Literary review: Interpreting (the Work and the Talk of) Baseball: Perspectives on Ballpark Culture

            Interpreting (the Work and the Talk of) Baseball: Perspectives on Ballpark Culture (Trujillo, 1992) is a great example of ethnographic research.  The intent of the article was to convey that communications between major league baseball park employees generate and sustain three prevailing views of stadium culture:  “The ballpark as a site of capitalist work, as a community for symbolic family members, and as a theatre for social drama” (Trujillo, 1992, p. 350).  These interpretations are then further considered through the eyes of three groups:  romantics, functionalists, and critics.

            The author’s interpretive approaches “focus on the symbolic aspects of human and organizational life, revealing how interactants use symbols to make sense of their everyday experiences” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).  Trujillo employed this approach by concentrating on the emphasis of the subjectivity, pluralism, and dynamism of the ballpark as an organization and deemphasizing objectivity, unity, and stability.  Ethnographically, the author considered both formal and casual communication practices of ballpark employees by collecting data through both observations and interviews over a period of two years.

            Through his study, Trujillo concluded, “there are at least three senses of baseball reality: the ideology of baseball as a business, the sociality of the baseball community, and the artistry of baseball as a drama” (Trujillo, 1992, p.364).  The author, having consulted subject matter experts, noted that the aforementioned schools of thought related to baseball “have different connotations depending on the world-views of those doing the interpreting” (Trujillo, p.364).  Therefore, due to dissimilarities in the human experience, opinions will vary from one person to the next.

            

Of the three frameworks employed by Trujillo, I believe that I most identify with that of the romanticist.  The author stated, “Romanticists interpret baseball in an ideal, even idyllic, way” (Trujillo, 1992, p.364).  To romantics, baseball is not so much about the business as it is about the feeling of community, artistry, and drama of the game.

            Functionalists, noted the author, “use sport to teach us about the realities of mainstream American culture and to demonstrate how sport helps us adapt to those realities” (Trujillo, 1992, p.365).  They consider baseball a metaphor for American business, human assimilation into society, and social values (Trujillo, p.365).

            

            The framework that appealed to me in the least was that of the critic.  Trujillo noted, “Critics argue that sport is one resource through which dominant groups in America promote hegemony” (1992, p.365).  Ever the cynic, the critic contends that baseball is more of a business than it is a sport. 

            

            The author believes that researchers should “interpret their data from the world-views of the romantic, the functionalist, and the critic” (Trujillo, 1992, p.366).  These perspectives expose realities that the interpretive researcher can employ to uncover multiple dimensions of an organization. 

            It was apparent that Trujillo relied solely on qualitative data in writing his article.  Downs and Adrian (2004) noted that the influence of both qualitative and quantitative data “make better interpretations by synthesizing all the data, and they produce richer, more detailed final reports” (p.42).  They go on to state, “In addition, they are less likely to gloss over contradictions between the two types of data” (p.42).  I feel that while the author did an excellent job or relaying his message, his methodology leaned heavily on quantitative research methodology and could have employed more quantitative research.  I did not find that the article was particularly earthshattering, nor has it impacted the way that I might view an organization.  Nevertheless, it did provide me with another excellent example of the importance of ethnographic research and assessment of organizational communications.

Cited:

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.

Downs, C. W., & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing organizational communication: strategic communication audits. New York: Guilford Press.

Trujillo, N. (1992). Interpreting (the work and talk of) baseball: Perspectives on ballpark culture.             Western Journal of Communication, 56, 350-371.