A First Look at Communication Theory

gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 37 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile CHAPTER 4 Mapping the Territory (Seven Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory) In Chapter 1, I presented working defi nitions for the concepts ofcommunication and theory . In Chapters 2 and 3, I outlined the basic differences between objective and interpretive communication theories. These distinctions should help bring order out of chaos when your study of theory seems confusing. And it may seem confusing. University of Colorado communication professor Robert Craig describes the fi eld of communication theory as awash with hundreds of unre- lated theories that differ in starting point, method, and conclusion. He suggests that our fi eld of study resembles “a pest control device called the Roach Motel that used to be advertised on TV: Theories check in, but they never check out.” 1 My mind conjures up a different image when I try to make sense of the often baffl ing landscape of communication theory. I picture a scene from the fi lm Raid- ers of the Lost Ark in which college professor Indiana Jones is lowered into a dark vault and confronts a thick layer of writhing serpents covering the fl oor—a tan- gle of communication theories. The intrepid adventurer discovers that the snakes momentarily retreat from the bright light of his torch, letting him secure a safe place to stand. It’s my hope that the core ideas of Chapters 1–3 will provide you with that kind of space. The fantasy nature of the fi lm is such that I could even imagine Indiana Jones emerging from the cave with all the snakes straightened like sticks of kindling wood, bound together in two bundles—the objective batch held in his right hand and the interpretive batch held in his left. But that’s an overly simplistic fantasy. Craig offers a more sophisticated solution. Craig agrees that the terrain is confusing if we insist on looking for some kind of grand theoretical overview that brings all communication study into focus—a top-down, satellite picture of the communication theory landscape. He suggests, however, that communication theory is a coherent fi eld when we understand communication as a practical discipline. 2 He’s convinced that our search for different types of theory should be grounded where real people grapple with everyday problems and practices of communication. Craig explains that “all communication theories are relevant to a common practical lifeworld in which communication is already a richly meaningful term.” 3 Communication theory is the systematic and thoughtful response of communication scholars to questions posed as humans interact with each other—the best thinking within a practical discipline. 37 gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 38 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile 38 OVERVIEW Craig thinks it’s reasonable to talk about a fi eld of communication theory if we take a collective look at the actual approaches researchers have used to study communication problems and practices. He identifi es seven established traditions of communication theory that include most, if not all, of what theorists have done. These already established traditions offer “distinct, alternative vocab- ularies” that describe different “ways of conceptualizing communication problems and practices.” 4 This means that scholars within a given tradition talk comfort- ably with each other but often take potshots at those who work in other camps. As Craig suggests, we shouldn’t try to smooth over these between-group battles. Theorists argue because they have something important to argue about. In the rest of the chapter I’ll outline the seven traditions that Craig describes. Taken together, they reveal the breadth and diversity that spans the fi eld of communication theory. The classifi cations will also help you understand why some theories share common ground, while others are effectively fenced off from each other by confl icting goals and assumptions. As I introduce each tradition, I’ll highlight how its advocates tend to defi ne communication, suggest a practical communication problem that this kind of theory addresses, and provide an example of research that the tradition has inspired.5 Since I fi nd that the topic of friendship is of great interest to most college students, the seven research studies I describe will show how each tradition approaches this type of close relationship. THE SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL TRADITION Communication as Interpersonal Interaction and Influence The socio-psychological tradition epitomizes the scientifi c or objective perspec- tive described in Chapter 2. Scholars in this tradition believe there are communication truths that can be discovered by careful, systematic observation. They look for cause-and-effect relationships that will predict the results when people communicate. When they fi nd causal links, they are well on the way to answer- ing the ever-present question that relationship and persuasion practitioners ask: How can I get others to change? In terms of generating theory, the socio- psychological tradition is by far the most prolifi c of the seven that Craig names. This disciplinary fact of life is refl ected in the many theories of this type that I present in the book. When researchers search for universal laws of communication, they try to focus on what is without being biased by their personal view of what ought to be. As social scientists, they heed the warning of the skeptical newspaper editor: “You think your mother loves you? Check it out—at least two sources.” For communication theorists in the socio-psychological tradition, checking it out usu- ally means designing a series of surveys or controlled experiments. That’s been my approach. Teaching at a small liberal arts college where I’ve had the opportunity to be personally involved in the lives of my students, I’ve always wondered if there is a way to predict which college friendships will survive and thrive after grad- uation. As someone trained in the socio-psychological tradition, I began a longitudinal study spanning two decades to fi nd out the answer. 6 I asked 45 pairs of best friends to respond to questions about (1) when they became close friends; (2) the similarity of their academic majors; (3) their range of mutual-touch behavior; gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 39 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 39 (4) their perceived status difference; and (5) the extent to which they avoided discussing awkward topics. I also (6) assessed actual self-disclosure by submit- ting them to a procedure akin to The Newlywed Game; and (7) measured their communication effi ciency by watching them play two rounds of the cooperative word game Password . Would any of these measures forecast who would be friends forever? In order to determine the answer, I needed a reliable and valid measure of relational closeness. Glenn Sparks (Purdue University), who is one of two special consultants for this book, joined me in creating such a measure. Based on social psychologist Harold Kelley’s interactional theory, which suggests that close relationships are characterized by “strength, frequency, diversity, and duration,” we developed a composite measure that assessed these properties. 7 For example, we gauged relative strength by asking the pair how many friends they now have to whom they feel closer than their college best friend. And we assessed frequency of contact by counting the number of times over the last year that the pair com- municated face-to-face, over the phone, by letter, and through email. Nineteen years after the initial study, Andrew Ledbetter (Texas Christian University), who is my other special consultant for this book, located the study participants and asked them to respond to the measures of relational closeness mentioned above. We weren’t surprised that participants with a longer history as best friends when they came to the study were most likely to remain close two decades later. Past behavior tends to be a good predictor of future behavior. Of more interest to us as communication scholars was the fact that those with similar academic majors and those with better scores on the Password game also remained close. 8 Remember that participants’ choice of major and the Password game occurred about two decades earlier, yet these factors still predicted friendship long after college. It appears that communicating on the same wavelength and sharing common academic interests is a boon to long-lasting friendship. Theorists and researchers working within the socio-psychological tradition often call for longitudinal empirical studies. Only by using this type of research design could we predict which pairs were likely to be friends forever. THE CYBERNETIC TRADITION Communication as a System of Information Processing MIT scientist Norbert Wiener coined the word cybernetics to describe the fi eld of artifi cial intelligence. 9 The term is a transliteration of the Greek word for “steers- man” or “governor,” and it illustrates the way feedback makes information processing possible in our heads and on our laptops. During World War II, Wiener developed an anti-aircraft fi ring system that adjusted future trajectory by taking into account the results of past performance. His concept of feedback anchored the cybernetic tradition, which regards communication as the link connecting the separate parts of any system, such as a computer system, a family system, a Cybernetics media system, or a system of social support. Theorists in the cybernetic tradition The study of information seek to answer such questions as How does the system work? What could change it? processing, feedback, and How can we get the bugs out? and control in communi- University of Washington communication professor Malcolm Parks studies cation systems.

Load more