Module 1 - Communication Theories - Principles and Concepts

4/4/2021 Module 1 - COMMUNICATION THEORIES: PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS
Module 1 - COMMUNICATION THEORIES: PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS
Site: New Era University Printed by: Aron C. Perales

Course: COM122-18 - Communication Theories Date: Sunday, 4 April 2021, 2:48 PM
Module 1 - COMMUNICATION THEORIES: PRINCIPLES
Book:
AND CONCEPTS
https://college.neu.edu.ph/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=141327 1/26
Description
Lesson 1: Title
Table of contents
1. Introduction/Overview
2. Learning Outcomes
3. Models of Communication
4. Theory vs Hypothesis
5. Communication Theory Defined
6. Objective vs Interpretive Theory

6.1. Interpretive Theory
7. The Process of Inquiry
8. How to Evaluate a Communication Theory
9. Functions of Communication Theory
10. ASSIGNMENT
11. QUIZ
12. FORUM
1. Introduction/Overview
Visual Credited to: instructionaldesign.org
Theory strives to formulate statements or propositions that will have some explanatory. This is our most basic definition and generalized way of
looking at theory.
Specifically, this module focuses on the following topics:
1. Review the models of communication

2. Define Theory and Communication Theory.
3. Distinguish Theory from Hypothesis
4. Differentiate Objective and Interpretive Theory
5. Process of inquiry in communication theory
6. How to evaluate communication theory
7. Functions of communication theory
2. Learning Outcomes
At the end of the module, students should be able to:
1. Review the models of communication

2. Define Theory and Communication Theory.
3. Distinguish Theory from Hypothesis
4. Differentiate Objective and Interpretive Theory
5. Process of inquiry in communication theory
6. Evaluate a communication theory
7. Analyze the functions of communication theory
3. Models of Communication
Visual Credited to: evolutionculture.com
DAVID BERLO
Berlo’s Model of Communication
While the Aristotle model of communication puts the speaker in the central position and suggests that the speaker is the one who drives the
entire communication, the Berlo’s model of communication takes into account the emotional aspect of the message. Berlo’s model of
communication operates on the SMCR model. S - Stands for Source M - Message C - Channel R - Receiver
SHANNON AND WEAVER
In 1948, Shannon was an American mathematician, Electronic engineer and Weaver was an American scientist both of them join together to
write an article in “Bell System Technical Journal” called “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” and also called as “Shannon-Weaver
model of communication”. This model is specially designed to develop the effective communication between sender and receiver. Also they find
factors which affecting the communication process called “Noise”. At first the model was developed to improve the Technical communication.
Later it’s widely applied in the field of Communication.
HAROLD LASSWELL
Lasswell was especially concerned with mass communication and propaganda, so his model is orientated to the researches we need to
develop in order to answer his questions:
Who – Control analysis
Says what – Content analysis
In which channel – Media analysis
To whom – Audience analysis
With what effect – Effect analysis
OSGOOD-SCHRAMM
Encoder – Who does encoding or Sends the message (message originates) Decoder – Who receives the message Interpreter – Person
trying to understand (analyses, perceive) or interpret. Semantic noise is a concept introduced here it occurs when sender and receiver apply
different meaning to the same message. It happens mostly because of words and phrases for e.g. Technical Language, So certain words and
phrases will cause you to deviate from the actual meaning of the communication.
Note: From the message starting to ending, there is an interpretation goes on. Based on this interpretation only the message is received. This
model breaks the sender a
WESTLEY-MACLEAN
Westely and Maclean realized that communication does not begin when one person starts to talk, but rather when a person responds
selectively to his/her physical surroundings. This model considers a strong relation between responds from surroundings and the process of
communication. Communication begins only when a person receives message from surroundings. Each receiver responds to the message
they received based on their object of orientation.
THEODORE NEWCOMB
The Newcomb’s model works in a triangular format or A-B-X system
A – Sender
B – Receiver
X – Matter of Concern
The relationship between A and B is like student and teacher, government and public or newspaper and readers. Sender and Receiver may
work in a same flow but the same time some factor like “X” may affect their flow of relationship. “X” it may be third persons, issue, topic or
policy
GEORGE GERBNER
George Gerbner is one of the pioneers in the field of communication research. His works are descriptive as well as very easy to understand
any other before. He is working as a professor and head of the Annenberg School of Communications in the University of Pennsylvania. In
1956, Gerbner attempted the general purpose of communication models. He stressed the dynamic nature of communication in his work and
also the factor which affecting the reliability of communication. (Note: This model can be best understood when read along with the diagram
beginning at E – Event.)
GERHARD MALETZKE
Malletzke model of mass communication is the German scholars Malletzke present this model in his book Psychology of mass communication
in 1963.It theoretically describe the communication activities between audience and disseminators under the limit of social psychology factors
during the mass communication process.
Communication can be conceptualized, initially, as a message (M) issued by a communicator (C) which results in an experience (an effect) on
a receiver (R). In social communication, the message reaches the receiver through a communication medium (CM). Each medium has
technological features that affect the perceptual process, on experience and on the effects that it produces on the receiver. In today's society
the media's communicative offer is enormous. Therefore, the receiver must perform a selection of the medium he will pay attention to. Thus,
the receiver takes an active role in the social communication process, determining which messages are the ones that will produce an
experience on him.
Furthermore, the receiver's view of himself, of his situation, of his role and functions in the social system also intervene on the effects. Likewise,
the technological characteristics of the chosen medium determine the modes of behavior and experience of the receiver. Maletzke points out
that the receiver is under the "pressure and constraint of the medium". Finally, the receiver has an image of the medium.
4. Theory vs Hypothesis
Visual Credited to: study.com
Merriam Webster explains the difference of hypothesis to a theory as -- In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before
any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already
supported by data. Theories will pull together experimental results to provide full explanations such as "The Big Bang Theory." Outside of
scientific reasoning, "theory" and "hypothesis" are often used interchangeably, and "theory' can unfortunately be interpreted to mean "less
sound" or "lightly speculated."
Nyson (2020) from the article published in the Masterclass.com, he defines hypothesis and theory as follows:
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about
the relationship between multiple variables. A hypothesis is a fresh, unchallenged idea that a scientist proposes prior to conducting research.
The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a tentative explanation for an occurrence, an explanation that scientists can either support or
disprove through experimentation.
A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is widely accepted among the scientific community and supported by data.
Scientific theories are confirmed by many tests and experiments, meaning theories are unlikely to change. While the word “theory” is commonly
used outside the scientific world to describe a simple hunch, scientists use the term to describe a broadly accepted explanation for an
occurrence.
The purpose of a theory is to establish a general principle that clearly explains certain phenomena. While a theory is not a prediction, scientists
may use theories to help make a prediction about an unexplained aspect of the natural world.
To understand further the topic, let us all watch this video. It’s Okay To Be Smart is written and hosted by Joe Hanson, Ph.D.
Fact vs. Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law… EXPLAINED!
5. Communication Theory Defined
Visual Credited to: wordpress.com
University of Minnesota communication professor Ernest Bormann defines theory as “an umbrella term for all careful, systematic, and self-
conscious discussion and analysis of communication phenomena.”
On the other hand, Judee Burgoon, suggested that a theory is a “set of systematic, informed hunches about the way things operate.”
A Set of Hunches
If a theory is a set of hunches, it means we aren’t yet sure we have the answer. When there’s no puzzle to be solved or the explanation is
obvious, there’s no need to develop a theory. Theories always involve an element of speculation, or conjecture. Being a theorist is risky
business because theories go beyond accepted wisdom. Once you become a theorist you probably hope that all thinking people will eventually
embrace the trial balloon that you’ve launched, but when you first float your theory, it’s definitely in the hunch category.
By referring to a plural “set of hunches” rather than a single “hunch,” Burgoon makes it clear that a theory is not just one inspired thought or an
isolated idea. The young theorist in the cartoon may be quite sure that dogs and bees can smell fear, but that isolated conviction isn’t a theory.
A developed theory offers some sort of explanation. For example, how are bees and dogs able to sniff out fright? Perhaps the scent of sweaty
palms that comes from high anxiety is qualitatively different than the odor of people perspiring from hard work. A theory will also give some
indication of scope. Do only dogs and bees possess this keen sense of smell, or do butterflies and kittens have it as well? Theory construction
involves multiple hunches.
Informed Hunches
Bormann’s description of creating communication theory calls for a careful, self-conscious analysis of communication phenomena, but
Burgoon’s definition asks for more. It’s not enough simply to think carefully about an idea; a theorist’s hunches should be informed . Working on
a hunch that a penny thrown from the Empire State Building will become deeply embedded in the sidewalk, the young theorist has a
responsibility to check it out. Before developing a theory, there are articles to read, people to talk to, actions to observe, or experiments to run,
all of which can cast light on the subject. At the very least, a communication theorist should be familiar with alternative explanations and
interpretations of the type of communication they are studying. (Young Theorist, have you heard the story of Galileo dropping an apple from the
Leaning Tower of Pisa?)
Pepperdine University communication professor Fred Casmir’s description of theory parallels Burgoon’s call for multiple informed hunches:
Theories are sometimes defined as guesses—but significantly as “educated” guesses. Theories are not merely based on vague impressions
nor are they accidental by-products of life. Theories tend to result when their creators have prepared themselves to discover something in their
environment, which triggers the process of theory construction.
Hunches That Are Systematic
Most scholars reserve the term theory for an integrated system of concepts. A theory not only lays out multiple ideas, but also specifies the
relationships among them. In common parlance, it connects the dots. The links among the informed hunches are clearly drawn so that a whole
pattern emerges.
None of the young theories in the cartoon rise to this standard. Since most of the nine are presented as one-shot claims, they aren’t part of a
conceptual framework. One possible exception is the dual speculation that “adults are really Martians, and they’re up to no good.” But the
connecting word and doesn’t really show the relationship of grown-ups’ unsavory activity and their hypothesized other-world origin. To do that,
the young theorist could speculate about the basic character of Martians, how they got here, why their behavior is suspicious, and whether
today’s youth will turn into aliens when they become parents. A theory would then tie together all of these ideas into a unified whole. As you
read about any theory covered in this book, you have a right to expect a set of systematic, informed hunches.
IMAGES OF THEORY According to Em Griffin (2012)
In response to the question, What is a theory? I’ve presented a verbal definition. Many of us are visual learners as well and would appreciate a
concrete image that helps us understand what a theory is and does. I’ll therefore present three metaphors that I find helpful, but will also note
how an over-reliance on these representations of theory might lead us astray.
Theories as Nets: Philosopher of science Karl Popper says that “theories are nets cast to catch what we call ‘the world’ . . . . We endeavor to
make the mesh ever finer and finer.” I appreciate this metaphor because it highlights the ongoing labor of the theorist as a type of deep-sea
angler. For serious scholars, theories are the tools of the trade. The term the world can be interpreted as everything that goes on under the sun
—thus requiring a grand theory that applies to all communication, all the time. Conversely, catching the world could be construed as calling for
numerous special theories—different kinds of small nets to capture distinct types of communication in local situations. Yet either way, the quest
for finer-meshed nets is somewhat disturbing because the study of communication is about people rather than schools of fi sh. The idea that
theories could be woven so tightly that they’d snag everything that humans think, say, or do strikes me as naive. The possibility also raises
questions about our freedom to choose some actions and reject others.
Theories as Lenses: Many scholars see their theoretical constructions as similar to the lens of a camera or a pair of glasses as opposed to a
mirror that accurately reflects the world out there. The lens imagery highlights the idea that theories shape our perception by focusing attention
on some features of communication while ignoring other features, or at least pushing them into the background. Two theorists could analyze
the same communication event—an argument, perhaps—and depending on the lens each uses, one theorist may view this speech act as a
breakdown of communication or the breakup of a relationship, while the other theorist will see it as democracy in action. For me, the danger of
the lens metaphor is that we might regard what is seen through the glass as so dependent on the theoretical stance of the viewer that we
abandon any attempt to discern what is real or true.
Theories as Maps: I use this image when I describe the First Look text to others. Within this analogy, communication theories are maps of the
way communication works. The truth they depict may have to do with objective behaviors “out there” or subjective meanings inside our heads.
Either way we need to have theory to guide us through unfamiliar territory. In that sense this book of theories is like a scenic atlas that pulls
together 32 must-see locations. It’s the kind of travel guide that presents a close-up view of each site. I would caution, however, that the map is
not the territory. A static theory, like a still photograph, can never fully portray the richness of interaction between people that is constantly
changing, always more varied, and inevitably more complicated than what any theory can chart. As a person intrigued with communication,
aren’t you glad it’s this way?
Communication theory
The term communication theory refers to the body of theories that constitute our understanding of the communication process (Littlejohn,
1983). Theories represent various ways in which observers see their environment, and as Littlejohn claims (1983, p. 12), because theories are
abstractions, every theory is partial. Each theory delineates a way of looking and, therefore, its truth value can only be measured in term of how
well it is constructed. This is the reason why there is much disagreement about what constitutes an adequate theory of communication. The
search for who is doing what in a communication process and with what effects, to paraphrase Lasswell (1948), is the basic question of every
communication theory, although it might be studied from different angles or by looking at different facets.
6. Objective vs Interpretive Theory
Visual Credited to: communicationtheory.com
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECTIVE THEORY GOOD?
Excerpt from the book of Em Griffin (2012) "A First Look At Communication Theory"
An objective theory is credible because it fulfills the twin objectives of scientific knowledge. The theory explains the past and present, and it
predicts the future. Social scientists of all kinds agree on four additional criteria a theory must meet to be good— relative simplicity, testability,
practical utility, and quantifiable research. As I discuss these standards, I will use the terms objective and scientific interchangeably.
OBJECTIVE/SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Scientific Standard 1: Explanation of the Data
A good objective theory explains an event or human behavior. Philosopher of science Abraham Kaplan says that theory is a way of making
sense out of a disturbing situation. An objective theory should bring clarity to an otherwise jumbled state of affairs; it should draw order out of
chaos. A good social science theory describes the process, focuses our attention on what’s crucial, and helps us ignore that which makes little
difference. But it also goes beyond raw data and explains why.
Scientific Standard 2: Prediction of Future Events
A good objective theory predicts what will happen. Prediction is possible only when we are dealing with things we can see, hear, touch, smell,
and taste over and over again. As we repeatedly notice the same things happening in similar situations, we begin to speak of invariable
patterns or universal laws. In the realm of the physical sciences, we are seldom embarrassed. Objects don’t have a choice about how to
respond to a stimulus.
The social sciences are another matter. Although theories about human behavior often cast their predictions in cause-and-effect terms, a
certain humility on the part of the theorist is advisable. Even the best theory may only be able to speak about people in general, rather than
about specific individuals—and these only in terms of probability and tendencies, not absolute certainty.
Scientific Standard 3: Relative Simplicity
A good objective theory is as simple as possible—no more complex than it has to be. A few decades ago a cartoonist named Rube Goldberg
made people laugh by sketching plans for complicated machines that performed simple tasks. His “better mousetrap” went through a sequence
of 15 mechanical steps that were triggered by turning a crank and ended with a bird cage dropping over a cheese-eating mouse.
Goldberg’s designs were funny because the machines were so needlessly convoluted. They violated the scientific principle called Occam’s
razor, so named because philosopher William of Occam implored theorists to “shave off” any assumptions, variables, or concepts that aren’t
really necessary to explain what’s going on. When you’ve concentrated on a subject for a long time, it’s easy to get caught up in the grandeur
of a theoretical construction.
Yet the rule of parsimony —another label for the same principle—states that given two plausible explanations for the same event, we should
accept the less complex version. Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein put it this way: “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more
complex. . . . It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.”
Scientific Standard 4: Hypotheses That Can Be Tested
A good objective theory is testable. If a prediction is wrong, there ought to be a way to demonstrate the error. Karl Popper called this
requirement falsifiability, and saw it as the defining feature of scientific theory. But some theories are so loosely stated that it’s impossible to
imagine empirical results that could disprove their hypotheses. And if there is no way to prove a theory false, then any claim that it’s true seems
hollow.
Scientific Standard 5: Practical Utility
Over time, a good objective theory is useful. Since an oft-cited goal of social science is to help people have more control over their daily lives,
people facing the type of thorny social situations that the theory addresses should be able to benefit from its wisdom. This requirement is
consistent with Lewin’s claim that there is nothing as practical as a good theory (see Chapter 1). A theory that communication practitioners find
helpful may not be more valid than one few folks turn to for guidance, yet because of its influence, it may prove to be more valuable.
Scientific Standard 6: Quantitative Research
As the heading suggests, scientists tend to appeal to numbers as they gather evidence to support their theories. Almost all scientific research
depends on a comparison of differences —this group compared to that group, this treatment as opposed to that treatment, these results versus
those results. Since objective theorists aim to mirror reality, it makes sense for them to measure and report what they discover in precise
numerical terms rather than in linguistic terms, which are open to interpretation. Enlightenment philosopher David Hume insists on the
superiority of quantitative methods over qualitative research:
"If we take in our hand any volume . . let us ask: Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain
any experimental reasoning concerning the matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but
sophistry and illusion."
Given the radical nature of Hume’s over-the-top pronouncement, we can wryly imagine the English philosopher making daily trips to a used
bookstore for fuel to heat his home in the winter. But the idea that numbers are more reliable than words does run deep in the scientific
community. More than other quantitative methods, objective theorists use experiments and surveys to test their predictions.
Experiments. Working under the assumption that human behavior is not random, an experimenter tries to establish a cause-and-effect
relationship by systematically manipulating one factor (the independent variable) in a tightly controlled situation to learn its effect on another
factor (the dependent variable). A laboratory experiment would be an appropriate way to answer the question. Does greater perceived
attitude similarity lead to increased interpersonal attraction? The experimenter might first identify a range of attitudes held by the participating
subjects and then systematically alter the attitude information provided about an experimental confederate before they met. A similarity-
causes-attraction hypothesis would be supported if the subjects whose attitudes meshed with what they thought the confederate believed
ended up liking that person better than did those who thought they were quite different from the confederate.
Surveys. Whether using questionnaires or structured interviews, survey researchers rely on self-reported data to discover people’s past
behavior and what they now think, feel, or intend to do. For example, media-effects researchers have used survey methodology to answer
the research question, Do people who watch a high amount of dramatic violence on television hold an exaggerated belief in a mean and
scary world? They asked the number of hours a day the respondents watched TV and then gave a series of forced-choice options that
tapped into respondents’ perceived odds of becoming a victim of violence. The researchers discovered a positive relationship between the
amount of viewing and the amount of fear.
6.1. Interpretive Theory
Visual Credited to: wordpress.com
WHAT MAKES AN INTERPRETIVE THEORY GOOD?
Excerpt from the book of Em Griffin (2012) "A First Look At Communication Theory"
Unlike scientists, interpretive scholars don’t have an agreed-on, six-point set of criteria for evaluating their theories. But, even though there is
no universally approved model for interpretive theories, rhetoricians, critical theorists, and other interpreters repeatedly urge that theories
should accomplish some or all of the following functions: create understanding, identify values, inspire aesthetic appreciation, stimulate
agreement, reform society, and conduct qualitative research. The rest of this chapter examines these oft-mentioned ideals.
Interpretive Standard 1: New Understanding of People
Interpretive scholarship is good when it offers fresh insight into the human condition. Rhetorical critics, ethnographers, and other humanistic
researchers seek to gain new understanding by analyzing the activity that they regard as uniquely human—symbolic interaction. As opposed to
social science theories that attempt to identify communication patterns common to all people, an interpretive scholar typically examines a one-
of-a-kind speech community that exhibits a specific language style. By analyzing this group’s communication practice, the researcher hopes to
develop an understanding of local knowledge or members’ unique rules for interaction. Interpretive theories are tools to aid this search for
situated meaning.
Interpretive Standard 2: Clarification of Values
A good interpretive theory brings people’s values into the open. The theorist actively seeks to acknowledge, identify, or unmask the ideology
behind the message under scrutiny. Interpretive theorists should also be willing to reveal their own ethical commitments. As Texas A&M
University communication professor Eric Rothenbuhler states, “Theoretical positions have moral implications, and when we teach them,
advocate their use by others, or promote policies based upon them they have moral consequences.”
Interpretive Standard 3: Aesthetic Appeal
The way a theorist presents ideas can capture the imagination of a reader just as much as the wisdom and originality of the theory he or she
has created. As with any type of communication, both content and style make a difference. Objective theorists are constrained by the standard
format for acceptable scientific writing—propositions, hypotheses, operationalized constructs, and the like. But interpretive theorists have more
room for creativity, so aesthetic appeal becomes an issue. Although the elegance of a theory is in the eye of the beholder, clarity and artistry
seem to be the two qualities needed to satisfy this aesthetic requirement.
No matter how great the insights the theory contains, if the essay describing them is disorganized, overwritten, or opaque, the theorist’s ideas
will come across murky rather than clear. A student of mine who fought through a theorist’s monograph filled with esoteric jargon likened the
experience to “scuba diving in fudge.”
Interpretive Standard 4: Community of Agreement
We can identify a good interpretive theory by the amount of support it generates within a community of scholars who are interested and
knowledgeable about the same type of communication. Interpretation of meaning is subjective, but whether the interpreter’s case is reasonable
or totally off the wall is decided ultimately by others in the field. Their acceptance or rejection is an objective fact that helps verify or vilify a
theorist’s ideas.
Sometimes interpretive theorists present a controversial thesis to an audience restricted to true believers—those who already agree with the
author’s position. But an interpretive theory can’t meet the community of agreement standard unless it becomes the subject of widespread
analysis.
Interpretive Standard 5: Reform of Society
A good interpretive theory often generates change. Some interpretive scholars, but by no means all, aren’t content merely to interpret the
intended meanings of a text. Contrary to the notion that we can dismiss calls for social justice or emancipation as mere rhetoric, critical
interpreters are reformers who can have an impact on society. They want to expose and publicly resist the ideology that permeates the
accepted wisdom of a culture. Kenneth Gergen, a Swarthmore College social psychologist, states that theory has the capacity to challenge the
guiding assumptions of the culture, to raise fundamental questions regarding contemporary social life, to foster reconsideration of that which is
“taken for granted,” and thereby to generate fresh alternatives for social action.
Interpretive Standard 6: Qualitative Research
While scientists use numbers to support their theories, interpretive scholars use words . That’s the basic difference between quantitative and
qualitative research. As the editors of the Handbook of Qualitative Research describe the process, “Qualitative researchers study things in their
natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them.
The interpretive scholar’s qualitative tools include open-ended interviews, focus groups, visual texts, artifacts, and introspection. But textual
analysis and ethnography are the two methods most often used to study how humans use signs and symbols to create and infer meaning.
Textual Analysis. The aim of textual analysis is to describe and interpret the characteristics of a message. Communication theorists use this
term to refer to the intensive study of a single message grounded in a humanistic perspective.
Ethnography. Princeton anthropologist Clifford Geertz says that ethnography is “not an experimental science in search of law, but an
interpretive [approach] in search of meaning.” 24 As a sensitive observer of the human scene, Geertz is loath to impose his way of thinking
onto a society’s construction of reality. He wants his theory of communication grounded in the meanings that people within a culture share.
Getting it right means seeing it from their point of view.
7. The Process of Inquiry
Visual Credited to: Littlejohn
How We Develop Communication Theories
At this point, you may be wonder where communication theories come from. Because we cannot completely rely on our personal theories for
our communication, people like your professors develop communication theories by starting with their own personal interests, observations,
and questions about communication (Miller & Nicholson). Those of us who study communication are in a continual process of forming, testing,
and reforming theories of communication (Littlejohn & Foss) so that we have a better understanding of our communicative practices. There are
three essential steps involved in developing Communication theories: 1) Ask important questions, 2) look for answers by observing
communicative behavior, and 3) form answers and theories as a result of your observations (Littlejohn & Foss).
Asking important questions is the first step in the process of discovering how communication functions in our world. Tannen’s work grew out of
her desire to find out answers to questions about why men and women “can’t seem to communicate,” a commonly held theory by many. As a
result of her line of questioning, she has spent a career asking questions and finding answers. Likewise, John Gottman has spent his career
researching how married couples can be relationally successful. Both of their findings, and the theories the have developed, often contradict
common beliefs about how men and women communicate, as well as long-term romantic relationships.
However, simply asking questions is not enough. It is important that we find meaningful answers to our questions in order to continue to
improve our communication. In the field of Communication, answers to our questions have the potential to help us communicate better with one
another, as well as provide positive social change. If you’ve ever questioned why something is the way it is, perhaps you’re on your way to
discovering the next big theory by finding meaningful answers to your questions.
When we find answers to our questions, we are able to form theories about our communication. Answering our questions helps us develop
more sophisticated ways of understanding the communication around us – theories! You may have a theory about how to make friends. You
use this theory to guide your behavior, then ask questions to find out if your theory works. The more times you prove that it works, the stronger
your theory becomes about making friends. But, how do we know if a theory is good, or not?
Developing Good Theories
Take a moment to compare Newton’s theory of gravity to communication theories. Simply put, Newton theorized that there is a force that draws
objects to the earth. We base our physical behaviors on this theory, regardless of how well we understand its complexities. For example, if you
hold a pen above a desk and let go, you know that it will fall and hit the desk every time you drop it. In contrast, communication theories
change and develop over time (Infante, Rancer & Womack; Kaplan; Kuhn). For example, you might theorize that smiling at someone should
produce a smile back. You speculate that this should happen most of the time, but it probably would not surprise you if it does not happen
every time. Contrast this to gravity. If you dropped a pen, and it floated, you would likely be very surprised, if not a little bit worried about the
state of the world.
8. How to Evaluate a Communication Theory
EVALUATING COMMUNICATION THEORY
Excerpt from the published article Survey of Communication Study. Authored by: Scott T Paynton and Linda K Hahn. Provided by: Humboldt
State University.
If communication theories are not 100% consistent, like theories in the physical sciences, why are they useful? This question has initiated a
great deal of debate among those who study communication. While there is no definitive answer to this question, there are a number of criteria
we use to evaluate the value of communication theories. According to Littlejohn and Foss, scope, parsimony, heuristic value, openness,
appropriateness, and validity are starting places for evaluating whether or not a theory is good.
Scope refers to how broad or narrow a theory is (Infante, Rancer & Womack; Shaw & Costanzo). Theories that cover various domains are
considered good theories, but if a theory is too broad it may not account for specific instances that are important for understanding how we
communicate. If it is too narrow, we may not be able to understand communication in general terms. Narrow theories work well if the range of
events they cover can be applied to a large number of situations. It is easier to understand some theories when we are given examples or
can see being played out.
Parsimony refers to the idea that, all things being equal, the simplest solution takes precedence over a more complicated one. Thus, a
theory is valuable when it is able to explain, in basic terms, complex communicative situations. If the theory cannot be explained in simple
terms it is not demonstrating parsimony.
Heuristic Value means that a theory prompts other theorists to engage in further study and theorizing about a given problem. The Greeks
used the term heurisko, meaning “I find” to refer to an idea, which stimulates additional thinking and discovery. This is an important criterion
that facilitates intellectual growth, development, and problem solving. For most Communication theories, it would be quite easy to track their
development as more people weighed in on the discussion.
Openness is the quality that a theory allows for, and recognizes, multiple options and perspectives. In essence, a good theory
acknowledges that it is “tentative, contextual, and qualified” (Littlejohn & Foss, 30) and is open to refinement. The openness of a theory
should allow a person to examine its multiple options and perspectives in order to personally determine if the theory holds up or not.
Appropriateness refers to the fit between the underlying theoretical assumptions and the research question. Theories must be consistent
with the assumptions, goals, and data of the research in question. Let’s say you want to understand the relationship between playing violent
video games and actual violence. One of your assumptions about human nature might be that people are active, rather, than passive agents,
meaning we don’t just copy what we see in the media. Given this, examining this issue from a theoretical perspective that suggests people
emulate whatever they see in the media would not be appropriate for explaining phenomenon.
Validity refers to the worth and practical nature of a theory. The question should be asked, “is a theory representative of reality?” There are
three qualities of validity — value, fit, and generalizability. Is a theory valuable for the culture at large? Does it fit with the relationship
between the explanations offered by the theory and the actual data? Finally, is it generalizable to a population beyond the sample size? In
our example of the relationship between violent video games and actual violence, let’s say we studied 100 boys and 100 girls, ages 12-15,
from a small rural area in California. Could we then generalize or apply our theories to everyone who plays video games?
Visual Credited to: Lumenlearning.com
9. Functions of Communication Theory
Visual Credited to: depositphotos.com
Let us identify and analyze each function of communication theory as explained in the published article Survey of Communication
Study. Authored by: Scott T Paynton and Linda K Hahn. Provided by: Humboldt State University.
While theories in many disciplines can be hard for some to understand, in a field like Communication, our theories are important to understand
because they directly impact our daily lives. In this respect, they serve several functions in guiding our communication.
The first function theories serve is that they help us organize and understand our communication experiences. We use theories to organize a
broad range of experiences into smaller categories by paying attention to “common features” of communication situations (Infante, Rancer &
Womack). How many times have you surfed the internet and found articles or quizzes on relationships and what they mean for different
genders? Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversations, argues that men and women talk in
significantly different ways and for significantly different reasons. Of course, these differences cannot be applied to all men and women. But,
theories on gender communication help us organize and understand the talk of the different genders in a more simplified context so we can
understand general patterns of communication behavior. This helps us make appropriate decisions in gendered communication situations.
A second function of theories is that they help us choose what communicative behaviors to study. Theories guide where we choose to look,
what we look at, and how we look at communicative phenomenon. Remember back to Chapter 1 where we defined communication study.
Theories focus our attention on certain aspects of that definition. If you find that Tannen’s theories regarding how men and women talk differ
from your own perceptions, or that they’re outdated, you might choose to more closely study the talk or non-verbals of men and women to see
if you can rectify the difference in theoretical perspectives. You likely already do this on a personal level. Googling something as simple as “how
to act in a relationship,” will lead you to hundreds of websites and articles breaking down the dynamics of relationships depending on one’s
gender. Likewise, if you want to persuade someone to do something for you, you probably have a theory about what strategies you can use to
get them to do what you want. Your theory guides how you approach your persuasive attempts, and what you look for to see if you were
successful or not.
A third function of theories is that they help us broaden our understanding of human communication. Scholars who study communication
share theories with one another online, through books, journal articles, and at conferences. The sharing of theories generates dialogue, which
allows us to further refine the theories developed in this field. Tannen’s book allowed the public to re-think the personal theories they had about
the communication of men and women. With the opportunity to find countless theories through new books, magazines, the Internet, and TV
shows, the general public has the opportunity to find theories that will influence how they understand and communicate in the world. But, are
these theories valid and useful? It’s likely that you discuss your personal theories of communication with others on a regular basis to get their
feedback.
A fourth function of theories is that they help us predict and control our communication. When we communicate, we try to predict how our
interactions will develop so we can maintain a certain level of control. Imagine being at a party and you want to talk to someone that you find
attractive. You will use some sort of theory about how to talk to others to approach this situation in order to make it more successful. As in all
situations, the better your theoretical perspectives, the better chances for success when communicating. While theories do not allow us to
predict and control communication with 100% certainty, they do help us function in daily interactions at a more predictable and controlled level.
Notice that when you are successful, or unsuccessful, in your interactions, you use this information to assess and refine your own theoretical
perspectives.
A fifth function of theories is that they help us challenge current social and cultural realities by providing new ways of thinking and living.
People sometimes make the mistake of assuming that the ways we communicate are innate rather than learned. This is not true. In order to
challenge the communicative norms we learn, people use critical theories to ask questions about the status quo of human communication,
particularly focusing on how humans use communication to bring advantage and privilege to particular people or groups. For example, Tannen
argues that when men listen to women express their troubles, they listen with the purpose of wanting to provide a fix, or give advice. Tannen
argues that many times, women are not looking for advice or a fix, but rather empathy or sympathy from their male conversational partners.
With this understanding, it’s possible to begin teaching men new strategies for listening in cross-gendered conversations that serve to build
stronger communication ties. Critical theories challenge our traditional theoretical understandings, providing alternative communicative
behaviors for social change.
While theories serve many useful functions, these functions don’t really matter if we do not have well-developed theories that provide a good
representation of how our world works. While we all form our personal theories through examining our experiences, how are communication
theories developed?
10. ASSIGNMENT
CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO ANSWER THE ASSIGNMENT.
11. QUIZ
CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO TAKE THE QUIZ.
12. FORUM
CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO ANSWER THE FORUM.

Module 1 - Communication Theories - Principles and Concepts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Module 1 - Communication Theories - Principles and Concepts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Read this document in other languages

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 1 - Communication Theories - Principles and Concepts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/4/2021 Module 1 - COMMUNICATION THEORIES: PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

Module 1 - COMMUNICATION THEORIES: PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

Site: New Era University Printed by: Aron C. Perales

5. Communication Theory Defined

6. Objective vs Interpretive Theory

7. The Process of Inquiry

8. How to Evaluate a Communication Theory

9. Functions of Communication Theory

Visual Credited to: instructionaldesign.org

Specifically, this module focuses on the following topics:

1. Review the models of communication

At the end of the module, students should be able to:

1. Review the models of communication

Visual Credited to: evolutionculture.com

Berlo’s Model of Communication

SHANNON AND WEAVER

Who – Control analysis

Says what – Content analysis

In which channel – Media analysis

To whom – Audience analysis

With what effect – Effect analysis

The Newcomb’s model works in a triangular format or A-B-X system

Visual Credited to: study.com

Fact vs. Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law… EXPLAINED!

5. Communication Theory Defined

Visual Credited to: wordpress.com

Hunches That Are Systematic

IMAGES OF THEORY According to Em Griffin (2012)

6. Objective vs Interpretive Theory

Visual Credited to: communicationtheory.com

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECTIVE THEORY GOOD?

Scientific Standard 1: Explanation of the Data

Scientific Standard 2: Prediction of Future Events

Scientific Standard 3: Relative Simplicity

Scientific Standard 4: Hypotheses That Can Be Tested

Scientific Standard 5: Practical Utility

Scientific Standard 6: Quantitative Research

6.1. Interpretive Theory

Visual Credited to: wordpress.com

WHAT MAKES AN INTERPRETIVE THEORY GOOD?

Interpretive Standard 1: New Understanding of People

Interpretive Standard 2: Clarification of Values

Interpretive Standard 3: Aesthetic Appeal

Interpretive Standard 4: Community of Agreement

Interpretive Standard 5: Reform of Society

Interpretive Standard 6: Qualitative Research

7. The Process of Inquiry

Visual Credited to: Littlejohn

How We Develop Communication Theories

Developing Good Theories

8. How to Evaluate a Communication Theory

EVALUATING COMMUNICATION THEORY

Visual Credited to: Lumenlearning.com

9. Functions of Communication Theory

Visual Credited to: depositphotos.com

CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO ANSWER THE ASSIGNMENT.