Presuppositions about "good communication:" An assessment of online discourse
Susan Bagley Koyle and Mark Aakhus
Department of Communication Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 4 Huntington St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071
[email protected],
[email protected]
Abstract This study investigates the online discourse generated by a class of student interns regarding dilemmas they experienced in their work life. The interns use an application designed to foster a dialectical record of their experiences and differences of opinion about how to understand those experiences. We use discourse analysis to explore the students' presuppositions about good communication in the online text. We describe how students’ presuppositions that good communication is “open and honest” conflicts with their experience of superior-subordinate relationships. We suggest that conflicts with presuppositions can be used to facilitate further reflective learning and to shape the online dialogue.
Keywords: Collaborative Learning, Reflective Learning, Internships, Professional Development, Discourse Analysis
A central part of reflective learning (Schon, 1983) is the uncovering and questioning of assumptions. Reflective learning depends on learners surfacing their assumptions about the world that are represented in the actions they take to handle everyday dilemmas. Thus, in order to learn from experience, it is necessary for learners to reflect on how they make decisions and the assumptions that those decisions are based on. An application designed by the second author incorporates a model of argumentative dialogue that facilitates reflective learning among student interns. The application facilitates the collaborative production of disagreement and a natural, dialectical history of the interns' experiences and evolving differences of opinion about communication at work and in professional life (Aakhus, 2000; 2001). This study analyzes discourse that takes place through the application and in reflecting on that discourse seeks to understand how to help interns reflect on the ways they describe, discuss, and argue about their experiences. Much discussion about educational technology has been in terms of usage and performance (Witmer, 1998; Anderson & Kanuka, 1997; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). While this paper will discuss how online technology has been designed and used, it will approach the topic of educational technology in a significantly different way. The paper will explore how an online communication forum was designed and implemented to foster students’ ability to reflect on everyday choices in a manner that helps them develop more sophisticated ways of framing problems and taking action. This research does not merely understand new media applications to be a conduit or tool that facilitates distance learning. Rather, this application was specifically designed to support particular types of discourse and interaction that encourage reflection about decision-making processes (Aakhus, White, Bagley Koyle & Cockett, 2001). Student learning needs to involve articulation, reflection and testing of their decision-making process, native theories and what they assume about their world. The specific design of this system as well as the course requirements for the program are described in Aakhus (2000). Three research questions, which are an extension of earlier research (Aakhus, White, Bagley Koyle & Cockett, 2001), guide this study. (1) How do participants construct accounts about dilemmas they face at their internship? (2) What implicit and explicit aspects of particular accounts do respondents call out in responding to updates? (3) What codes do the students use to understand "good communication" at work and professional life?
ANALYTIC APPROACH Data The data for this study is a documented natural history of experiences produced by a class of some 40 student interns using an application designed on LotusNotes to support reflective learning. During the course of a semester, students are required to submit five "updates," in which they answer five questions in order reconstruct a dilemma they faced at their internship as well as the steps they took (or planned to take) to handle the dilemma. These dilemmas arise from competing choices that students face related to their work experiences which they must manage based on their best understanding of the situation and their own practical reasoning. These choices can become quite complex because the dilemmas occur in a context of organizational hierarchy, school obligations, social ties, organizational goals, professional aspirations and financial and time constraints (Sweitzer, H., & King, M., 1999). After an update is submitted, the online application allows other students in the class to read and respond to it, creating an interactional context with the response as a second-turn step. To respond, students select one of five initial responses to challenge or support the assumptions or actions described in the update and then elaborate on their stance in a written response. It is through this response that both supportive and alternative perspectives are presented. The response function of the online application is designed to encourage students to engage the perspectives that students articulated in their updates. Hutchby (1996) approaches the study of argument as an interactional process with a focus on the interactive role of opposition -- the action-opposition sequence. When an initial claim or statement is responded to in an oppositional way, the interaction becomes an argument. This dialectical exchange helps make visible normative and factual presuppositions about communication at work and in professional life. This perspective allows an examination of what the respondent treats as arguable and what normative codes participants use to identify what is arguable. Thus, a key focus of this study will include an examination of what respondents call out and presuppose about the accounts they are responding to. Presuppositions (Coulter, 1979) refer to commonsense beliefs about society or "background understandings." In this context, they are implicitly used both in the language and framing employed by the update writer and how the respondents interpret and respond to the update.
METHOD We follow Craig & Tracy’s (1995) “grounded practical theory,” which uses interpretive discourse analysis to explore (1) the communication problems that practitioners experience, (2) how they deal with problems and (3) the normative principles they use to think about the relationship between problems and solutions. We are interested in what students presuppose about communication when writing updates and responses, and what respondents do and do not take issue with. The subject under investigation then is their way of writing about communication that reveals a code or system of meanings (Katriel & Philpsen, 1981). Morrill's (1995) description of schemas and scripts is useful for understanding the communication code produced in the interaction between the interns’ updates and responses. Schemas refer to interpretive frameworks that enable people to hold certain expectations and to make sense of their world. Scripts provide a map of how to go about accomplishing activities and negotiating social structures and roles. Schemas, which are generally tacitly understood, can be communicated through stories about experiences and in the way these stories are disputed by others. Specifically for this research, schemas and scripts refer to the code about communication at work and in professional life produced in the interns’ dialectical engagement. Schemas and scripts set the stage for articulating common presuppositions individuals use to understand the language, moral order, ritual, norms of conflict management and the pursuit of interpersonal grievances. This research will identify scripts and schemas that are employed by both the update writers and respondents. FINDINGS In this section, we will present some examples from the students' updates and responses as well as a brief analysis of their presuppositions about communication at work and in professional life. Themes All of the roughly 200 updates written during the semester were coded and classified into categories according to the theme that best represented what was being described. Ten primary themes emerged from the dilemmas and are listed below in order of prevalence: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Unchallenging work Professional /personal life conflict Hierarchy Hostile environment Competition with other interns Time management
(7) Unfair blame (8) Lack of recognition (9) Too much work (10) Office politics While the topics of the updates varied, most of the dilemmas ultimately dealt with how the student could best resolve or handle the dilemma in terms of communicating with a superior or co-worker. Whether it was how to articulate a grievance about lack or recognition to a boss or how to tactfully turn down a social request from a co-worker, students were primarily concerned with achieving what they perceived to be "good communication" in a professional environment. The description and framing of their dilemmas highlights their normative and factual presuppositions about how communication works in professional life. Next, we describe a few update scenarios that typify some of the issues and presuppositions articulated in updates. Dilemma 1: Unchallenging work By far the most common theme presented in the dilemma updates revolved around frustration, anger and confusion because of what students considered to be unchallenging, menial or boring work. The following segment of an update illustrates one student's experience dealing with the most common theme, unchallenging work. “I have been working in my internship for about a month now and I still have not really done any work of much importance. I don't want to sound like I am complaining to my supervisors about the kind of work I am doing, but I really want to feel as though I am contributing more. I have done a lot of work putting together a training manual for new employees, but mostly my work has not really called for me to use any of my own thinking." The dilemma described here is typical of many -- the student wants to do more challenging work, which would involve requesting it, but fears that bringing the issue up would appear to be complaining. The way the student writes this update presupposes a normative orientation toward workplace communication—namely, that work and requests should be initiated by a superior. The update also presupposes that the blame for unchallenging work lies with the superior more so than with the intern. Furthermore, the student writes that bringing the situation up to the supervisor might violate professional conduct -- that it would be perceived as complaining, which he/she "doesn't want to sound like." Dilemma 2: Bad impression A common presupposition in the updates is that conflict is the result of poor communication or "lack of communication" and that more open and clear communication would resolve conflict. This reasoning is
evident even when it might contradict what a student is actually describing. For example, another intern’s update focuses on communication between her and her supervisor. The student writes: "I fear that my supervisor feels that I lack enthusiasm in the workplace because sometimes I find myself do nothing and I have already looked to see if there was something to do and I just thumb through media kits or old magazines created there. So my boss may feel that I am not interested in finding more and learning more. My last day is coming up so I feel that there is no sense in making such a great effort but I do not want to leave with this bad impression." The student acknowledges a lack of effort in her work, yet suggests that her supervisor has a false impression of her enthusiasm for her work. The implication is that the supervisor should understand that the student will be leaving the internship shortly so it makes "no sense" to put forth a great effort. Despite this presupposition, the same student's updates are also replete with references to the importance of open, honest communication: "Your best bet is to be open and honest;" "If no one speaks up then the problem is not evident;" and "If one does not say or do something in a situation that they are not happy with, then it will not change." The student attributes problems and misunderstandings to lack of communication or poor communication. "[Do] not take any flow of communication for granted. If one person fails in processing in the flow of communication then the whole process would be disconnected and the goal will not be accomplished" and "Open communication is important and if that is avoided, there may be some misperceptions created." The student orients to an understanding of good communication as open and honest. Furthermore, communication is framed as a coordinated, goal-oriented activity. Speaking up will help to make unsatisfactory situations known and result in changes. However, the dilemma "Bad Impression" does not necessarily support these presuppositions about good communication. Rather, the student justifies a lack of effort on the fact that he/she will be leaving shortly and places the responsibility for a bad impression on the supervisor. Dilemma 3: Hostile supervisors Another theme of the updates involved dealing with what the interns considered to be hostile supervisors, co-workers or fellow interns. The students often frame their dilemmas in terms of deciding whether to bring up the hostility they experienced in evaluations or to their supervisors at the risk of causing trouble, being perceived as a "complainer" or receiving a negative evaluation. One student described this experience: “I can honestly say that I have never met a bunch of ruder, inconsiderate, and overall miserable people in my life. Each day that I walk into this place, my stomach turns into knots, and
the other interns and myself feel like pieces of trash.” This student wrote that talking about the situation with a supervisor would make no difference, particularly since there was essentially "no communication" between employees of different statuses. Again, implicit in this and other updates is the idea that the superior-subordinate relationship should be open and that problems arise from a failure to communicate, particularly within the organization's hierarchy. The action and behavior of others in the organization inevitably lead s to the interns feeling "like pieces of trash." Responses: Hostile supervisors The previously mentioned update about rude and inconsiderate co-workers generated 11 responses. All of the responses reacted to the update writer's question of whether he should speak out about the hostile behavior or "just tolerate this behavior, and suck it up." Ten of the responses advised the student to "put up with it" since "it [the internship] is almost over and there's no need to make a big deal about it now." There is a general consensus that speaking up would merely create a "hassle for yourself" that isn't worth the trouble since the intern is not a "real employee." In reasoning about why such an environment exists, one respondent attributes hostile behavior to co-workers' "high positions" -- that hierarchy is in part responsible for unfriendly behavior. While the respondents acknowledge that the hostility is "not fair" and that the intern "should not be treated like that," there is a sense of resignation that dealing with inconsiderate coworkers is an inevitable part of professional life and that attempting to do anything about it would only cause trouble for the intern. There are several references to the propositional presupposition that a hostile work environment is "sad, but true, that's the real world" and that the intern is getting "a taste of what the real world is truly like." One respondent did offer an alternative action stated that "I would say something and stand up for myself," and if a question were ever raised about the situation, "I would simply explain the situation, because I think it would show a strength of character." Here, the implication is that speaking out would violate certain professional norms (i.e., it might raise questions in the future), but that "simply explaining" the situation would show the student to be of stronger character. The exchange between the update writer and the subsequent responses again highlights a discrepancy between the importance of "open, honest communication" that students use to reason about why some dilemmas exist and the reasoning that students use to justify their own actions and beliefs. While students consistently make references to problems existing because of a "lack of communication," in this instance,
10 of 11 responses supported the update writer's reasoning that saying or doing something about the situation (i.e., being "open and honest" about it) would not solve or change anything. Students are able to critically reflect about these types of discrepancies through the portfolio assignment, which will be described in the following section. PORTFOLIOS During the last month of the semester, students begin working on a portfolio about their internships. The set-up of the portfolio assignment is for students to first describe what their experience was like from the perspective of communication theory and concepts (the "Description" section). The second section of the portfolio is the "Analysis." Here, students are asked to address the question, "How did your experience influence, challenge or extend your beliefs and assumptions about communication, work and professional life?" A significant part of the Analysis section involves students reviewing the online work that was posted throughout the semester. Because the online work creates a documented natural history of experiences for the students, they are able to review changes, patterns and discrepancies in what they wrote throughout the semester. Ultimately, the portfolio assignment is intended to further the goal reflective learning. In fact, because self-reflection can reveal unacknowledged assumptions and beliefs, when students review their online work, they often express surprise at what they and others have written. The following suggestions are recommended to students as ways to review the online work: 1.
Take an update that you wrote at the beginning of the semester and re-work it from the perspective you have now. Do you ask different questions? Would the dilemma still be a dilemma for you? Do you see things differently now? Do you react differently now? Why or why not?
2.
Read through the 5 updates that you have written. How have they changed over the course of the semester? Are you writing about different things now? Do you find yourself looking at your workplace and internship differently now compared to the beginning of your internship?
3.
Look at the responses you have written to other students during the semester. Has your advice changed over the semester? Do you look at the other students' experiences differently now?
4.
Compare the advice you have given in responses and your own actions. Is there a difference between the advice you give to others and what you actually do? Is there ever a difference between what you write that you should do in a situation and what you actually do? Why?
5.
How have your beliefs, attitudes and perspective differed from those of other students? What ideas or new perspectives did you gain by reading other students' updates and responses? What surprised you in other students' responses and updates? Why?
6.
Read through the responses that were written to your 5 updates. How did you use the advice and responses that other students gave you? What was helpful and why? What wasn't and why? The following excerpts from students' portfolios illustrate instances in which students were able to look
critically at their own and others' online record to surface their assumptions and beliefs about communication, work and professional life. These examples were selected because they represent some of the different ways students identified changes, patterns and differences in what they had written online. While students were often able to identify their assumptions and discrepancies between how they advised other students to handle dilemmas and their own actions, some still held "open, honest communication" as an ideal, albeit one that was complicated by hierarchy, office politics and interpersonal relationships. Student 12 writes: "There is definitely a difference in my responses to other interns and their dilemmas and the way I act in my own dilemmas. I noticed a pattern of having a hard time realizing my limits, specifically remembering that I am a student first and above any other role I may take on. I responded to most other people's update with advice to be as clear and straightforward with their supervisor as possible, since they were hired as interns, not full-time employees, there is less responsibility expected. Yet, I could not seem to make the connection between my advice to other people and my own conflicts. Specifically, in my last update, there is a major difference in what I said I should so and what I actually did. I discussed ending my internship in two week's time since I had fulfilled more than double the required hours and I was falling behind in my other classes. Of course my advice for myself was very blunt and simply to tell my supervisor that I am thankful for the opportunity they have provided me with, yet I need to stop in two week's time to catch up on my other classes. However, when it cam time to discuss the matter with Susan, I could not hold my ground and ended up working for another complete month. This situation has influenced my view of professional life in collaboration with communication since there is indeed a very open, natural form of communication, it seems as though it should be easy to professionally discuss serious matters. However, the rich medium of face-to-face communication that facilitates asking questions and instant feedback from my supervisor is the same communication process that makes it so difficult to talk about my position within the organization itself. My realization through this particular analysis is that no matter how comfortable you are communicating with your boss, in an organization there is always an element of discomfort that makes it difficult to be completely blunt and say exactly what you feel." Other students write in their portfolios that upon reflecting about their online work, they see their dilemmas from a broader organizational perspective. They often note that what they had perceived as a personal affront was perhaps more attributable to characteristics of the organization or industry they were working in. The role of hierarchy and power is also explicit and implicit in the explanations of the dilemmas. Student 15 wrote that reading other students' responses and updates led her to reflect about why her supervisor acted the way he did. She writes, "Considering the attitude of other supervisors, I came to wonder why my boss was not as easygoing about answering my questions. … I realized that my supervisor's unavailability was probably due to the fact that he was overloaded (he handles multiple jobs at one time, has little time available and is
very stressed over completing his tasks). The unavailability actually created a very positive, successful learning experience for me. If I had had the opportunity to ask many questions at this company, I might have remained an outside merely observing." Similarly, Student 2, who worked at an entertainment network, wrote about an experience in an update that he wrote early in the semester that he later saw from a broader organizational perspective. He wrote, "In February, I became very frustrated when new interns were handed a position since they were able to come in five days a week. As an intern of five months who came in three days a week, I was resentful of the new employees and believed that I was getting the short end of the stick and I reached a crossroads. In hindsight, maybe I did get looked over, but at least I made the right decision. After a week of self-pity, I came to a realization. I decided that it wasn't my fault I didn't get hired, but rather that it was simply the company's policy. It had nothing to do with my ability or my performance ..." Other students write that they come to realizations that their assumptions about "good communication" don't always work the way they expect. For example, in her Analysis, Student 3 chose to take the first update she had written and re-work it based on a newer perspective. In her update, she had written that she was feeling overwhelmed working 16-18 hours a week at her internship, working a parttime job and taking hard classes. She felt exhausted and had a difficult time getting schoolwork done. She asked, "What is the most professional way to confront my boss on adjusting my hours to maybe 10-12 hours per week?" In her Analysis, she writes that she decided to do exactly what her classmates advised her to do and confront her boss and simply explain her dilemma and time constraints. She continues, "My boss outrightly refused to change my hours or even compromise on the situation, and he found it rude and irresponsible for me to even make such a request. This absolutely shocked me, but I felt as though I had to own up to all the responsibilities I decided to take on, and hopefully learn from the experience so as to not be in the same situation in the future. I learned that once you commit to something, you must follow through as promised." In this situation, the student had initially accepted the presupposition that clearly explaining her dilemma to her boss would lead to a resolution. However, in reasoning about what actually happened, Student 3 justified her boss' refusal with the observation that she had violated a professional norm -- that she should have followed through on any prior commitments she had made to the organization.
Furthermore, she accepts that ultimately her boss was "in the right" because she hadn't owned up to the responsibilities she had taken on. Other students compare their updates/responses to their classmates' in order to surface their own beliefs and assumptions. For example, one student who had been at his internship for six months before starting the class, writes that this longevity affected the responses he gave to other students. He writes, "Even from my first response, which I incidentally labeled as having a different influence on the situation, I was handing out advice that I felt was more grounded in excelling in the work environment than pure basic instinct to be upset about an unfair situation. In this instance, a student was stating that s/he was receiving personal errands as part of his/her daily duties. Many students' responses with complaints and cries that he/she ought to tell his/her boss to basically shove it. I, on the other hand, gave a response that was much less aggressive." The student attributes his different position to his longer experience in an organization and implies that his longevity had taught him some professional norms that didn't necessarily involve fairness or "pure basic instinct" about how things should work. These norms concerned appropriate and communication with superiors, particularly that the typical presupposition about being completely "open and honest" wasn't always the best course of action. DISCUSSION An analysis of the students' writing about their experiences uncovers some important meanings and presuppositions that the students assign to communication at work and professional life. This study has implications for the design and implementation of collaborative and reflective learning technology. It suggests that it is important to identify the type of dialogue online learners produce using information and communication technology. The dialogue in which they engage produces the record of their interaction, or in the case here a natural history of their individual and collective experience. If that record is built through a common code, such as described here, then it is also important to help learners reflect on the very ways they describe, discuss, and argue about their experiences (Aakhus, White, Bagley Koyle, & White, 2001). The application the students used in this study is designed (and made to be redesigned) to lead to this type of insight. Different designs to support the action-opposition sequence have been implemented to foster the dialectical quality of the record produced through the online interaction (Aakhus, 2000).
We have also found that technological redesign is insufficient in facilitating reflective discourse, so we have developed other individual and group activities to foster reflection. In particular, we have found enormous practical value, and we suspect learning value, in developing and teaching the participants search strategies to help them make sense of the large database of messages produced in the online venue. For example, based on observations and analyses such as those reported here, students were given the assignment to analyze the online work produced during the semester in an effort to foster further selfreflection. The online history of their experiences provided a basis for students to reflect about their reasoning and actions and how their internship influenced their beliefs about communication in professional life. Several search tools were built into the website design to aid this search process. Through this and other exercises, students are able to surface and articulate their assumptions about communication, work and professional life. An analysis of the online discourse allows us to better understand the students' presuppositions about communication in a professional setting. In addition, the application described here allows participants to uncover and question their own assumptions, with the goal of developing reflective learning. The examples from the portfolio assignment demonstrate that the design of the online interaction and of the course assignments can facilitate reflective learning.
References Aakhus, M., White, W., Bagley Koyle, S., & Cockett, L. (2001). Reflecting on communication at work and in professional life: Assessing the discourse of an on-line learning community. Manuscript submitted for publication. Aakhus, M. (November, 2000). Virtual dialectics: Support for critical reflection in on-line, experience-based learning communities. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Convention, Seattle, WA. Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (1997). On-line forums: New platforms for professional development and group collaboration. Journal of Computer-mediated communication [online],3, 3, 14 pages. Available: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol3/anderson.html. Craig, R. and Tracy, K. (1995) Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 258-272.
Coulter, J. (1979). Beliefs and practical understanding. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc. Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk: Arguments, asymmetries , and power on talk radio. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Katriel, T., & Philipsen, G. (1981). 'What we need is communication': 'Communication' as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs, 48, 301-317). Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6, 161-176. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Sweitzer, H., & King. M. (1999). The successful internship: Transformation and empowerment. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Morrill, C. (1995). The Executive Way. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Witmer, D. (1998). Staying connected: A case study of distance learning for student interns. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [On-line],4, 2. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue2.
