Brief Summary
The article by Duff (2002) explores discourse and communication peculiarities among students of the High School Mainstream based on ethnography of communication (EC) research method. Starting with the succinct yet comprehensive overview of the theme, the author employs social constructivism views and focuses on language-mediated activities. Seeing that not only second language learners but also native speakers compose the target audience, the author examines micro and macro environments as well as explicit and implicit attributes of cultural identity and diversity. The author specifically identifies the study context, pointing out that the two classes were examined in the high school mainstream. Duff (2002) applies observation and interview methods to collect data, such as home language, ethnicity, status, etc.
Conducting the study and providing excerpts from it, the theorist explores the role of the interactional displacement of students in class and reveals some constraints. In particular, it is stated that sequential turn-taking is more opportune for the non-local students while they feel uncomfortable or confused during group or class discussions. As for the first language speakers, they proved to be more talkative yet prone to interrupt their peers, speaking or intending to do it.
Both cultural and social differences between students are reinforced by their positioning, interaction patterns, and discussed themes. Based on speech and behavior peculiarities, the author discovers social networks between students and comments on each of them, presenting her findings in a table format and also supporting them with detailed interpretation. Duff (2002) concludes that ethnography of communication presents essential grounds for the establishment of recognition of cultural diversity, empathy, and the overall culture-sensitive context.
Informed Response to Key Theoretical Concepts
The focal concept utilised by the author alludes to ethnography of communication. According to Witteborn, Milburn, and Ho (2013), it refers to “contextualised communicative practices and conceptualising ways of being, acting, and relating, tightening them into a communicative theory about social life” (p. 188). In order to conduct the study, the scholar applies macro context that embraces social, cultural, and historical features of communication along with micro context that focuses on learning activities.
Furthermore, etic and emic directions were also specified, where the first one implies inside perception and the latter – outside attitudes (Zhu & Bargiela-Chiappini, 2013). Duff (2002) identifies the two groups of students, including native English speaking (NES) and non-native English speaking (NNES) ones.
Critical Overview
In her article, Duff (2002) investigates the impacts of ethnography of communication method to learning that is a qualitative research method widely used to study cultural and social issues. The key contribution of this article is that it provides valuable insights into the practical application of the suggested method. The author clearly and consistently describes the core concepts, methodology, and findings, supporting them with credible evidence and excerpts from real conversations with students. In other words, this article explicates both the process and effects of ethnography of communication that is based on a diverse class. In this regard, the significance of the paper lays in the fact that it reflects contemporary linguistic environment with its contradictions and needs in culturally and socially heterogeneous context.
This article is included due to its relevance, scholarly nature, and valuable findings related to ethnography of communication. Leighter, Rudnick, and Edmonds (2013) argue that this method creates resources for design solutions that are unequivocally beneficial to promote a diverse class integration. This idea is also supported by Duff (2002) to some extent, thus providing one more contribution.
The article enlarges this week assigned readings by offering an in-depth study of the core theme and concepts. In other words, students receive the opportunity to understand the issue better that, in its turn, is likely to lead to the comprehension of their relationships with peers as well as foster their professional growth. Personally, this article enhanced my knowledge cultivated as a result of previous readings and provided me with clear vision regarding how this communication method can be employed on practice.
If this paper were written nowadays, it, perhaps, would serve as a basis for a series of the perspective researches. Considering that recent studies in the corresponding field focus, first and foremost, on designing strategic action, the article by Duff (2002) provides the fundamental explanation of the issue. For instance, if one would pay attention to the article by Sprain and Boromisza-Habashi (2013), he or she would note that ethnographers of communication tend to exchange knowledge to build cultural competence that is advantageous for practitioners, scholars, and other interested parties.
To critique this article, it is possible to emphasise that it is a well-structured and elaborate paper the relevance of which cannot be overestimated in terms of modern learning realities. One more thing turning one’s attention to is the fact that it is evidence-based article, integrating various ideas expressed by other scholars in journal articles, books, and other credible sources. The author provides several tables to present data that creates visibility and promotes clear understanding and interpretation of the key concepts and insights. Therefore, it is possible to utilise this method of ethnography of communication to answer some questions concerning language learning.
Speaking of particular innovativeness of the article, it is essential to note that the author clearly pinpoints that structural and poststructural directions were combined in the study, integrating content and interaction into one comprehensive model. Furthermore, the approach with which the author conducts the study should be noted as well. Instead of applying standard Mr Watson or Mrs Evans, she uses names of the students as the focal purpose is to specify contextualised description of conversations. Thus, the mentioned approach allowed revealing their authentic views and perceptions.
Questions for Discussion
- What are strengths and weaknesses of the study by Duff (2002)?
- What is the extent to which this article is relevant to nowadays language learning environment and sociolinguistics?
- What is teachers’ role in ethnography of communication in a culturally diverse class? What challenges may they encounter?
References
Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289-322.
Leighter, J. L., Rudnick, L., & Edmonds, T. J. (2013). How the ethnography of communication provides resources for design. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(2), 209-215.
Sprain, L., & Boromisza-Habashi, D. (2013). The ethnographer of communication at the table: Building cultural competence, designing strategic action. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(2), 181-187.
Witteborn, S., Milburn, T., & Ho, E. Y. (2013). The ethnography of communication as applied methodology: Insights from three case studies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(2), 188-194.
Zhu, Y., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2013). Balancing emic and etic: Situated learning and ethnography of communication in cross-cultural management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 380-395.