Communication Theory: 2002-2008 |
In his Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts, Steven Toulmin offers a contrasting account of the concepts of discipline and profession.
Whereas the former concerns the study of a field (145-199), the later concerns the ways in which the researchers studying it organize themselves (261-318). The two aspects of academic studies intersect in the classroom. The published research in a discipline is recognized professionally to the extent that it becomes the content of textbooks in the field. In examining communication research in the 21st century, it is useful to look at its canonization in textbooks.
This entry examines six textbooks on communication theory published between 2002 and 2008:
| 2002 | Miller, K. Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts. Boston: McGraw Hill. |
| 2003 | Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. Building Communication Theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. |
| 2004 | West, R., & Turner, L. H. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw Hill. |
| 2005 | Holmes, D. Communication Theory: Media, Technology, Society. London: Sage. |
| 2006 | Griffin, E. A First Look at Communication Theory. Boston: McGraw Hill. |
| 2008 | Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. Theories of Communication. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. |
Of the six, David Holmes' Communication Theory: Media, Technology, Society stands out because of its narrower focus. However, in his "Preface," Holmes writes: "the book tries to incorporate most of the traditions of twentieth-century communication theory in order to locate their relevance to studying the sociological complexities of contemporary convergent communications" (xi). His organization of topics is in sharp contrast to the other texts, mostly because his book is not primarily conceived as a textbook. Yet, since it's main focus is communication theory, I have included it.
ABSTRACT: With respect to the conceptions of theory advanced in the six textbooks, a tension exists about the extent to which the work of communications researchers can depart from a scientific conception of theory and they differ about the goals of theory. Two textbooks—the "objectivists"—emphasize science, three—the "objectivists/interpretists"—balance the picture by including qualitative as well as quantitative methods, and one mostly features interpretation. With respect to the traditions and approaches in communication theory, only the objectivists/interpretists follow the traditions identified in Craig's 1999 "Communication Theory as a Field" even though no major contributions made to them in recent years. Perhaps as a result, in the body of their texts the approaches are generally presented as "fields," a grouping different in kind from Craig's. With respect to the research that has been identified in these text as canonical theory, excepting Holmes, there is surprisingly little reference to theories from other disciplines after the 1960s. In almost every respect, David Holmes' text departs from the other five, particularly by offering traditions and approaches not mentioned in them. |
Katherine Miller includes a chapter in her text on the concept of theory, "Philosophical Foundations: What Is Theory?" (18-31). Her initial task is to "examine the basic questions of what theory is and how theory functions in fields of social research" (19).
For her
A theory is an abstract statement that provides an understanding or explanation of something observed in the social world. A Theory functions to answer empirical, conceptual, and practical questions, and the quality of a theory can be assessed—in a very general sense—in terms of the answers provided to those questions. (23)
Speaking specifically of communication theory, Miller regards it as "pluralistic," encompassing both "objective" and "subjective" positions (26). She argues that theories are designed to be useful to researchers.
Infante, Rancer, and Womack also devote a chapter to "Points of View about Theory" (25-48). They summarize their view in the following way:
The basic goals of theory are to describe, explain, predict, and control. Theories have four major functions: they organize experience, extend knowledge, stimulate and guide further research, and allow scientists to anticipate events they may not yet be able to observe. (47)
Their view of theory contrasts with Miller's in that it not "pluralistic," nor designed for its "utility."
West and Turner define theory as "an abstract system of concepts with indications of the relationships among those concepts that help us understand a phenomenon" (44). Their view is closer to Infante, Rancer, and Womack's than to Miller's, though they share with her considerations of ontology, epistemology, and axiology, but not subjectivity.
Like the authors discussed above, Em Griffin has a chapter in his text on theory, "Talk About Theory." His view of theory, like Miller's, is pluralistic. For him the two main traditions in communication theory are "objective" and "interpretive" which lead to quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. In his view, the work of communication scholars runs the spectrum from objective to interpretive work.
Littlejohn and Foss's text (like Miller's) has an extensive account of theory, devoting three chapters to the topic, "Communication Theory and Scholarship," "The Idea of Theory," and "Traditions of Communication Theory" in a section entitled, "Foundations." In the first chapter, they recognize three modes of communication scholarship, "scientific," "social scientific," and "humanistic," which allies their view with Griffin's and Miller's. Like them, Littlejohn and Foss see theories as abstractions that selectively focus on certain aspects of phenomenon. For this reason, no one theory can account for a subject under investigation. The utility of a theory gives it its value for the researcher.
David Holmes neither defines the term "theory" nor discusses theory "as such" apart from specific incarnations of it.
These six texts reflect a tension among communication researchers about the extent to which their work can depart from a scientific conception of theory. Though Miller, Griffin, Littlejohn, and Foss concur about the requirements involved in empirical studies, they hedge a bit on the less objective forms of communication study. Miller terms the alternative to scientific research, "subjective"; Griffin terms it "interpretive"; and Littlejohn and Foss term it "humanistic." Whereas the criteria for a scientific theory are relatively similar in all authors, the criteria for its alternative differs. The distinction between "quantitative" and "qualitative" does not play the same role in the advocates of a pluralistic view of communication theory. In the texts of Miller and Littlejohn/Foss, the distinction is not invoked. In Griffin, it parallels his distinction between objective and interpretive.
If these texts accurately reflect communication studies, leaving Holmes out the picture for the moment, they are conducted by two groups of scholars—objectivists and objectivist/interpretists..
Research Traditions and Approaches
A discussion of traditions and Approaches alleges to be historically accurate but certain omissions and inclusions suggest a principle of selectivity in the choices offered as standards.
Robert Craig's delineation of the traditions of communication research is adopted by Miller, Griffin, Lifttlejohn, and Foss, the "objectivist/interpretist" group. In Craig's view, there are seven traditions of communication research, each constituting an "approach": namely:
- rhetorical
- semiotic
- phenomenological
- cybernetic
- sociopsyhological
- sociocultural
- critical
Miller acknowledges that Craig's view is important but cautions that his traditions "do not reflect the way the field is typically segmented in academic departments or in presentations of communication theory," adding that "There is little doubt that communication is a fragmented discipline" (12).
The objectivists, Infante, Rancer, Womack, West, and Turner, do not use Craig's typology. Instead, they use the standard model of communication as the basis of organizing their chapters. The movement is from communication between persons, within groups and organizations, to mediated communication. They look at the way these "contexts" (areas of research) have been theorized. West and Turner do not use the term "approaches." Infante, Rancer, & Womack include chapters on "trait," "persuasion," "verbal," and "nonverbal" approaches, which does not readily correspond the Craig's typology.
If these texts accurately portray communication research, the tension between the "objectivist" group and the "objectivist/interpretist" group noted in the previous section on "concepts of theory" seems to result in the inclusion and exclusion of communication research traditions and approaches.
In an appendix to Homo Academicus, entitled "The Hit Parade of French Intellectuals, or who is to Judge the Legitimacy of the Judges?," Pierre Bourdieu analyzes the results of a survey taken by the journal Lire (68, April 1981, 38-9) in which some 600 persons (mostly educators and media figures) were asked to identify the thinkers they considered to be "intellectual masters"—persons who have had "the profoundest influence on the development of ideas, literature, art, science." The published list is headed by Claude Lévi-Strauss who received 101 votes, followed by Raymond Aron with 84 and Michel Foucault with 83. Jacques Lacan finished fourth with 51 votes, five more than the first woman mentioned, Simone de Beauvoir, who is fifth on the list.
As a sociologist/anthropologist, Bourdieu argues that such lists are valuable data since they reflect the beliefs of the persons interviewed who are representatives of social groups. The same can be said for the list of researchers who are included in the works cited of textbooks in a field. Literary anthologies, for example, establish a canon of literary works. The extent to which these textbooks are used in courses is a reflection of the academic market for them. Following Bourdieu's tactic, this section compares the six textbooks in communication theory with respect to their inclusion and exclusion of communication researchers.
A workable starting point for this comparison is West and Turner's Appendix "Defining Communication Theories." Although their view of theory is decidedly on the objectivist side of the fence, they do list theories on the "interpretist" side," so they are a convent reference point. They list twenty-four theories. I will arrange the names of the theorists who developed them alphabetically, with the names that West and Turner assign to the theories in the matching column.
| Altman & Taylor | Social Penetration Theory |
| Aristotle | Rhetoric |
| Baxter & Montgomery | Relational Dialectics Theory |
| Berger & Calabrese | Uncertainty Reduction |
| Burgoon | Expectancy Violation Theory |
| Burke | Dramatism |
| Festinger | Cognitive Dissonance Theory |
| Fisher | The Narrative Paradigm |
| Geertz, Pacanowsky, & O'Donnel-Trujillo | Organization Culture Theory |
| Gerbner | Cultivation Analysis |
| Giddens, Poole, Seibold, McPhee | Adaptive Structuration Theory |
| Giles | Communication Accommodation Theory |
| Hall | Cultural Studies |
| Hartsock | Standpoint Theory |
| Janis | Groupthink |
| Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch | Uses & Gratification Theory |
| Kramarae | Muted Group Theory |
| McLuhan | Medium Theory |
| Mead | Symbolic Interaction Theory |
| Noelle-Neumann | Spiral of Silence Theory |
| Pearce & Cronen | Coordinated Management of Meaning |
| Petronio | Communication Management Theory |
| Thibuat & Kelley | Social Exchange Theory |
| Ting-Toomey | Face-Negotiation Theory |
| Weick | Organizational Information Theory |
Let's first compare the list of theorists in the West/Turner text to the theorists mentioned in the five other texts to see who is included. [A black checkmark, "√," indicates that the theory is described in the text. A red checkmark, "√," indicates that the theory is assigned to different theorists than in the West/Turner text. A cell colored black indicates that the theorist is omitted in the text. In the cases of Miller and Infante/Bancer/Womack's texts, the omitted works were all published well before 2000 and could have been included.]
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2008 |
| Miller | Infante, Bancer Womack |
West/Turner | Holmes | Griffin | Littlejohn |
| √ √ |
Altman, Irwin & Taylor, Dalmas |
√ √ |
√ √ |
||
| √ | Aristotle | √ | |||
| √ √ |
√ √ |
Baxter, Leslie & Montgomery, Barbara |
√ √ |
√ √ |
|
| √ √ |
√ √ |
Berger, Charles & Calabrese, Richard |
√ √ |
√ |
|
| √ | √ | Burgoon, Judee | √ | √ | |
| √ | √ | Burke, Kenneth | √ | √ | |
| √ | √ | Festinger, Leon | √ | √ | |
| √ | Fisher, Walter | √ | |||
| Geertz, Clifford & Pacanowsky, Michael & O'Donnel-Trujillo, Nick |
√ √ -- |
√ √ √ |
|||
| √ | |||||
| √ | √ | Gerbner, George | √ | √ | √ |
| √ √ √ |
√ √ √ √ |
Giddens, Anthony |
√ | √ √ √ √ |
√ √ √ |
| √ | √ | Giles, Howard | √ | ||
| √ | Hall, Stuart | √ | √ | * | |
| √ | Hartsock, Nancy C. M. | √ | √ | ||
| √ | Janis, Irving | * | √ | ||
| √ √ -- |
√ √ -- |
Katz, Elihu |
√ | √ | √ |
| √ | Kramarae, Cheris | √ | √ | ||
| √ | McLuhan, Marshall | √ | √ | ||
| √ | Mead, Herbert | √ | √ | ||
| √ | √ | Noelle-Neumann, Elizabeth | √ | √ | |
| √ √ |
√ √ |
Pearce, Barnett & Cronen, Vernon |
√ √ |
√ √ |
|
| √ | Petronio, Sandra | √ | √ | ||
| √ | Thibuat, John & Kelley, Harold |
√ √ |
|||
| √ | √ | Ting-Toomey, Stella | √ | √ | |
| √ | √ | Weick, Karl | √ | √ |
This chart reveals that the West/Turner text is representative since (with the exception of Holmes) it includes most of the theories included in the other texts.. By contrast, the Infante/Bancer/Womack text omits many interpretist theories—Aristotle, Fisher, Geertz, Hall, Hartsock, Kramarae, and Mead, though it does include Burke and McLuhan. The most outstanding aspect of the chart is David Holmes omission of most of the communication theories included in the other texts.
Next, let's look at theorists that West & Turner omit and others include. [Of the numerous texts that West & Turner did not include, I have listed only the ones that appear in two or more other texts. A "√ " indicates a extended treatment; "*" indicates a brief mention; "[fn]" indicates a reference only in a footnote.]
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2008 |
| Miller | Infante, Bancer Womack |
West/Turner | Holmes | Griffin | Littlejohn |
| √ | * | Adorno, T | √ | √ | * |
| Althusser, L. | √ | * | |||
| √ | Austin, J. L. | √ | * | ||
| √ | Bakhtin, M. | √ | √ | ||
| √ | Bales, R. | √ | √ | ||
| √ | Bal-Rokeach, S. | √ | |||
| √ | * | Bateson, G. | √ | * | |
| Baudrillard, J. | √ | √ | √ | ||
| √ | Bernstein, B. | √ | |||
| √ | Blumer, H. | √ | √ | ||
| √ | √ | Bormann, E. | √ | √ | |
| * | Carey, James | √ | [fn] | ||
| * | √ | Deetz, S. | √ | √ | |
| √ | √ | DeFleur, M. | √ | ||
| √ | √ | Delia, J. | √ | √ | |
| Derrida, J. | √ | * | * | ||
| * | Dilthey, W. | * | |||
| * | Gadamer, H. | √ | * | √ | |
| Gramsci, A. | √ | * | * | ||
| √ | Gudykunst | √ | √ | ||
| √ | Habermas, J. | √ | √ | √ | |
| √ | * | Marx, K. | √ | √ | √ |
| √ | * | McCombs, M. | √ | √ | |
| Poster, M. | √ | * | |||
| * | Ricoeur, P. | √ | |||
| Rogers, C. | √ | √ | |||
| Sassure. F. de | √ | √ | √ | ||
| * | √ | Searle, J. | √ | ||
| √ | * | Sherif, M. | √ | √ | |
| Tannen, D. | √ | * | |||
| * | * | Watzlawick, P. | √ | * |
This chart reveals that the West/Turner and the Infante/Bancer/Womack texts play little attention to philosophy and cultural studies. Taken together with the previous chart, Littlejohn and Griffin are the most comprehensive. Miller favors philosophy, in particular phenomenology, and emphasizes feminism. I will hold my comments on Holmes' text until the next section, and only note here that the theories it features are rarely considered communication theories as such, the exception being Carey who is merely mentioned in the other texts.
This brief comparison does confirm a tension in communication studies. Em Griffin identifies the underlying problem. Noting that his readers are presented with 33 different theories, he remarks that this "might have encouraged [them] to consider the 33 theories as 33 separate entities" adding "That would be unfortunate" (516). He draws upon James Anderson's Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations to suggest a solution, namely that these theories can be "plotted" on an "objective-interpretive scale." He plots each theory according to the matrix below (figure 1), grouped in generally recognized fields of study and then weighted on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being objective and 5 being interpretive.
| communication field | very Ob ejective | objective | equally |
interpretive | very interpretive |
| interpersonal | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| group & public | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| mass | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| cultural | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
figure 1
[Headings in italics are mine.]
In many respects, this is a very sensible solution, though it is unlikely to reduce the tension among practitioners who support or criticize the interpretive theories or vice-versa.
Moreover, this tension may increase as the result of recent theories of new media such as Baudrillard's, `Kroker's, or Virilio's. For many scholars these theorists push interpretation beyond its limits into speculation. This brings us to the problem for communication theory that Holmes' text poses.
The Anomalous Instance of David Holmes' Communication Theory
From the foregoing, it is obvious that David Holmes' text is, for the most part, "out of sync" with the others. His connections to "canonical theories" are sharply focused on media theory and cannot be perceived in a theoretical continuum with communication theory as it is "plotted" in the other texts. He cites innumerable theories about media which are very rarely, if ever, mentioned in the other texts.
Holmes borrows heavily from a marxist-oriented cultural studies and from postmodern philosophy. The texts he cites are not easily integrated into existing communication theories, even those concerned with mass media. Works authored by theorists such as Baudrillard, Benjamin, Bolter & Grusin, Debord, de Certeau, Derrida, Jameson, Kroker, Lyotard, and Virilio are not "testable" and their claims are not produced by any of the accepted "methods" in communication study. Moreover, Holme's theorems do not mesh with the standard model of communication as it is delineated in the other texts.
Holmes' text, or others comparable to it, nonetheless, are likely to turn up in future textbooks on communication theory for the simple reason that what communication scholars do precedes attempts to categorize what they do. If the work of a "communication" scholar such as Holmes becomes influential and has imitators and followers, it will eventually be canonized as a new field. When such events occur, they tend to create anomalies in the model of the general field that is used to establish a coherent study worthy of being an academic discipline. History shows that either the paradigmatic model is then altered to accommodate the new field or the new field becomes a separate department (aka, discipline).
Is this a portent of a split between media studies and communication studies? Does the standard model of communication need to be revised? Or, does the concept of a "discipline" need to be redefined?
New media theory is not the only cloud on the horizon of communication studies. In the distance one can hear the thunder of the clash between the computational and the connectionist theories in cognitive science which is discussed in the next section of C-CS, Communication as a Cognitive Science.
jjs
Notes:
Though I cite Toulmin's distinction, there are numerous definitions of discipline. His Human Understanding takes into account other work on this subject in the philosophy of science.
Miller's question, "what is theory/" and the title of the section in which she answers this question, "The Nature of Theory," suggest an essentialist approach to the issue, but she is careful to note that there is no "'right' way" to define the term. Her tactic is to articulate a working term—"one that is most useful for our purposes." (19)
Among French thinkers familiar to Americans, Samuel Beckett was 12th; René Girard 14th; Eugène Ionesco tied with others for 18th; Marguerite Duras and Michel Serres tied for 20th; Philippe Sollers 34th; Louis Althusser tied for 26th with Gilles Deleuze and others; Jean-Luc Godard tied for 34th; and Pierre Bourdieu tied for 36th. Surprisingly, Jacques Derrida did not even make the list.
I believe that Griffin's use of Anderson's account of objective and interpretive worldviews is heuristic. In the next section of C-CS, I propose a revision of his matrix as a map of contested communication domains and competing theorems about them.
See "Canonical Critics," Token Professionals and Master Critics, 19ff., 28-29
.Cognitive Linguists, influenced by Rosch, offer a way of looking at categories like "disciplines." See the "Fields of Communication Study Belong to a Cognitive Map of a Domain.",
← previous | next →
last revised:
September 4, 2007
Send comments to jjs.
copyright © jjs, 2007