Critical research focuses on critiquing communication acts in terms of how they promote and marginalize members of the culture.Critical theorists orient their research (questions, analysis, reporting) to highlight "oppression" and to enable self-organization on the part of the "oppressed." The focus is on specific knowledge—not generalizable knowledge.
Critical research combines inductive and deductive methods, but applies most approaches with deductive goals tied to ideological concerns. Researchers in this perspective acknowledge their own standpoints and work from the knowledge that they will be unable to completely remove their own experiences and assumptions from what they learn about their topic of investigation. Critical research is never without bias—it starts with an understanding of one’s own bias. Critical theorists engage in "action-oriented" research aimed at bringing together theory and practice in a way that is emancipatory and transformative for individuals. Critical theorists tend to critique such categories as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
Fields associated with Interpretive research include cultural studies, philosophy, theology, international relations and political theory, popular culture studies, ethnic studies, gender studies, queer theory, and post-colonial studies. Communication fields rooted in interpretive research include critical rhetoric, performance studies, communication and culture, feminist communication, and queer theories of communication.
Critical Research Models
There are three fundamental assumptions that underlie models and methods in the Critical Paradigm. First, from a critical perspective it is generally understood that reality and truth are in constant flux, rather than permanent ideals. These concepts change and always have changed throughout history. They are socially structured and determined by contemporary power constructs—resulting in different value systems in different eras. The second primary assumption is that identity and community are also in constant flux because they are performances situated within power relationships that change with the ideologies. The third underlying assumption of Critical Theory is that popular culture and communication products are the best means to understand attempts at constructing reality. This is because, as explained by Berger and Luckman (1966) in their book The Social Construction of Reality, all social or cultural truths are created through communication processes: all “truths” are produced by through the application of Rhetoric. Therefore, what we study in the Critical Paradigm is primarily the Rhetorical Construction of Reality.
Deconstruction (Derrida, 1967)
We began discussing critical research in Communication Studies with the concept that all of reality is essentially rhetorically constructed. We end this section with a process that illustrates how we can take apart that reality, break it down and look at it in symbolic pieces, so that we can begin to understand how false that reality really is. From a critical perspective, knowing that communicated realities are temporary or false because they really are products of message construction helps us understand that we can actually change reality by changing the words we use to make claims and place values on things. One of the more prominent methods of taking reality apart is what we call deconstruction.
In a written discussion of how the process of writing, itself, is a fiction, Jacques Derrida (1967/1997) developed the method of linguistic or contextual Deconstruction, which is a process of revealing the hoaxes of assumed truths in power constructs. Derrida explains that there cannot be a stable reality because the meanings of words change from group to group and time to time. His central argument is that there is nothing outside of the text—meaning is situational and “read” in a variety of ways. This echoes Barthes’ earlier argument that authorship is devalued—that the “author” is “dead” in a text and the truth of the text is in its reception, not its creation. Derrida explains that we think we are dealing with the “real” but we are just dealing with a construct that we created—a fiction we, as a society, have put in place to give ourselves a framework.
Derrida’s method is rooted in symbolic communication. He asks us to consider a text, and to consider how the meaning of the text changes with a new frame or setting. A specific word, or a letter, is a symbol meant to represent an idea only within a specific context. If you change the context, the symbol itself may become meaningless—or it may shift meaning. Take a look at the example—how is the “symbol” in the center of both words “read” in each word? Does the symbol mean anything on its own? Derrida argues that the symbol is, itself, meaningless, and therefore the words it is a part of are also meaningless. Derrida asks us to understand that we can reject any and all meaning and start constructing “truth” all over again. This gives us the power to change reality—to change the power structures that are accepted as truth and re-write them, using Rhetoric, as something new.
Performance Theory (Schechner, 1969, 1988).
Theatre scholar Richard Schechner (1969) developed performance theory to address how drama is part of everyday life and not just a stage act. He also argues that performance is cross-cultural, and therefore key to communicating across borders.
"Performance studies starts where most limited-domain disciplines end. A performance studies scholar examines texts, architecture, visual arts, or any other item or artifact of art or culture not in themselves, but as players in ongoing relationships, that is, “as” performances" (Schechner, 2002, p. 2).
Performance should be seen as a means of critical-cultural analysis of everyday life, not just theatre and stage arts, because performance methods can reveal how people follow the scripts that are tied to the identities they choose to perform. Performance theory, in Schechner’s view, looks at both the text or message of personal identity that is performed, and the context or audience reception and potential to change things about society. Performance studies, in the communication studies tradition, looks at these theories as a reflection of the rhetorical construction of reality (Conquergood, 2002). The field now draws on the work of earlier scholars in theatre, rhetoric, anthropology, sociology, folklore studies, and communication.
Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault, 1969)
Foucault’s work is focused on the relationship between Knowledge and Power (Foucault, 1969/1972). Foucault’s method is to point out historical shifts in the structure of knowledge. In a sense, he looks at history as type of archaeology or genealogy to uncover why and how a particular body of knowledge is valued the way that it is. In particular, Foucault asks us to question who determined what type of knowledge related to a particular topic or ideology is valuable, and what they got out of that knowledge production.
Foucault argues that everything has a history, including history itself. The way that each history is rhetorically constructed will reveal who, in history and in contemporary society, is benefitting from the way that knowledge set is valued. In Foucauldian terms, Power Produces Truth, and, simultaneously, knowledge is power.
Knowledge is rooted in constructed historical contexts. History is told by the present, and told in terms of how it is valued in the present. History is described in communication products in terms of power relations, in this case reflecting the knowledge of those in power—the bias of historical knowledge is the bias of power. Power is also tied to hegemony, or the forces of power that always seek to reproduce themselves. Learning and knowing this telling of history are forms of participating in a hegemonic web of power. The video above illustrates the constant use of language as a means of reinforcing ideals that are part of assumed power. It also illustrates how the story of the American Revolution can be told with only particular details, ensuring a particular read by the audience. In this way, knowledge is power—if it’s the accepted knowledge within the hegemony.
Reception Theory (Hall, 1973, 1974)
Stuart Hall (1973, 1974) defined the concepts of encoding and decoding, particularly focused on investigating how the process works in media. He developed his theory in contrast to hypodermic needle theory, and argued that audiences are not passive receptors of media products. Hall explains that mass media messages are encoded with symbols that can be interpreted with a “preferred” meaning. The preferred meaning is usually associated with the producer’s intent, and often connected to cultural authority. However, the audience does not have to interpret using this “preferred” meaning. Audiences of color and other minority audiences often do not read mass media products through the preferred meaning. “If meanings are not entirely predetermined by cultural codes, they are composed within a system that is dominated by accepted codes” (Hall, 1973, pp. 84-85). Thus, preferred meaning is not entirely without a possibility of resistance or objection.
“Encoding” is the process of the producer placing meaning within the message. Ideally, this limits the potential for misunderstanding. The “more natural” something appears, the better the job of encoding. “Decoding” is as much an act of producing meaning as “encoding,” but this time the audience is doing the work.Hall describes three possible positions to take while “decoding”: “dominant,” “negotiated” and “oppositional.” Dominant means understanding the “preferred” meaning and accepting or buying into it. Negotiated is acknowledging the preferred meaning and its legitimacy but refusing to accept it. Oppositional is recognizing the preferred meaning but not accepting it as legitimate. According to Hall, audiences are free to read a text with any of these meanings: they don’t have to accept the producer’s intent.
Ritual Model of Communication (Carey, 1975)
James Carey (1975) developed the ritual model of communication as an alternative to the transmission model. Carey felt transmission was too focused on the composition of messages and not enough on context. Context, for Carey, belief systems, culture, experience, and other contextual factors reveal underlying truths of a message, both on production and consumption ends. Therefore, if we look at the way that communication is participatory and tied to context, we can more completely understand communication.
In the ritual model, rather than tracing a message's linear progression, the message is examined through the way it represents several elements: society, individuals, objects, symbols, and transformation. Carey (1975) argues that many communication acts are not aimed at transmitting messages directly to a receiver, but as an aspect of a cultural experience. In other words, a lot of communication is about creating social order, not just conveying a message.
Performativity (Butler, 1990).
According to Judith Butler (1990) performativity creates potential for negotiation of agency within a site of resistance. To Butler “Gender is always a doing, though not a doing by a subject whom might be said to pre-exist the dead” (p. 25). She believes that real is only real in so far as we take to be real, therefore the reality of gender is unstable. She also believes that social reality is constructed and so the performances we do in that space can challenge our perceived truths.
Butler’s (1990) Gender Trouble suggests that there are two types of resistant gender performances, Transgressive and Subversive. Transgressive performances use humor to undermine our expectations of gender. An example would be someone choosing to perform in drag. Subversive performances are more direct attacks on the social structures that reinforce gender. For example, transgender sex-changes are subversive, because the people who choose these surgeries legally change their gender status. These attacks are less welcome in society than transgressive ones because they are viewed as more directly threatening.
One of the key questions to come out of studies of performance and identity is whether identity is given to us by nature, or if our identities are completely constructed by society. This “nature or nurture” question, especially in regard to gender, remains a central debate in performance and identity studies. While most scholars today agree that there are possibilities for changing our gender roles, many continue to argue that some gendered characteristics are assigned at birth, and the identity messages that evolve from these gender traits come from a person’s natural tendencies. Regardless, performance and identity theories show us that basic assumptions about gender identity are not fixed.
Critical Ethnography (Goodall, 2000).
Critical ethnographers apply methods derived from critical theory to their ethnographic fieldwork and participant observation. Critical ethnographers focus on phenomena and cultural events as a way of understanding cultures. However, critical theorists incorporate self-reflexivity, or awareness of themselves as a biased researcher, into their work, and use creative writing styles and methods of data collection as a means of reinforcing both their standpoints and the politicized nature of what they see at an ethnographic site.
Critical communication ethnography then became centered on the work of Henry (Bud) Goodall (2000). Goodall helped to develop two unique forms of ethnography that have become common in communication fields: narrative ethnography and autoethnography. Narrative ethnography reflects Fisher's narrative theory, investigating how narratives reflect ideologies and cultural roots. Narratives also illustrate political ideologies and motivations, and can tell us about how a group functions within it's own perspective, and in relation to other groups and cultures.
References
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday & Company, New York.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Conquergood, D. (2002). Performance studies: Interventions and radical research. TDR: The Drama Review, 46, 2, 145-156.
Carey J. (1975). A cultural approach to communication. Communication, 2, 1-22.
Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology. (G.C. Spivak, trans.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Original work published 1967.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. (A.M. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon. Original work published 1969 and 1971.
Goodall, H. (2000). Writing the new ethnography. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. Birmingham: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies.
Hall, S. (1974). The television discourse - encoding and decoding. Education and Culture, 25, 8-14.
Merrigan, G. & Huston, C.L. (2015). Communication research methods (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schechner, R. (1988). Essays on performance theory. New York: Routledge. Original work published 1977.
Schechner, R. (2002). Performance studies: An introduction, 3rd edition.New York: Routledge.
Schechner, R. (1969). Speculations on Radicalism, Sexuality, & Performance. The Drama Review: TDR, 89-110.
