This brief essay explains the paradigmatic position at the core of the work I hope to complete in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science where I am studying the archival record and its communicative nature. In the first section of this essay, I explain the ontological nature of reality from my view, the epistemological nature of my research, and the various methods that I am eager to explore. In the second section of the essay, I discuss archives and archival appraisal, the topic I have selected for my research; how the topic fits with the discipline of organizational communication; and the methods I may use to conduct the research. This essay hopes to provide the reader with an understanding of my viewpoint and framework upon which I base my work.
My onotological position is interpretive, complete with the discursive features outlined by Deetz (2001, p. 17) including a decided attraction to ethnography and a hope to recover integrative values. My view of reality is that there are many views and mine, as the researcher, is just one of them in the overall community of views. In my view, reality is socially constructed and my research purpose is to create, understand, interpret, and focus attention through exploration while remaining true to my values of sincerity, honesty, creativity, and discovery; all descriptors that fit tightly within the interpretive paradigm. Putnam (1982) would label me as a subjectivist and as a researcher who wants to examine the ways interpretations of symbolic action create reality. These views lead me toward the naturalistic tradition of inquiry where I hope to examine complex variables and be personally involved in the research process; placing me in a position that I know feels comfortable to me and is compatible with my social needs.
Bantz (1983) states that the naturalistic tradition has roots that stem from two dominant schools: symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. Using his framework for discussion, I position myself with those who acknowledge symbolic interactionism and the thinking of George Herbert Mead (1934), and Herbert Blumer (1969). I believe that the meaning we give to things is rooted in social interaction and communicative activity. My definition of "things" comes from my understanding of the social definitions that surround me. I believe that we act toward events, things, and people based on the meanings that we have developed over time and that we also use judgements that fit the situation at the moment we choose to act. This position allows me to look at language, negotiations of social interaction, and the results stemming from the use of language that are both (a) communicative acts and (b) representations of our actions and communications. I am hopeful that my research will lead to a greater understanding of the process of making choices (appraisal[1]) about the communicative acts (creation of archives[2]) that are meaningful (valued) enough to be saved and because they have been saved, may influence future interpretations of our society.
Using the matrix developed by Deetz (2001) to position types of social discourse preferences, my orientation is labeled local/emergent and fits the interpretive dimension, appearing in the matrix opposite from critical studies and the elite/ a priori orientation. My research is aimed at producing a form of knowledge characterized more by insight into empirical events than large-scale empirical generalizations. Deetz describes what I hope to accomplish: "to produce insights into organizational processes that may be particularistic regarding both time and place even though the emerging analytic frame is designed to aid in the deeper understanding of settings" (p. 12).
I am an interpretivist. With my interpretive view of the world, I gravitate toward qualitative modes of inquiry. Naturalistic inquiry "feels" right for me, especially within a bounded set of structures and strategies that some research methods and techniques offer. I want to deeply explore and grow to know the views and the perspectives of others and understand why they make the choices that they make. I am curious about people and how they make choices and connect one thing to the next. I am curious about the interconnections between organizational culture, organizational communication, and organizational life and want to examine them using the symbols and communicative actions we create to exemplify organizational culture, communication, and life. I do not wish to predict. I am not interested in making broad claims. I want to determine characteristics surrounding social phenomenon in order to understand it, not control or manipulate it.
Research Topic: Appraisal in Archives
Symbolic interactionists see human society as people or organizations engaged in action together or individually. Group life is the social interaction that places people next to one another providing opportunities for interaction and display of behaviors and signals that are interpreted or negotiated, and then result in action. Joint action is the result of the interconnection of lines of action by individuals who band together to form entities such as businesses, churches, universities, or historical societies. These joint actions consist of individuals defining a situation based on their unique and varied experiences, their current interpretation of the situation, and the action they choose to take which, in turn, can result in further action. Archivists are a part of this ongoing interaction and communication in organizations. Archivists, in my view, shape what is communicated and produce organizational symbols. As Ham (1975) states, archivists make crucial decisions--or decide by not deciding--about the future of the historical record. Archivists through their actions to retain or dispose of our symbolic organizational communications (appraisal), do nothing less than shape the collective memory of society. According to Putnam, Phillips, and Chapman (1996) "Symbols are more than manifestations of an organization's culture; they are the means through which organizing is accomplished" (p. 388). Archivists not only keep archives, but also influence the very creation of records of an organization that later become the symbols of communicative activity or organization. My belief is that communication taking place in organizational settings becomes part of the archival record, a symbol of the organization, and, over time, a part of the fabric of an entire society. These communications represent working documents of society, and present a picture of many people's joint actions; as Weick (1979) might say, archives are creations and representations of a process of organizing.
Yates and Orlikowski (1992) might study archives as a genre in communication, one that can be even be viewed, if using a wide enough lens, as a communication media. Archives are also symbols of organizational behavior, communication, and social action. Like Tompkins (1984), I believe that "communication constitutes organization" (p. 660). I am appreciative of Redding's efforts (1972) to ground organizational studies in communication theory because his work helps me understand the direction of my research. My research will explore and seek understanding about the ways archivists act to determine which among many "communications = organizations" will be chosen to document, represent, symbolize, and communicate our society and its creations, interactions, and decisions. My research inquiry will require that I see and observe from the perspective of the archivist in ways described by Schwandt (1994) where "the inquirer actively enter(s) the worlds of people being studied" (p. 124).
Within my philosophical and theoretical framework, I still have unanswered questions about frameworks to use. My reading of Cresswell (1998) suggests that two theoretical frameworks may work with my research: (a) a grounded theory study that would help me generate a theory of appraisal, and (b) a case study framework that would allow for theory to be developed as a result of data analysis. I hope to produce descriptions and interpretations of the messages, meanings, and expectations used by archivists in appraisal processes, particularly when appraising materials produced using electronic and multi-media technologies. My method will be inductive in nature and what I hope to produce will dictate the methods that I will use in the research process.
The methods of approach I am attracted to are qualitative. I intend to follow what Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest and use several approaches, so that each approach can inform the other during the design, data collection, and data analysis stages of research. As the researcher, I expect to be a participant in the creation and discovery process. As Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen point out (1993), no two settings will be the same so I will examine several. I hope to begin to understand the process by looking at its parts, acknowledging that, at the same time, I will be adding my own interpretation to the whole. I will conduct interviews and analyze documents such as mission statements, policies, guidelines, and training/instructional manuals. The interviews will place me in the position of being a participant in the process and will serve as a tool for clarifying my observations. I will be uncovering different perspectives as I conduct the research and will be using quotes and themes found in the words of the participants I interview and observe making appraisal decisions. I will examine organizational documents (communication) examining the vocabulary of the organization, defining themes used in the organization, and identifying the boundaries for retention of the organization's communications. I expect to find indicators of the meaning, decisions, and the culture of the organization. Through this examination, of organizational documents (electronic or otherwise) I expect to find historical and joint action data I need to explore how communications have been interpreted, shaped, and maintained within the organization over time. Using these methods, I hope to discover regularities, discern meaning, and theorize about how archivists decide or appraise what will be kept using these methods.
My paradigmatic view of the world is interpretivist and leads me to naturalistic inquiry and qualitative methods. I view the creation of the archival record as a communicative act and archives as a symbol. I also view communication as organizations and my research goal is to understand how archivists determine what "communications = organizations" will be retained as archives for future researchers to use in the study of our society.
[1]Lewis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo. Appraisal is the process of determining the value and thus the disposition of records based on their current administrative, legal, and fiscal use; their evidential and informational value, and their arrangement and condition; their intrinsic value; and their relationship to other records (1992).
[2]Lewis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo. Archives are the documents created or received and accumulated by a person or organization in the course of the conduct of affairs, and preserved because of their continuing value.
Bantz, C. (1983). Naturalistic research traditions. In L. L. Putnam, & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 55-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bellardo, L. J. & Bellardo, L. L. (1992). A glossary for archivists, manuscript curators, and records managers. Chicago: Society of American Archivists.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ham, F. G. (1975, January). Archival edge. American Archivist, 38(1), 5-13.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L. (1982). Paradigm for organizational communication research: An overview and synthesis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 192-206.
Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N. & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organization. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp.375-408). London. Sage.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive review of theory and research. New York: Industrial Communication Council.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tompkins, P. K. (1984). The functions of human communication in organizations. In C. C. Arnold & J. W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory (pp. 659-719). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-236.
| Return to Publications Table of Contents |
This page is created and maintained by Sue Soy ssoy@ischool.utexas.edu
Last Updated 01/04/2002
© Copyright 2002 Susan K. Soy
Please feel
free to copy and distribute freely for academic purposes with this notice and
attribution.
All other rights reserved.