THE INTL.

JOURNAL OF LISTENING, 25: 132–138, 2011

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1090-4018 print / 1932-586X online
DOI: 10.1080/10904018.2011.537144

Grounding Listening:
The Limitations of Theory
Michael Purdy
College of Arts and Sciences
Governors State University

The role and limitations of scientific theory in listening research is explored. The
researcher as person is found to be intricately involved as creative, interpretive
author of concepts, hypotheses, arguments and conclusions. Nor can the researcher
ignore their own social and cultural life-world origins. Consequently the importance
of the social context and culture assumed by the researcher is detailed. Theory is
discussed and its general limitations explicated. Overall, research in social sciences,
such as listening, is at base social.

This essay is a discussion of the role and limitations of (scientific) theory in lis-
tening research. The general points to be addressed include, first, the role of the
researcher as creative, interpretive author of concepts, hypotheses, arguments and
conclusions, and their origin in the social and cultural life-world, and, second, the
importance of the social context and culture assumed by the researcher, not only
in a specific study but also globally and generally by theoretical social science.
Theory is the use of one particular scientific mode of research that is driven by
clear, accurate, and testable relationships about why we listen as we do. Bodie
is arguing for the strength of theory-driven research studies1 for organizing and
grounding the field of listening; Purdy is setting out the limitations.
Theory plays a special role in listening research but only exists as part of a
larger research (ad)venture. As Bodie (2009) so clearly argues, a coherent theo-
retical approach is critical for understanding and making effective use of the study
of listening. Yet as important as theory may be in the organizing strategies for

1 Bodie is also including data-driven research as important; he will explain its importance in his
response.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Purdy, College of Arts and
Sciences, Governors State University, University Park, IL 60484. E-mail: mpurdy@govst.edu
 GROUNDED LISTENING 133

studying listening and for the evaluation of results, theoretical approaches to lis-
tening are limited by the requirement that theory must be grounded and supported
in its strategic process by a larger, more encompassing life-world. Science itself
relies on a consensual cooperative community for its work; the dialogue of that
community must be critical and supportive if the whole project of theory building
is to go forward. Theory building (a construction metaphor) and application of
theory are both problematic: building assumes a world within which to build (and
builders), as well as a social context and setting; application implies a fit between
a theoretically abstract argument and a specific situation being studied, for exam-
ple, what messages are listened to most effectively in a helping situation. As the
famous economist John Maynard Keynes was purported to have said: There is an
interplay between theory and “reality”—one goes back to reality when theory is
not successful. Here, reality is the grounding of the experiential life-world of the
researcher and his or her community. There is also a problem with application of
laws, rules, and other prejudgments, which requires a prior cultural situatedness
and contextualization to understand what the law or rule means before one can
apply it. So theory is contingent on situation and context for determining how it
gets applied. This essay, then, is in no way a denigration of theoretical approaches
to listening research but only an attempt to give rich, qualitative context to the
role that theoretical approaches have in the study of listening; and to argue for an
awareness of the limitations implied therein.
First, we need to distinguish between different meanings of research. Research
is often approached as the relationship between quantitative and qualitative
research, but that relationship, often contentious, is not as meaningful as under-
standing that all research begins with the experience of the researcher as a member
of a social community and with cultural context—academic/scholarly, every
day, professional, and so forth. I see qualitative research as the most ground-
ing and encompassing approach to research, and required for understanding and
adequately founding all research.2 Research is the larger umbrella term: One
can do research using many approaches or methods, from very “subjective”
researcher-centered research such as autoethnography and narrative (storytelling),
to objective ethnographic cultural studies, or “objective” theory-driven, statistical
social studies of listening as conducted by both Bodie (2009) and Purdy (2000a).
As a general methodology, “qualitative” research describes, interprets, and along
the way explains the rich and diverse lived world; quantitative research works to
define concepts (constructs), conceptualizes variables “of central Import” (Bodie,
2009), and establishes the significant relationships between variables that leads to

2 I continue to use “qualitative” as a descriptor of research, but the reader should note that I do not
mean it in the usual sense which differentiates it from quantitative; I do not see it as separate. I see it
as phenomenological and hence more encompassing than any specific set of methodologies.
134 PURDY

theory.3 To understand that relationship between variables, all researchers need to

listen to the context and situation of the conceptual field being investigated. In the
research process itself listening is a broad and critical awareness that observes,
records/describes, and tries to use what is learned to make sense of the behavior
of people—hence, listening is central to the research (ad)venture.
That the understanding of research is always grounded socially and contextu-
ally means that research is at base an exploration of the field of human listening
behavior (which cannot practically be separated from communication in general).
This means that all research is grounded in the larger field of human experience
and that “qualitative” exploration and understanding provide a description of the
richness of the social/cultural context within which theory operates as a system-
atically focused and disciplined effort to organize and “validate” what we know
about listening (though as Bodie elaborates in his response, the process is often
chaotic).
Two terms can help clarify the similarities and differences between grounded
(arising from concrete, verifiable experience) qualitative methods and theory
building: Both approaches are heuristic and empirical. Heuristic means, first,
“finding or discovering” without necessarily making an evaluation or final judg-
ment and, second, learning from mistakes (or pilot studies). Both theory building
and grounded qualitative methods are heuristic in that they strive to “discover”
how people behave—how we listen—and both learn from and build upon past
studies with their successes and limitations. There is also a difference here in that
theory building typically assumes a “neutral” researcher whereas in qualitative
studies the role of the researcher as cultural subject is critical to any study. The
grounding of a study is not complete for many qualitative researchers unless the
researcher has described his or her own life situation, prejudices, and potential
biases. The context of the researcher’s situation is not neutral or irrelevant but
integral to the project of research.
Both are also empirical but in different ways. Empirical research discovers
knowledge “from experience and evidence gathered specifically using the senses”
(Wikipedia). For scientific theory, this means collecting data that are observable,
using various methods (by the senses or through instruments), and as objec-
tive as possible. In theory building, the data collected through various means
are used to test the conclusions of theory and generate hypotheses to refine the
theory. Qualitative research is descriptive, interpretive, and explanatory without
“hard proof,” and data are meaningless without a researcher who gives meaning
and is aware of self and the social context of the research. Qualitative research
begins with experience but never assumes that experience can be totally objec-
tive, although there is always a commonality to one’s experience that is shared by

3 Bodie expands on this in his response and expresses this concept best.
 GROUNDED LISTENING 135

a community of individuals. However, even experience shared within a commu-

nity is rich in nuance and varied in interpretation, such as what it means to listen
empathically, for example (Purdy, 2000b). Second, the experience of grounded
qualitative research is not understood from the senses alone; all experience is use-
ful as long as it can be validated as definitely experienced and as being a verifiable
interpretation of what was heard, for example, in a study of listening fidelity where
one compares the meaning of a message to both sender and receiver. But describ-
ing experience means that imagination, expectation, dreams, and memory are all
valid as modes of experiencing listening. Therefore, much of listening experience
is interesting for the ways individuals and communities interpret and make sense
of what they experience. Science itself relies on the interpretations of a commu-
nity for its work; the dialogue of that community must be critical of the work of its
members, and supportive and consensual if the whole project of theory building
is to go forward.
To summarize, qualitative, grounded research is the exploration of the richly
diverse lived world and quantitative research works to define and conceptualize
variables (constructs) and establish relationships between variables. The relation-
ships it determines must be tight (rigorous and controlled, although not always
neat and tidy) to be useful, and generalizations resulting from a theory’s interpre-
tation must be understood within the broader social/cultural context and under
the restrictions or conditions built into the argument of the theory. Indeed, the
very meaning of concepts or constructs depends on language use and the social
world that “creates” language (the point of ordinary language philosophy). Theory
seeks relationships, preferably cause–effect, linear relationships that are strong
and meaningful. But cause–effect is not given in the data, not observed in behav-
ior, but rather posited at the theoretical, transcendental level, which of course
feeds back into the everyday world of behavior and conceptualization and colors
how we interpret behavior, how we should listen—“listen empathically,” “listen
nonjudgmentally” (Purdy, 2000b, 52).
Often researchers use their own research community’s experiential understand-
ing without recognizing and bringing to awareness the debt owed. For example, in
a study of inner speech by Robson and Young (2007) in the International Journal
of Listening, the authors state: “Thus current music trends may help explain the
preference for quiet study environments reported by students in the higher GPA
group” (p. 12). This is an interpretation that strictly speaking is not represented in
the data but is added from the author’s personal experience. This is not unusual
and is quite typical of human research studies. Later the authors state: “Anecdotal
evidence from our students indicates that many seek off-campus apartments to
escape the constant din in the dormitories. . .” (Robson & Young, 2007, p. 12).
Here the authors draw directly on the experience that they are privy to in the
community subsumed by the study. Again, this is not a criticism but rather an
awareness that should be more transparent in research studies. Bodie (2009), on
136 PURDY

the other hand, in his article, “Evaluating Listening Theory,” is careful in his use
of the interpretations of other members of his research community. He reviews
other studies that might help explain his conclusions, for example, when he draws
upon research “to explain affect change” and “emotional support” (Bodie, 2009,
97). He concludes that “doing so ensured a more accurate portrayal of what hap-
pens when a listener is exposed to supportive messages of different quality from
a variety of sources in a variety of environments” (Bodie, 2009, 97). However, a
couple of sentences earlier we find the interpretive role of the researcher clearly
expressed cautiously, as it should be: “Thus, the development of the dual-process
theory of supportive message outcomes was informed by the five criteria for good
theory insofar as past attempts to explain moderators of persuasive messages on a
variety of outcomes seemed [emphasis added] to adhere to these criteria” (Bodie,
2009, 98).
Here the “seeming” is the most critical part of the whole research venture; it
indicates the judgment of the researcher. The data do not speak for themselves;
theory does not build itself. The researcher from her “place” in the social world
has knowledge that guides theory building, like a building construction project
an architect is needed to create the plans and guide the work. Latour (Latour &
Woolgar, 1979) discovered in his study of laboratory science and the construc-
tion of scientific facts that observations had no meaning until they were brought
into the social realm—expressed and most importantly listened to; they needed
to be communicated and become part of a community discourse before they took
on significance. This applies even more so for the beginning stages of social the-
ory, such as the origin of conceptual schemas and the relationship of variables.
Consider the beginning stages of the Listener Styles Profile (LSP): “Anecdotal
evidence illustrates the diversity of listening styles. Some people, for example,
prefer listening to factual information or statistics while others favor personal
examples and illustrations; some are more willing to linger on content while
others prefer concise, ‘to the point’ presentations” (Watson, Baker & Weaver,
1995).
Hence, there is, or should be, a transparent qualitative aspect to quantitative
research. In my article “Listening and Qualitative Research” (Purdy, 2010), I
noted that there are two stages of interpretation in the creation of theory: In the
methodological process of doing theory-driven research one reduces the richness
and variety of lived experience into “numbers” (the different kinds of data: nomi-
nal, ordinal, interval, ratio) then after “massaging” the data one takes “F scores,”
“t tests,” etc., which are simply numbers and interprets the results back into the
lived world, and in the process one makes sense of the results of the study as part
of a social field. As another example consider the role of gender in the reception
of supportive messages—women (or messages perceived to come from females)
as “support providers influence outcomes of supportive messages” are more help-
ful (Bodie, 2009). This must be put into context and the context understood to
make sense of this observation; the data do not tell you why this is so.
 GROUNDED LISTENING 137

Finally, in my work in autoethnography as well as in my research on listening

and gender, I have realized one very important thing about theory and research:
Neither grounded qualitative research nor theory-driven research in the social
realm goes beyond what people have awareness of in their daily lives; often what
they have awareness of is simply a fad, a popular idea, a prejudice or predilection.
Social science has a difficult time doing more than reproducing what people say
or believe. See this conclusion from my paper on “Listening and Gender” (Purdy,
2000a):

[There is a] difference between accessing the “stereotypes” people can recognize

[emphasis added] or are aware of versus what they do. This is to ride on the surface,
to deal with the natural world as opposed to the descriptive world of what people
actually do [emphasis added], how they really function. OF COURSE this can be
studied with social science methods — just not so well with surveys, questionnaires,
and interviews.

Times change and forms of communication change with them; data collected in
the 1960s, 1970s, or later are different from the data of the 2000s. This would
indicate that even if there are strongly stereotypical generalized roles for listening
(perhaps all the stronger because we are less consciousness of listening than we
are of speaking), the stereotyped roles change with the shift of culture. It would
also indicate that the potential for role definition is open-ended for the culture but
also for the individual—we are free to change our listening roles. I think this is the
primary lesson for those of us to research, teach, train, and consult; none of this is
set in concrete. What is fixed by the culture can be undone by the culture, and what
is fixed by the culture can be undone by the aware individual. The stereotypical
roles that prefigure and lead to a narrowing of behavior can be expanded with
awareness of the ways that stereotypes naturalize and limit behavior. What seems
natural, then, can be shown to be just a different construction of social roles and
we as the researchers, teachers, trainers and consultants have our work cut out
for us to help change those roles. We must show what the stereotype of a good
or a poor listener is said to be and then help others to break those stereotypes
down and create new ways of listening. Only through research do we discover
and understand what we are working with as listeners; meaningful research must
be conscious of its limitations.

REFERENCES

Bodie, G. D. (2009). Evaluating listening theory: Development and illustration of five criteria.
International Journal of Listening, 23, 81–103.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
138 PURDY

Purdy, M. W. (2000a, March). Listening and gender: Stereotypes and explanations. Paper presented
to the International Listening Association, Virginia Beach, VA.
Purdy, M. W. (2000b). Listening, culture and structures of consciousness: Ways of experiencing and
studying listening. International Journal of Listening, 14, 47–68.
Purdy, M. W. (2010). Listening and qualitative research. In A. Wolvin (Ed.), Listening and human
communication in the 21st century, (pp. 33–45). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Robson, D. C., & Young, R. (2007). Listening to inner speech: Can students listen to themselves think?
International Journal of Listening, 21, 1–13.
Watson, K. W., Barker, L. L., & Weaver, J. B., III. (1995). The Listening Styles Profile (LSP-16):
Development and validation of an instrument to assess four listening styles. International Journal
of Listening, 9, 1–13.
Copyright of International Journal of Listening is the property of International Listening Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.