REPORT ON

COMMUNICATION
Arnav Gupta
Introduction

Communication can be as basic as a birdcall at dawn, or as complicated as

making a satellite phone call that crosses continents.

Communication takes on many different forms; the most commonly applied

media of communication between two people is speech. However, people
communicate by use of gestures, facial expressions, the written word, images,
or coded language.

In the present day and age, where globalization and technology have led to a
level of interconnectedness between people, countries and continents as has
never been there in the past, communication remains key (Stein, n.p).

The interconnectedness between individuals, sectors and continents now calls

for a different kind of specialized knowledge. The traditional approach is for an
individual to focus on one area of his/her discipline, and study that area in-
depth. However, it is becoming apparent that there can be over-specialization
that results in a narrow sort of thinking and limits innovation.

Cross-discipline calls for individuals specializing in one area delving into other
branches of study that are not directly related to their current field (Dupree, n.p).

In my opinion, the more important theme between the two themes under
discussion is that of Crossing Disciplines. Specialization remains important
because it gives a comprehensive understanding in a specific area resulting in
more constructive research. However, having a tunnel vision has its drawbacks;
this is because no discipline is entirely independent of all other areas of study,
research and innovation.

The desire to have an understanding of the methods to use in improving

relationships has led to the emergence of interpersonal communication. People
normally assume that to effectively understand the process of interpersonal
communication, they have to give an explanation of how relationships emerge
and grow, factors that lead to their deterioration, and what makes these
relationships to become static (Webster, 2002). Ever since scholars managed to
demonstrate that people are able to grow relationally or personally through
communication, information experts are sensitive on the importance of
interpersonal interaction. It is virtually impossible to understand this process of
interpersonal communication, without understanding the various theories and
principles formed to explain the concept of interpersonal communication
(Cherniss, 2001).

Most of these theoretical frameworks normally address a wide range of topics,

and some of themes they address include, social conflict, quality of relationship,
interaction, communication competence and planning, accuracy required for
people to understand one another. Therefore, the intention of this assignment is
to compare two theoretical frameworks that are within the scope of
interpersonal communication. These theories are, social penetration theory, and
uncertainty reduction theory (Ellis, 2002)s. This paper is divided into five
sections. The first section is the introduction, the second section highlights the
concepts and philosophies of these theories, the third section identifies the
similarities of these two theoretical frameworks, the fourth section highlights
their differences, and the fifth section is a conclusion. The conclusion is a
summary of the major points highlighted in this paper.

Uncertainty reduction is a theoretical framework that seeks to understand the

manner which people are able to reduce any uncertainty that occurs between
them, during the early stages of interaction. This is always based on a sense of
self-disclosure. Furthermore, this theoretical framework seeks to explain the
different communication techniques that can be used for purposes of reducing
uncertainty amongst two people, or a group of people, who have just met
(Cherniss, 2001). The developers of this theoretical framework denoted that
uncertainty is always unpleasant feeling that people normally want to avoid. For
purposes of reducing this unpleasant feeling, people would try to look for
information that seeks to address this uncertain feeling, hence create a more
comfortable feeling.

On the other hand, social penetration theory normally involves the development
of a deeper intimacy, between the communicating parties, through a mutual
self-disclosure. This theoretical framework has four major assumptions, and
they include (Goleman and Boyatzis, 2004),

 The progress of relationships normally moves from non-intimate level, to

the stage of intimacy.
 Development of relationships is systematic and predictable.
 The aspect of self-disclosure forms an integral part, in developing
relationships.
 The development of relationships normally includes depenetration and
dissolution.
It is important to explain that the closeness between individuals under the social
penetration theory is normally achieved through a sense of self disclosure.
Without this aspect, it is virtually impossible for any relationship to occur. This
is also one of the methods advocated by the uncertainty reduction theory, aimed
at reducing uncertainties, and a feeling of uneasiness.

Similarities:
One of the major similarities between these two theoretical frameworks is that
they deal with the creation of a relationship between individuals or people. For
example, the social penetration theory explains that developing a close
relationship with people, is achieved in an orderly and gradual manner, leading
from a less intimate, to a more intimate relationship. On the other hand,
uncertainty reduction theory explains that relationships are built through
effective communication, between the parties involved (Blundel and Blundel,
2011). This means that the two theoretical frameworks are concerned with the
creation and sustenance of relationships.

Another similarity is that both theoretical frameworks advocate for a systematic

and gradual process of building relationships. This means that a relationship is
built through a systematic process that involves efficiency in the use of
language tools and standards. For example, the two theories denote that it is
possible to achieve and develop a close relationship through the process of self-
disclosure (McLuhan and McLuhan, 2011).

Differences:
One major difference that exists between these two theoretical frameworks is on
the process they use, to achieve their objectives. Under the uncertainty
reduction theory, there are a series of steps and processes that an individual
should use, for purposes of acquiring information. It seeks to acquire this
information, by creating seven basic assumptions (Childre and Rozman, 2005).
Some of these assumptions are, experience of uncertainty on personal issues,
uncertainty is normally an aversive state, and it has the capability of generating
cognitive stress, etc. On the other hand, under the social penetration theory, a
relationship is created by disclosing information about an individual.

Tools to use in improving my performance:

For purposes of improving my communication performance, in a work related
situation, there is a need of using the following tools of communication,

 Memos.
 Computer systems and technology, i.e. communicating through emails.
 Mobile phones and gadgets.
  Face to face communication.

Conclusion:
Interpersonal theories play an important role, in explaining the most efficient
methods that an individual should use while communicating with other people.
The social penetration theory and the uncertainty reduction theory are effective
in explaining the most efficient methods of creating a personal, social, and work
related relationships.