A research program on intellectual discussion in academic institutions ispresented as a case that illustrates a method for constructing grounded practical communication theory. Within a practical discipline perspective, theory is conceived as a rational reconstruction of practices for the purpose of informing further practice and reflection. The theoretical reconstruction of communication practices can be undertaken at three interrelated levels of analysis, here called the technical, problem, and philosdphical levels. Based on interpretive discourse analysis of recorded departmental colloquia and interviews with participants, we identify a complex interactional dilemma that arises within this type of communicative situation (problem level), specific techniques by which participants attempt to cope with that dilemma (technical level), and two situated ideals to which they have recourse for reflecting on the normative basis of their own and others'actions (philosophical level). Because of the ways grounded practical theory differs from other theoretical approaches, we argue that existing criteria for evaluating iheories must be rethought within this radically reflexive enterprise.Our purpose in this article is to explore one way in which studies of situated discourse might contribute to a closer and more fruitful relationship between communication theory and practice. A research program on intellectual discussion is presented as a case that illustrates a methodological model of grounded practical theory.

No abstract

Action-implicative discourse analysis is the name for a new type of discourse analysis, developed to be useful in the critique and cultivation of communicative practices in society. Developed within the metatheoretical framework of grounded practical theory, an extension and formalization of Craig's earlier ideas about communication as a practical discipline, action-implicative discourse analysis seeks to characterize the communicative problems, conversational techniques, and situated ideals of communicative practices. After overviewing the method's metatheoretical framework, the article proceeds to highlight what is distinctive about this new method. By comparing and contrasting action-implicative discourse analysis with four markedly different discourse analytic approaches-conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology-the article seeks to make the methodological approach's distinctive character visible. The article's final section explicates criteria that could be used in assessing interpretive discourse approaches generally, and action-implicative discourse analysis in particular.

No abstract