CHAPTER 1
What is theory? A previously used description is: “An umbrella term for all careful, systematic, and
self-conscious discussion and analysis of communication phenomena” – Bormann. On the plus side,
this definition is quite general, on the downside, it doesn’t mention anything about how to construct
a theory nor does it mention what to do with thoughts and statements that don’t have the label
theory (yet).
Judee Burgoon suggested the following description for the concept Theory: “A set of systematic,
informed hunches about the way things work.” Note that this description contains three key
features:
- Set of hunches
- Informed
- Systematic
Firstly, a set of hunches. Theories always involve an element of speculation, or conjuncture. By
saying the plural form of ‘hunch’ Burgoon notes that theory isn’t one inspired thought or an isolated
idea. To become a theory the key elements of that theory need to be defined and indicate a scope.
Thus, it involves multiple hunches.
Next, Informed. By adding this feature, she eliminates thoughtless hunches and ideas. Before
developing a theory there are articles to read, people to talk to, actions to be observed, experiments
to run, etc. all relating to the one hunch.
Lastly, systematic. This refers to an integrated system of concepts. The informed hunches are
connected by theory being specified resulting in a pattern.
Other, visual, images with the concept theory:
- Popper: “Theories are nets cast to catch what we call ‘the world’. … we endeavour to make
them finer and finer”. To in the end develop an all-encompassing theory.
Commentary; communication involves humans and therefore the mesh should be very fine.
It is thus naïve to think that you can form an all-encompassing theory. You can also place
question marks with whether this explanation allows humans its freedom to choose.
- Lenses are also often used by theorists. Note that it is not a mirror that reflects the world the
way it is. They have chosen for a lens because lenses can highlight features by focussing their
attention to it while at the same time push back/ ignoring other features. Thus, depending
on the lens used, theorist can look at the same message differently.
Danger: by using the lens we connect the stance too much to the theorist and don’t question
it further. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” does the same go for the truth?
- Maps can guide you through cities, countries, and the world. It can also guide you through
different theories. However, always remember that maps are like still photographs and don’t
show the evolving nature 24/7. Same goes for communication.
That was theory, but what is communication? Frank Dance had over 120 definitions in his book on
communication theory 50 years ago. Conclusion: we’re making the concept of communication do
too much work for us. If you had to choose one definition now it would be the following:
“Communication is the relational process of creating and interpretating messages that elicit a
response.”
In this definition there are five key features on communication to be found:
- Messages
- Creation of messages
, - Interpretation of messages
- A relational process
- Messages that elicit a response
The first one, messages, are at the core of communication theory. As Craig said: “Communication
involves talking and listening, writing and reading, performing and witnessing, or, more generally,
doing anything that involves ‘messages’ in any medium or situation.” Other academic areas intersect
with communication theory when dealing with symbolic human activity. Thus, communication is a
crossroads discipline. However, we’re not passing through we’re standing at the crossroad
observing.
The word ‘text’ is used as a synonym for a message that can be studied, regardless of the medium.
So, ranging from books to music. The given definition is: “A record of a message that can be analysed
by others.”
Secondly, the creation of messages. It indicates that the content and form of a message are usually
constructed, invented, planned, crafted, constituted, selected, or adopted by the communicator.
Namely, if you send a text there is a reason why you chose those word. Same goes for a phone call
or a regular conversation. Of course, we have stock phrases such as “thank you” that we have
chosen in the past to express our feelings and are now habitual responses. Only if we become more
mindful about our choices, we can alter them.
Thirdly, interpretation of messages. “Words don’t mean things, people mean things.” Or as Blumer
said: “Human’s act toward people or things on the basis of meanings they assign to those people or
things.” Words and other symbols are polysemic, open for interpretation.
Fourthly, a relational process. Communication is a process, never completely the same, and can only
be described with reference to what happened before and what is to come. Condit suggests in her
essay that the communication process is more about relationships than about content.
“Communication is a process of relating. This means it is not primarily or essentially a process of
transferring or of disseminating or circulating signs.” Also, it is relational because it must involve ≥ 2
persons and because it affects the nature of connections between these persons.
Lastly, messages that elicit a response. If a message fails to stimulate any cognitive, emotional, or
behavioural response it seems pointless to call it communication. So, talking to a def and blind
person is not communication. But receiving a text and choosing not to interact with that person is
communicating. The text provoked a response.
EXTRA NOTES:
Can we even predict everything? If so, do we want to? (Nets theory)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Can the same thing be said about the truth? (Lens theory)
The term text isn’t used that often anymore, message is the way to go now.
,Whether we are conscious or unconscious, our message always has meaning.
Written but never read ≠ communication
Even if the response to a message is negative, it is communication.
CHAPTER 2
Some communication scholars call themselves behavioural scientists while other call themselves
rhetoricians. The definition for a behavioural scientist is: “A scholar who applies the scientific
method to describe, predict, and explain recurring forms of human behaviour.” The example in the
book, Glenn, was more empirically schooled and conducts experiments. The definition for a
rhetorician is: “A scholar who studies the ways in which symbolic forms can be used to identify with
people, or to persuade them toward a certain point of view.” The example in the book, Marty, was
more schooled in rhetorical theory and criticism and currently interprets texts.
(For the following, keep the Budweiser 2013 Superbowl commercial with the horse in mind). Why
was this commercial such a hit? Tony Schwarz’ resonance principle of communication might shed
some light. According to Schwarz, successful persuasive messages evoke past experiences that
create thoughts or feelings. Not arguments persuade people, it’s the memories of personal
experiences triggered by the message. Results: beer drinkers are persuaded to buy the brand
because of the fuzzy feelings they got from the ad and non-drinkers get a happy/positive association
with the brand. The success can be measured with both total beer sales and positive thoughts about
Budweiser. Theories must be validated and thus tested. This was Glenn’s objective approach, the
definition for this term is: “The assumption that the truth is singular and is accessible through
unbiased sensory observation; committed to uncovering cause-and-effect relationships.”
Marty follows another approach, the interpretive approach whose definition is: “The linguistic work
of assigning meaning or value to communicative texts; assumes that there are multiple meanings or
truths possible.” He suggests that the entire ad is structured by the pattern of birth-death-rebirth.
This is a universal experience/collective unconscious. In this case, the foal equals birth, being taken
away is death, and the reunion is the rebirth. Marty even links the three years to the three days
Jesus laid in his tomb before he resurrected. He says that in our core we all want to reunite with our
past friend and that we are all scared of death and that rebirth is the only thing that motivates us.
Life changes, losses happen, but Bud is there as a comforter. Note: Bud bottle when reading the
newspaper.
A true label for Marty tricky, most scholars are humanists. With the definition for humanistic
scholarship as: “Study of what it’s like to be another person in a specific time and place; assumes
there are a few panhuman similarities.” All who do interpretive analysis are now referred to as
interpretive scholars. But what would be the differences between scholars and scientists? That will
now be discussed with the help of the following subjects:
- Ways of knowing
- Human nature
- The highest value
- Purpose of theory
What is the truth? This is one of the questions asked in a specific branch of philosophy called
epistemology: “The study of the origin, nature, method, and limits of knowledge”. Scientists believe
in a singular truth discovered by any of the five senses and ready for any observer to find. Individual
researchers will bundle their powers to get to know how the world works. Scientists consider a good
theory as one that is a faithful representation of the world (think net or mirror). Objective scientists
are positive that once a theory has been discovered, it is true for the long-term because the
circumstances don’t change.
, Interpretive scholars regard the truth as socially constructed through communication. They believe
language creates social relationships that are always in flux and thus not static. Knowledge is always
viewed from a particular standpoint. Interpretive are convinced that meaning is in the mind and thus
believe that texts can hold multiple reasons for different people.
The next debate is on human nature. Determinism: “The assumption that behaviour is caused by
heredity and environment”. Free-will purists on the other hand believe that every move we make is
voluntary in the end. Scientists have the tendency to follow determinism and interpretive scholars
the voluntary choices side. You can see it in the choice of vocabulary: “I had to…” vs. “I decided to…”.
Behavioural scientists describe human conduct as occurring because of forces outside the
individual’s awareness. Note Schwarz and his theory of resonance that states that messages that
trigger our past inevitably affect us. We will be swayed by an ad that strikes a responsive chord.
Interpretive scholars use phrases such as: “in order to” and “so that”, this shows the person’s
cognitive involvement. They more often use ‘action’ instead of ‘behaviour’.
Next, the highest value. Is it objectivity or emancipation? A behavioural scientist works hard on
objectivity because he doesn’t want his own personal spiritual convictions and morals to interfere
with the research. They call for objective testing and are frustrated when theorists don’t offer any
empirical evidence. The definition for empirical evidence is: “Data collected through direct
observation”.
Interpretive scholars on the other hand, are not shy to bring their own values into the mix. They seek
to liberate socially relevant research from any sort of oppression- economic, political, religious,
emotional, racial, or sexual; empowerment.
Interpretive scholars = emancipation
Behavioural scientists = objectivity
Deetz says that every general communication theory has two priorities: effectiveness and
participation. Effectiveness is concerned with successfully communicating information, ideas, and
meaning to others. It also includes persuasion. Participation is concerned with increasing the
possibility that all points of view will affect collective decisions and individuals being open to new
ideas. It also encourages difference, opposition, and independence. Objective scientists foreground
effectiveness and regulate participation whereas interpretive scholars foreground participation and
regulate effectiveness.
Lastly, the purpose of theory. Behavioural scientists are working to pin down universal laws of
human behaviour that cover a variety of situations. Interpretive scholars want to interpret a partial
communication text in a specific context. One size fit all vs. custom made.
Process of a behaviour scientist: hunch tightly worded hypothesis multiple test can
somewhat predict, never sure.
Interpretative scholars don’t try to prove a theory. They do sometimes use the work of rhetorical
theorists to guide the way through human social life.
Thus, you can see, there are metatheoretical differences. Coming from the word metatheory:
“Theory about theory, the stated or inherent assumptions made when creating a theory”.
