tripleC 8(1): 1-17, 2010 ISSN 1726-670X http://www.triple-c.at What is Theory? Puzzles and Maps as Metaphors in Communication Theory Diana Iulia Nastasia and Lana F. Rakow Communication Program, University of North Dakota 221 Centennial Drive Stop 7169 Grand Forks, North Dakota, 58202 Abstract: In this essay, we configure a taxonomy of definitions of and approaches to theory that sorts them by their suppositions or rejection of certain suppositions, rather than by their lineage (disciplinary or methodological traditions) or their focus (levels or areas of inquiry). We categorize definitions and approaches according to the concepts they value and employ, the characteristics and the roles they attribute to theories, and the methodologies and the practical implications they associate with theories, rather than according to what domain of study or school of thought their proponents seem to be affiliated with or to belong to. We have identified a preeminent tendency, theory as puzzle-solving or map-reading, with its varieties science and investigation, that views the object of study or problem as given and taken-for-granted, as exterior to the theorist, overcoming individual theorists, or as more venerable and more important than studying subjectivities. We also explore a counteracting tendency, theory as puzzle-making or map- making, with its varieties interpretation and inquiry, that positions the object of study or problem as constructed and disputable, as the theorist’s (or theorists’) choice and selection, and as separable from and intertwined with and studying subjectivities. Keywords: theory, communication theory, definitions of theory, approaches to theory, classifications of theory, science, investigation, interpretation, inquiry Acknowledgements: The authors of this article would like to thank the Graduate School at the University of North Dakota for a summer fellowship that supported the collaborative work resulting in several connected communication theory papers and the plan for a communication theory book. An early version of this essay was presented as part of the program of the Philosophy of Communication Division at the annual conference of the International Communication Association in 2009. This division of ICA provided a space for dialogue about the issues raised by the study, and the division’s leaders and members offered provided helpful commentaries and suggestions for improvement. According to Bertrand Russell (1979), the meanings of theories and trends in theorizing, Greek word theorein was used in the Orphic with reflections on and examples from theoreti- rites with the meaning of “passionate sympa- cal developments and possibilities in communi- thetic contemplation,” a state in which the hu- cation studies. man spectator became identified with the suffer- Many handbooks, books, and articles in ing god, with the god’s death and rebirth (p. 52). communication studies have offered ideas on Yet, the notion of theory has been denied “pas- and statements about what is theory and what sion” and “sympathy” for a long time, these fea- makes a theory valuable. Examining this multi- tures having been replaced with “reason” and plicity of perspectives, various authors have of- “objectivity.” Ancient theory was born from the fered classifications of theory relevant to the un- encounter of the East and the West; yet modern derstanding of communication or within the field theory has become a Western construct. Con- of communication. For example, Karl Eric temporary theory is often associated with ration- Rosengren (2000) describes four approaches to alism and science, with a human pursuit of de- society, represented on two axes from subject to scribing, explaining, predicting, and controlling a object and from conflict to consensus (pp. 7- 8), physical and social environment envisioned as and he attempts a three-dimensional typology of fixed and unitary. Yet, there have been attempts agents of socialization, corresponding to differ- to retransform theory from detached to involved, ent academic disciplines and studies of commu- from universal to local. This essay strives to nication (p. 14). Denis McQuail (2005) presents make sense of such discrepancies and para- five kinds of theory – social scientific, cultural, doxes by providing an overview of the different normative, operational, and common-sense (pp. CC: Creative Commons License, 2010. 2 Diana Iulia Nastasia and Lana F. Rakow 14-15), six levels of communication inquiry – rists, or as more venerable and more important societal, institutional/organizational, intergroup, than studying subjectivities. We also examine a intragroup, interpersonal, and intrapersonal (p. counteracting tendency, theory as puzzle- 18), and three alternative approaches to com- making or map-making, with its varieties inter- munication as science – structural, behavioral, pretation and inquiry, that positions the object of and cultural (p. 20). Robert T. Craig (2007) as- study or problem as constructed and disputable, serts that a schema of dialogical-dialectical co- as the theorist’s choice and selection, and as herence permits discussions of “complementari- intertwined with studying subjectivities. ties and tensions” (p. 66) for his seven traditions of communication theory: rhetorical, semiotic, 1. Theory as Puzzle-Solving or Map- phenomenological, cybernetic, sociopsychologi- Reading cal, sociocultural, and critical. Melvin L. DeFleur (2010) claims there are two types of theories, In his book “The Structure of the Scientific those that are derived from research and that Revolutions”, Thomas Kuhn (1996) attributes the “consistently describe, explain, and predict what role of puzzle-solving to “normal science,” to seems to cause specific kinds of events and theory and research “firmly based upon one or consequences in the real world” (p. 26), and more past scientific achievements, achieve- those that are derived from ideologies and are ments that some particular scientific community “deduced from principles that are assumed to be acknowledges for a time as the foundation for its true, ahead of time (before research) as the ‘true further practice” (p. 10). Examples of such cor- explanation’ or situation” (p. 27). puses of knowledge that become paradigmatic While we are sympathetic to these efforts to and exemplary are “Ptolemaic astronomy” and comprehend an otherwise bewildering array of “Copernican astronomy,” “Aristotelian dynamics” theoretical positions, such typologies often con- and “Newtonian dynamics,” “corpuscular optics” fuse rather than clarify, obfuscate rather than and “wave optics” (p. 10). Such frameworks gain reveal similarities and differences in the posi- status and acquire success by finding solutions tions. In this essay, we configure a taxonomy of to problems “that the group of practitioners have definitions of and approaches to theory that come to recognize as acute” (p. 23), “by extend- sorts them by their suppositions or rejection of ing the knowledge of those facts that the para- certain suppositions, rather than by their lineage digm displays as particularly revealing,” and “by (disciplinary or methodological traditions) or their increasing the match between those facts and focus (levels or areas of inquiry). In this essay, the paradigm’s predictions” (p. 24). Commenting we categorize definitions and approaches ac- upon the nature of puzzles, on the attributes of cording to the concepts they value and employ, scholarly theory and practice as puzzle-making, the characteristics and the roles they attribute to Kuhn remarks: theories, and the methodologies and the practi- cal implications they associate with theories, Puzzles are, in the entirely standard mean- rather than according to what domain of study or ing here employed, that special category of school of thought their proponents seem to be problems that can serve to test the ingenu- affiliated with or to belong to. We argue that ity or skill in solution. Dictionary illustrations authors from across disciplinary and subdiscipli- are ‘jigsaw puzzle’ or ‘crossword puzzle,’ nary areas, as well as from across schools and and it is the characteristics that these share trends, often repeat and thus reify the same as- with the problems of normal science that sumptions about theory; we also argue that in- we need to isolate. […] It is no criterion of novative ideas about theory sometimes come goodness in a puzzle that its outcome be from unexpected sources. We examine a pre- intrinsically interesting or important. On the eminent tendency, theory as puzzle-solving or contrary, the really pressing problems, e.g., map-reading, with its varieties science and in- a cure for cancer or the design of a lasting vestigation, that views the object of study or peace, are often not puzzles at all, largely problem as given and taken-for-granted, as ex- because they may not have any solutions. terior to the theorist, overcoming individual theo- […] Though intrinsic value is no criterion for tripleC 8(1): 1-17, 2010 3 a puzzle, the assured existence of a solu- reading of the map with the comprehension of tion is (pp. 36-37). the territory, whereas Wittgenstein and Vienna Circle thinkers seemed hesitant about the asso- It is intriguing that many theory handbooks in ciation between map deciphering and territorial communication studies, with writers of diverse conquest. Some of Wittgenstein’s statements in educational backgrounds and conceptual orien- Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922), that tations, have adopted or adapted the puzzle-