Contribution
A response, in a journal forum, to Cooren’s “Pragmatism as ventriloquism” (2014), which proposed ventriloquism as a metadiscourse able to put Craig’s seven traditions of communication theory in dialogue. Wilhoit extends Craig’s (2015) objection, that Cooren’s model is “more unified than dialogic” (p. 45), from epistemology to method.
Key insight
A metamodel inherits its home tradition’s methods. Ventriloquism comes from the Montréal School of CCO, which holds that organizing is interaction, studies it through what words do, and therefore uses conversation analysis (p. 46). Traditions whose methods differ, such as experimental sociopsychology, rhetoric and critical theory, will not “conduct experiments or surveys to identify agencies in a given interaction” (p. 47). So ventriloquism, as Cooren deploys it, imposes “an epistemological-ontological coherence between traditions rather than opening dialogue” (p. 48).
Assumptions
- Craig’s (1999) criterion: a metamodel must be an open space without built-in restrictions (p. 47).
- That a tradition’s methods express its epistemological commitments.
- That Montréal School CCO uses CA as its primary method. This is asserted with three citations (p. 46), not surveyed.
Key results
An argument, not a study. The one piece of evidence beyond the reading of Cooren and Craig is the author’s report of reviewers who objected to CCO theory used “with methods other than CA” (p. 48).
Claims
| id | claim | strength | support |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Montréal School CCO, committed to interaction as the basis of organizing, takes CA as its method of choice | moderate | citations to Taylor & Van Every 2000, Brummans et al. 2014 and three empirical studies, p. 46 |
| C2 | Cooren’s ventriloquism, so committed, cannot serve as Craig’s open metamodel | moderate | argument from Craig 1999, 2007, 2015, pp. 47–48 |
| C3 | Dialogue around ventriloquism is coming from CCO work using non-CA methods | weak | four examples and the author’s own review experience, pp. 47–48 |
Concepts
- Ventriloquism. Cooren’s account of communication as making other agencies (principles, emotions, organizations) speak through one.
- Metamodel. After Craig: a space in which models of communication can coexist and talk to one another.
- Montréal School. The strand of CCO that sees organizations in text and conversation.
Connections
Responds to Cooren 2012 and 2014 and follows Craig 2015. Cites Cooren 2010, Action and Agency in Dialogue, only as the earlier, organization-bound statement of ventriloquism (p. 46).
Bearing on the record
Produces THEORY-1281, Proposed.
Bencherki, Brummans & Vézy (LIT-1902) cite this paper for the claim that Cooren’s analyses “still tend to entify agents” because of the conversation-analytic approach (pp. 1363–1364), and that CA “does not question the status of interlocutors as agents” (p. 1359). The paper supports only the link between the Montréal School and CA. It makes no claim about entification, about the status of interlocutors, or about a gap between Cooren’s processual theory and his analyses. NOTE-1484’s Connections bullet, which quotes the parent as saying the CCO tradition “still tend[s] to entify agents”, reports the parent correctly; the attribution to Wilhoit is the parent’s and does not hold.
Limitations
Five pages in a response forum. It is about whether ventriloquism can be a field-wide metamodel, not about the quality of any ventriloquial analysis. It examines no analysis of Cooren’s.
Open questions
Whether CCO’s methods have in fact diversified since 2016, which a count of methods in CCO empirical studies would settle.