tense, uncomfortable, angry. But if you are at a game and
your buddy flips you off, the tone could be “joking,” “light,” etc. The instrumentalities are
the channel. Thus, if we take a larger “genre” of camaraderie behaviors, these could be verbal
or nonverbal. The norms dictate the expected rules for how to shake hands (not a wimpy
shake, not too firm, not too long, and don’t milk the other person’s fingers!).
Carbaugh (1994) goes on to list three areas of interest to the student of cultural
communication:
1. Cultural Models of Personhood: What does it mean to be a (good) Osage Indian, a
good Anglo American, a good ISU Greek member?
2. Communication: How is communication accomplished? What are the logic
patterns, forms of talk (e.g., metaphor, word usages, analogies, argument styles),
meanings, and rules.
3. Emotional Expression: As an example of the above, what are the "display rules"
of when and how emotion should be displayed.
Note that these three intersect with one another. That is, emotional expression has certain
meanings. In some cultures, to be a "real man" means not showing certain emotions, or to be
a real "x" might mean showing emotions in certain ways. It is within this framework that our
readings for today fit. The two readings from the MN&F reader are both from students who
got their doctorates under Dr. Philipsen and are now professors at different universities.
II. Specific Studies on Culture and Identity:
A. American Indian Students (Carbaugh)
Carbaugh, D. (2002). “I can’t do that!” but I “can actually see around corners:
American Indian students and the study of public “communication.” In In J. N. Martin,
T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural
contexts (2nd ed., pp. 138-149). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.
Thought Questions:
- According to Carbaugh, what is the
role of Blackfoot “deeply
communicative silence”? What
seem to be the main values that
undergird Blackfoot
communication?
- What constitutes
“effective communication” for Blackfoot culture?
-
What is nixokowa and what does it express (p. 141)?
-
What are the premises (underlying assumptions) of the “Whiteman’s” culture?
-
How might this impact the Blackfoot student in the mainstream classroom?
-
What, according to Carbaugh, should be the researchers role as it regards learning
and writing about other cultures?
-
Photo credits:
http://www.glenbow.org/blackfoot/teacher_toolkit/french/culture/takingCont
rol_Print.htm
-
http://rolsi.uiowa.edu/editorialboard/carbaugh_d.html
B. Leave-Taking in Colombia
(Fitch)
Fitch, K. L.. (2002). A ritual for leave-taking in
Colombia. In In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, &
L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts
(2nd ed., pp. 149-155). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.
Thought Questions:
-
Describe what Fitch calls the salsipuede ritual
(Note: This is her own name for the ritual, though
it makes sense). What is the “act sequence” involved (to use
-
Notice the transcript notation in Fitch (e.g., pp. 150-151). This is quite different
from the way Carbaugh uses transcripts (and different from anything you will do
in COM 372!). She is using a sort of conversational analysis, which uses a much
more fine-tuned look at stops, starts, interruptions, and so on.
-
What are the underlying values that the salsipuede ritual represents? Fitch, along
with most ethnographers of communication, would argue that communication
rituals such as this reflect the underlying psychology (meanings, values) and
sociology (social structures) of a culture. We could see the same returning to our
handshake structure or to bows in some Asian cultures. How starts the bow or the
handshake? How long does one hold it? Who is allows to interrupt and in what
way? We could easily apply the speaking framework to a ritual of any culture at
any level to uncover the underlying structures and meanings of the culture.
-
A family example: In the Baldwin family, there is what I call the “Dinner
Dictionary Ritual.” In this ritual, the family is discussing some idea
(postmodernism, euthanasia, narcissistic, etc.) and a term comes up. Sometimes it
is regarding the origin of some term (on which Nordic god does the English word
“Tuesday” come from, and how does this relate to the Spanish martes, which is
based on Mars, the god of war?), sometimes on the pronunciation of a word, and
sometimes on a concept. We used to run downstairs to get a dictionary, but finally
just gave up and moved the dictionary to a bookshelf that sits close to the kitchen
table. Genre: Seeking information in the dictionary (I often find it easiest to start
here!). Participants: The Baldwin family—mom, dad, 11-year old daughter, and
15-year old son (as of June 4, 2007!). Any one can get the dictionary, but so far, it
tends to be the three oldest members of the family. Act sequence (and I’ve
deliberately taken this out of order so that we do not seek SPEAKING ritual as a
lock-step process): There is some lively discussion, over some term, concept, or
current event (requiring knowledge of some place). This gives rise to different
opinions. Sometimes simply to clarify or seek information, and sometimes to
prove him or herself right (ends), someone goes and gets the dictionary—
sometimes an atlas, which lives right next door to the dictionary. The person looks
up the word or place, brings the information to the table, and we continue chatting
about the topic while we eat. The key is usually friendly, sometimes competitive,
and the instrumentality—here less important, is the use of a standard reference
source to provide “verifiable facts” to answer some question that has come up.
Often looking up in the dictionary ends a particular dispute, as if the dictionary
has authority, though sometimes someone chooses to disagree with it or extend its
finding—or comment that we need a more up-to-date dictionary. However,
notably, we never do this if there is an actual argument with a negative key, if
relationships or emotions are on the table, and we never do it spitefully, reflecting
the norms of the hunt. Undoubtedly, this ritual reflects some underlying values
specific to the Baldwin family culture, as well as power structures (in that anyone
call for or get the dictionary but not everyone does), though perhaps dominant in
larger cultures (you can decide what those are.). Visitors to the Baldwin table are
free to engage in the ritual, though they rarely seek the dictionary and some
protest the ritual: “Hey, we’re not in school!”
Thought Box: Describe a cultural communication ritual using Hyme’s SPEAKING
framework (or as much of the framework is applicable—but try to use at least 4 of the
aspects). This can be a ritual of a culture (with a small c) to which you belong—workplace,
organizational, household. Or it can be a larger cultural ritual that you have observed. Try to
use one that you have observed frequently, so that you do not draw a strong conclusion about
a culture based on insufficient evidence. Finally, tell what the ritual might reveal about the
underlying psychology (values, beliefs), sociology (social structure, relations) or rhetoric
(ideology, underlying assumptions) of the culture.
Sample Ethnographies:

Rhetoric in flames (“fire inscriptions” among Israeli youth):
https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMKAT.PDF

Sites of memory: Israeli historic museums and the way the guide handles the “artifacts”
depending on whether the museum visitors are Jewish or Palestinian:
https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMKA2.PDF

Doing Whiteness in the College Classroom (ethnography of a college “performance”
classroom on intolerance)
https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMWAR2.PDF

Latino Nights: a study of a nightclub that has a special night for “Latinos” in Ohio:
http://firstsearch.oclc.org.proxy.lib.ilstu.edu:2048/html/webscript.html:%3Asessionid=fsapp1032951-exqietn9-6zp6o5:sessionid=fsapp10-32951-exqietn9-6zp6o5:

Directive sequences in Colombia & Colorado (using ethnography & interviews):
https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMFI2.PDF

Talking “race” in the classroom (not on-line, but Baldwin has a copy)
Optional readings for your files!

More on the background of ethnography—another reading for your files on Speech Codes
Theory by Philipsen:
https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMPH2.PDF

Clearly beyond the scope of our class—but a good “qual methods” reading: Rethinking how
we do ethnography in a “postmodern”/ “critical” sense:
https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMCO2.PDF
Note: See Philipsen & Carbaugh (1986) for a bibliography of fieldwork on ethnography of
communication; Leeds-Hurwitz (1990 for a review of three works, including Katriel's talking
straight. Braithwaite and Carbaugh have also prepared a paper on the contribution of
ethnography of communication to the study of intercultural communication.
C. Language and Cultural Identity (either Jandt, 2004, Ch. 17, or
Jandt, 2007, Ch. 15)
We are taking this chapter quite out of order as it relates to the use of language to reflect cocultural identity, thus joining two concepts we studied last week. Much of the chapter will not
require much of our attention at this time, and I am not providing a detailed look. What is
most interesting for our purposes here is the extended example at the end of the chapter,
where Jandt focuses on several aspects of language (and media) use by gay and lesbian cocultures. He does use several other interesting case studies, but we will be focused more on
the main terms and ideas than on these cultures.
o
What is argot? What are its functions? What does it have to do with group
identity?
o
Note several examples of argot:
 Working class
 British punk
 Corporate culture
Thought Box: Give an example of argot used by a group to which you belong. Discuss how
it meets the different functions of argot.
o
Case study: Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered Communities
How do labels work both against and for a group? What
are some different positions a group can take towards the
use of labels (e.g., reclaiming, rejecting)? does it mean
for a group to reclaim a label? What are some specific
labels relative to GBLT groups, and what are the
implications of those labels? Why do some people reject
labels? [P.S. Beyond our discussion, but interesting thought—how would this
relate to either the communication theory of identity or to co-cultural theory!?]
How do media work both against and for a group? (Much of
Jandt’s coverage is on GBLT media, magazines, and so on.
However, some scholars also look at some of this same media,
such as Will and Grace or Queer Eye for a Straight Guy and show
how, while it brings gays or lesbians visibility, it also continues to
stereotype them or show limited ranges of their occupations,
characteristics, and so on. It is interesting to see how many
advertisers today are making gay-friendly images or images that
are, at a minimum, ambiguous (uncertain) in how they can be read.
Homophobia versus heterosexism: What is
homophobia and what are some of the causes of it? Important Note: Here is
a note from our prejudice page that also applies here: For example, Thomas
Nakayama (an editor in one of our texts and researcher of critical rhetoric and
gay and lesbian studies) wrote in 1998 that the notion of homophobia—an
irrational fear of people who are gay or lesbian or of gay or lesbian behavior—
is not really a totally useful term, as it points only to individuals who are
irrational. As long as people can defend the rationality of their beliefs, they
can avoid the charge. He opts, instead, for heteronormativity (or
heterosexism). While heterosexism refers to the privileging of heterosexual
identity, heteronormativity points out the societal structures in place that
maintain the centrality of heterosexuality. It treats anti-gay sentiment at the
societal, rather than the individual level. To this end, much of what Jandt
discusses here, discrimination and laws against transgendered people (as well
as talk, media, and so on that simply assume heterosexuality) should really be
dealt with more as heterosexism. Homophobia, thus, is merely a personal
psychological fear of same-sex sexual orientation or individuals so oriented.
Some final points:

We should not speak of gay/lesbian as sexual preference, but as
sexual orientation. Even groups such as Exodus International, which
hold that one can adjust one’s sexual orientation, do not believe that
individuals simply wake up one day and decide they will be gay or
lesbian.

The distinction between homophobia and heterosexism is an important
one! If one focuses only on the homophobia, she or he will only worry
about individual-level psychology. If I, personally, do not feel dislike
towards lesbians or gays, then I am absolved from social responsibility.
If one holds that prejudice towards lesbians and gays is societal—in
laws, policies, and so on—then one will be compelled to seek societal
solutions, rather than simply individual absolution, for the intolerance.

Just as with African American or Latino identities, there are really
multiple constructions of gay or lesbian identity, based on
communication within groups. In addition, many people oppose these
categories, arguing that the line between gay and straight is socially
constructed (what it means to be “gay” in Brazil is different in the
United States!), and fluid (many might have same sex sexual thoughts
or fantasies or even interactions—at what point one becomes “gay” is
largely a social construction).

For an interesting final thought, take this on-line quiz!:
http://orgs.tntech.edu/lambda/survey.html
Thought Box: Sexual identity: Take the Heterosexual Survey:
http://orgs.tntech.edu/lambda/survey.html. Give your own thoughts about what you think
the survey is saying or about your own score on the survey.
OR
Think about the politics of labeling: Who should be able to use language, such as the N-word
to describe African Americans or the “Q” word to define gays or lesbians? Is in-group and
out-group usage of the language the same in intent and/or harm? Justify your answer.
Dialogue with others, as long as you do it in respect!