Communication Approach
Within co-cultural theory, “communication approach” refers to specific co-cultural practices that are regarded as nonassertive, assertive, or aggressive behaviors by the persons who enact them (Orbe, 1998a).
Within a larger context, however, it can also be seen as a synonym for communication style. Of each of the co-cultural factors discussed in this section, communication approach/style is the one that has attracted the greatest attention from interracial and interethnic conflict scholars thus far. As described in our review of existing literature, a large body of work has been completed that delineates the particular communication approaches of different racial and ethnic groups. Future research, consequently, can continue to generate an understanding of how conflict styles are developed, challenged, and/or ultimately extended.One potential avenue for research in this area is to investigate the complex ways in which intragroup and intergroup conflict can be seen as a site of identity negotiation (Hecht et al., 2003). According to Hecht’s (1993) communication theory of identity, identity is co-created through four different frames (personal, enacted, relational, and communal). Existing research on communication approaches have typically focused on what occurs within the enacted frame (i.e., how identity is communicated to others). Additional research can begin to explore the negotiation of multiple frames simultaneously, or the “interpenetration of frames” (Hecht, 1993, p. 80), something that can enhance our understanding of race, ethnicity, and conflict on multiple levels (Golden, Niles, & Hecht,
2002). In particular, research can explore how identification with larger groups affects communication approaches to conflict situations (e.g., Ting-Toomey et al., 2000), or how intergroup interactions are negotiated around multiple dimensions of in-group/out-group positioning (e.g., Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008). Existing research on racial and ethnic communication approaches to conflict is highly regarded in terms of its depth and breadth, but more information is needed in terms of how conflict styles are a reflection of larger identity issues. As Hecht et al. (2003) stated, “If identities are negotiated in everyday conversations and if identity negotiation is a process, then we need much more information about the negotiation process itself” (pp. 253-254).