1
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
Chapter 3
Thinking About Theory and Research
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
• Robert Craig and Heidi Muller (2007) observe, “[T]heorizing is a formalized extension of
everyday sense-making and problem solving” (p. ix).
• When people make an observation and compare it with theory, they are doing research.
• Theory and research are inextricably linked.
o Paul Reynolds (2015) points out that some researchers begin with theory (theory-
then-research) whereas others begin with research (research-then-theory), but all
researchers need to think about both theory and research.
• All people in daily life think like researchers, using implicit theories to help understand
many questions.
o Fritz Heider (1958) referred to everyday interactors engaging in theoretical thinking
as “naïve psychologists” or what one might call implicit theorists.
o Whenever people pose an answer to one of their questions, people are engaging in
theoretical thinking.
• Sometimes, an implicit theorist and a professional work in the same ways.
o They are similar because both puzzle over questions encountered through
observations and both seek answers for these questions.
o Both also set up certain criteria that define what an acceptable answer might be.
• There are differences between an implicit theorist and a professional as well.
o Social scientists systematically test theories whereas nonscientists test selectively.
o Researchers are more rigorous in their testing and are more willing to amend
theories, incorporating information arising from inconsistencies to create a revised
formulation of the theory.
II. Defining Theory: What’s in a Name?
• Generally speaking, a theory is an abstract system of concepts with indications of the
relationships among these concepts that help researchers to understand a phenomenon.
o Stephen Littlejohn and Karen Foss (2011) suggest this abstract system is derived
2
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
through systematic observation.
o Jonathan H. Turner (1986) defined theory as “a process of developing ideas that can
allow us to explain how and why events occur” (p. 5).
▪ This definition focuses on the nature of theoretical thinking without specifying
exactly what the outcome of this thinking might be.
o William Doherty and his colleagues (1993) have elaborated on Turner’s definition by
stating that theories are both process and product: “Theorizing is the process of
systematically formulating and organizing ideas to understand a particular
phenomenon. A theory is the set of interconnected ideas that emerge from this
process” (p. 20).
▪ The authors do not use Turner’s word explain because the goals of theory can
be more numerous than simply explanation.
o Different theorists approach the definition of theory somewhat differently.
▪ The search for a universally accepted definition of theory is a difficult, if not
impossible, task.
A. Components
• Theories are composed of several key parts, the two most important of which are called
concepts and relationships.
o Concepts are words or terms that label the most important elements in a theory.
▪ A concept often has a specific definition that is unique to its use in a theory,
which differs from how people would define the word in everyday
conversation.
▪ It is always the task of the theorist to provide a clear definition of the
concepts used in the theory.
▪ Nominal concepts are those that are not observable, such as democracy or
love.
▪ Real concepts are observable, such as text messages or spatial distance.
▪ When researchers use theory in their studies, they must turn all the concepts
into something concrete so that they can be observed.
❖ It is much easier to do this for real concepts than for nominal ones
o Relationships specify the ways in which the concepts in the theory are combined.
▪ The posited relationship is interactive, or two-way.
▪ In mutual influence (transaction), all the concepts are seen as affecting one
another simultaneously.
B. Goals
3
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
• The goals of theory can include explanation, understanding, prediction, and social
change.
o Researchers are able to explain something because of the concepts and their
relationships specified in a theory.
o Researchers are able to understand something because of theoretical thinking.
o Researchers are able to predict something based on the patterns suggested by a
theory.
o Researchers are able to effect social change or empowerment through theoretical
inquiry.
• Some theories try to reach all these goals, most feature one over the others.
o Rhetorical theories, some media theories, and many interpersonal theories seek
primarily to provide explanation or understanding.
o Others (e.g., traditional persuasion and organizational theories) focus on
prediction.
o Still others (e.g., some feminist and other critical theories) have as their central
goal to change the structures of society.
III. Approaches to Knowing: How Do You See (and Talk About) the World?
A. The Positivistic, or Empirical, Approach
• The positivist, or empirical approach assumes that objective truths can be uncovered
and that the process of inquiry that discovers these truths can be, at least in part, value-
neutral.
o This tradition advocates the methods of the natural sciences, with the goal of
constructing general laws governing human interactions.
• An empirical researchers strives to be objective and works for control, or direction over
the important concepts in the theory.
• As Leslie Baxter and Dawn Braithwaite (2008) observe, the researcher’s task in the
empirical approach is “to deduce testable hypotheses from a theory” (p. 7).
• The positivistic approach moves along the theory-then-research model to which
Reynolds (2015) referred.
B. The Interpretive Approach
• The interpretive approach views truth as subjective and co-created by the participants,
with the researcher clearly being one of the participants.
o There is less emphasis on objectivity in this approach than in the empirical
approach because complete objectivity is seen as impossible.
4
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
• The interpretive researcher believes that values are relevant in the study of
communication and that researchers need to be aware of their own values and to state
them clearly for readers, because values will naturally permeate the research.
o These researchers are not concerned with control and the ability to generalize
across many people as much as they are interested in rich descriptions about the
people they study.
o This emphasis on rich description leads interpretive researchers to put a lot of
focus on the voices of their participants and quote their comments extensively
(deSousa, 2011).
• For interpretive researchers, theory is best induced from the observations and
experiences the researcher shares with and/or hears from the respondents.
C. The Critical Approach
• In the critical approach, an understanding of knowledge relates to power.
• Critical researchers believe that those in power shape knowledge in ways that perpetuate
the status quo.
o Thus, powerful people work at keeping themselves in power, while silencing
minority voices questioning the distribution of power and the power holders’
version of truth.
• For critical researchers, it’s important to change the status quo to resolve power
imbalances and give voice to those silenced by the power structure.
• Some critical theorists, notably Stuart Hall (1981), have commented that power
imbalances may not always be the result of intentional strategies on the part of the
powerful.
o Thus, although the powerful are interested and invested in staying in power, they
may not be fully aware of what they do to silence minority voices.
IV. Approaches to Knowing: What Questions Do You Ask About the World?
• Each of the three approaches to knowing provides different answers to questions about the
nature of reality (researchers call this ontology), questions about how researchers know
things (known as epistemology), and questions about what is worth knowing (or what
researchers call axiology).
• Ontology is the study of being and non-being, or in other words, the study of reality.
o Researchers who see the world from an empirical approach believe that general laws
govern human interactions.
o Thus, they also believe that people don’t have a lot of free choice in what they do—
people are predictable because they follow the laws of human behavior which, to a
5
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
large extent, determine their actions.
o A researcher’s job is to uncover what is already out there in reality.
o This differs from researchers with an interpretive bent, who would allow that people
do have free choice, and see a researcher’s job as to co-create reality with research
participants.
o Critical researchers see both choice and constraint in the power structures they wish
to change
• The questions surrounding epistemology focus on how people go about knowing; what
counts as knowledge is intimately related to ontology.
• The empirical position on axiology is that science must be value free.
o The question is not whether values should permeate theory and research but how they
should.
o The text briefly presents three positions on this debate that correspond to the three
ways of knowing:
▪ Avoiding values as much as possible in research (empirical)
▪ Recognizing how values influence the entire research process (interpretative)
▪ Advocating that values should be closely intertwined with scholarly work
(critical)
o The first stance argues that the research process consists of many stages and that
values should inform some of these stages, but not others.
o The second position argues that it is not possible to eliminate values from any part of
theorizing and research.
o The final position argues that not only are values unavoidable, but they are desirable
in research.
V. Approaches to Knowing: How Do We Go About Theory Building?
• When researchers seek to create theory, they review three guidelines: covering law, rules,
and systems.
• The covering law approach seeks to explain an event in the real world by referring to a
holding the rules approach admit the possibility that people are free to change their
minds, to behave irrationally, etc.
• The covering law model explains human choices by seeking a prior condition (usually a
6
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
cause) that determines the choice that is made (usually an effect).
o From the rules model, rule following results from a choice made by the follower, but
A. Covering Law Approach
• Some covering law explanations refer to universal laws that state all x is y.
o These laws are not restricted by time or space.
o However, as new information comes to light, even laws have to be modified.
• Covering law explanations do not always have to be cause and effect.
o They may also specify relationships of coexistence.
o Researchers have a causal relationship when they say that self-disclosures by one
person cause self-disclosures from a relational partner.
o A claim of coexistence merely asserts that two things go together—that is, when
one person self-discloses, the other does, too—but it does not claim that the first
self-disclosure causes the second.
• Critical attributes of covering law explanations are that they provide an explicit
statement of a boundary condition and that they allow hypotheses, testable predictions
of relationships, of varying levels of specificity, to be generated within this boundary
condition.
o Because the system is deductive, complete confirmation of theories is never
possible.
o There will always be unexamined instances of the hypotheses.
• Most researchers today recognize that this type of universal law is unrealistic.
o Instead, researchers might strive for “probabilistic laws,” or statements they can
predict with a certain degree of probability.
B. Rules Approach
• This approach assumes that people are typically engaged in intentional, goal-directed
behavior and are capable of acting rather than simply being acted upon.
7
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
o People can be restricted by previous choices they have made, by the choices of
others, and by cultural and social conditions, but they are conscious and active
choice makers.
o Human behavior can be classified into two categories: activities that are stimulus–
response behaviors (termed movements) and activities that are intentional choice
responses (termed actions) (Cushman and Pearce, 1977).
setting (Cushman and Cahn, 1985).
o Rules are important benchmarks for the direction of an interaction.
• Several researchers (Lull, 1982; Van den Bulck, Custers, and Nelissen, 2016; Wolf,
Meyer, and White, 1982) have used a rules-based theoretical framework to study media
and family television-viewing behaviors.
• James Lull (1982) identified three types of rules that govern family television watching.
o Habitual rules are nonnegotiable and are usually instituted by the authority
figures in the family.
o Parametric rules are also established by family authority figures, but they are
more negotiable than habitual rules.
o Tactical rules or rules that are understood as a means for achieving a personal or
interpersonal goal, but are unstated.
C. Systems Approach
• Systems thinking in communication is derived from General Systems Theory (GST),
which is both a theory of systems in general—“from thermostats to missile guidance
computers, from amoebas to families” (Whitchurch and Constantine, 1993, p. 325)—
and a program of theory construction.
• Systems thinking captured the attention of communication researchers because it
changed the focus from the individual to an entire family, a small group, or an
organization.
• Systems thinking replaced the stringent assumptions of covering law with more realistic
ones.
• Systems theorists (Monge, 1973; Stroh, 2015) agreed with the rules assertion that
“human communication is not characterized by universal patterns” (p. 9).
• Systems thinking requires systemic, nonuniversal generalizations, does not depend on
inductive reasoning, separates the logical from the empirical, allows alternative
explanations for the same phenomenon, and permits partial explanations (Monge,
1973).
8
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
o Systems thinking rests on several properties, including wholeness,
interdependence, hierarchy, boundaries, calibration/feedback, and equifinality.
▪ The most fundamental concept of the systems approach is wholeness.
❖ It states that a system can’t be fully comprehended by a study of its
individual parts in isolation from one another.
▪ Because the elements of a system are interrelated, they exhibit
interdependence.
❖ This means that the behaviors of system members co-construct the
system, and all members are affected by shifts and changes in the
system.
▪ All systems have levels, or subsystems, and all systems are embedded in
other systems, or suprasystems.
❖ Thus, systems are a hierarchy, a complex organization.
▪ Systems develop boundaries around themselves and the subsystems they
contain.
❖ Because human systems are open systems (it is not possible to
routes.
➢ Equifinality implies that different groups can achieve the same
goal through multiple pathways.
D. Evaluating Theory
• The following criteria are generally accepted as useful measures for evaluating
communication theory: scope, logical consistency, parsimony, utility, testability,
heurism, and the test of time.
• Scope refers to the breadth of communication behaviors covered by a theory.
o Boundaries are the limits of a theory’s scope.
• The claims made by the theory should be consistent with the assumptions of the theory.
o Logical consistency means that the theory “hangs together” and doesn’t
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
contradict itself, either by advancing two propositions that are in conflict with
each other or by failing to operate within the parameters of its assumptions.
• Parsimony refers to the simplicity of the explanation provided by the theory.
o Theories should contain only the number of concepts necessary to explain the
phenomenon under consideration.
• Utility refers to the theory’s usefulness, or practical value.
o A good theory has utility when it tells us a great deal about communication and
human behavior.
• Testability refers to the researcher’s ability to investigate a theory’s accuracy.
o One of the biggest issues involved in testability concerns the specificity of the
theory’s central concepts.
• Heurism refers to the amount of research and new thinking that is stimulated by the
theory.
o Theories are judged to be good to the extent that they generate insight and new
research.
• The test of time can only be used after some time has passed since the theory’s
creation.
o Deciding whether a theory has withstood the test of time is often arbitrary.
VI. The Research Process
• Any introduction to communication theory must necessarily include a discussion of
research.
• The two processes—theory-building and research generation—are unique.
A. Communication Research and the Scientific Method
• Many of the theories researchers read about have their roots in experiments and the
qualities related to those investigations.
• Operationalizing the concepts refers to making an abstract idea measurable and
observable.
o This means researchers need to specify how they will measure the concepts that
are important to their study.
• Next step in quantitative investigation and the traditional scientific model is to make
observations and collect data.
10
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
o Coding the conversation involves converting the raw data to a category system.
• Wallace (1983) has argued that two types of research exist: pure and applied.
o In pure research, researchers are guided by knowledge-generating goals.
▪ They are interested in testing or generating theory for its own sake and for the
sake of advancing their knowledge in an area.
o In applied research, researchers wish to solve specific problems with the knowledge
they or other researchers have generated.
B. Communication Research and the Qualitative Approach
• When researchers say that qualitative research is context-situated, they are saying that
individuals must be studied in their naturalistic setting and accommodate the time,
space, and location.
o Qualitative scholars do not believe that objectivity can be achieved (unlike
quantitative researchers who believe that objectivity is possible and probable).
differences between the researcher and the participant is diminished.
• In conducting quantitative research, one key difference between professional
researchers and implicit ones rests on the definition of two terms: reliability and
validity.
o Researchers say that something has reliability when they can get the same results
over time.
▪ For many reasons, reliability is difficult to obtain; professional researchers
conduct statistical tests to judge reliability.
▪ Implicit scientists usually operate as though their observations are reliable
without ever testing for it.
o Validity refers to the fact that the observation method actually captures what it is
supposed to.
▪ Professional researchers are concerned about the validity of their
observations and work diligently to demonstrate validity.
11
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
▪ Implicit researchers don’t think much about validity unless they somehow
discover that they have been basing their generalizations on a mistaken
notion.
1. Thinking about Our Implicit Theorizing
Objective: To assist students in identifying the implicit theories they have developed to
explain various communication phenomena
Materials: None
Directions:
1. Instruct students to think about an implicit “theory” they have developed to explain a
particular communication phenomenon. Remind them of the definition of theory, and
indicate that their theory must specify particular concepts as well as how they are
related.
2. Divide students into groups. Have them discuss their theories with each other, noting
whether other members of the group tend to agree or disagree with each theory.
3. Have a class discussion focusing on one or more of the following questions:
a. Approximately how many observations were involved in developing your
theory? Did you attempt to “test” your theory at some point?
b. How would you describe the range of behaviors your theory is intended to
explain (narrow, mid-range, broad)?
c. How would you go about testing your theory according to the research
procedures outlined in the chapter?
2. Investigating the Case of Rolanda Nash
Objective: To provide students with an understanding of how theory may influence a
researcher’s investigation of communication. Students are encouraged to engage in critical
thinking to determine the aspects of communication that would be of primary interest to a
Materials: Case Study on Rolanda Nash
Directions:
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
1. Divide students into groups, and have them review the case of Rolanda Nash at the
beginning of Chapter 3 in their texts.
2. Ask students to respond to the following:
“Imagine that you have been assigned to a research team. This team has been
presented with the task of examining the case of Rolanda Nash and attempting to
explain her interactions with others from each of the following perspectives:
positivistic, interpretive, and critical. Describe how your research team would
develop a plan of investigation by applying each of these three approaches.”
3. We’re Only as Strong as Our Weakest Link: An Analysis of the Systems Approach to
Family Communication
Objective: To provide students with a visual image of how systems theory applies to
interactions—specifically, in the family or workplace—and to demonstrate the changing
nature of families and organizations as they evolve through time
Materials: 12 to 15 clotheslines (four-foot length)
Directions:
1. Select two students to portray roles in a family or an organization. Allow students to
select the roles they will portray. You may provide students with suggestions of roles
that may be portrayed to stimulate their thinking about the diversity of families and
diversity in the workplace. Suggestions include a male superior and a female
subordinate, two male co-workers, male and female co-workers who are attracted to
one another, a mother and a daughter, two sisters, a grandparent and a grandchild,
and two cohabiting persons.
2. Create various scenarios that depict social process time as it occurs in an
organization or in a family (e.g., life events that may differentiate various stages that
the family or organization experiences).
Family Examples
• Newlyweds (Students may identify the need to include in-laws in this model at
this point.)
• Parents of one partner who disapprove of the relationship
• One spouse losing her/his job
• The marriage of a child
13
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
• A Bar Mitzvah
• A death in the family
Organizational Examples
• Approaching your boss to ask for a raise
• A superior who must fire or promote a subordinate
3. Instruct each student to grasp the end of the line and indicate the strength of their
relationship by pulling tightly or allowing the line to go slack.
4. As new events occur in the organization or family, instruct students to connect to the
lines of those they would have a relationship with in the situation. There may be
instances in which a person may wish to sever a relationship. In this case, the
individual should simply drop any connections via the lines.
5. Allow students to come up with social process events they may have experienced in
their family or workplace environments. Encourage them to depict the
6. As a class, discuss the following:
How does this exercise illustrate the aspects of Systems Theory listed below?
• Wholeness
• Interdependence
• Hierarchy
• Boundaries/openness
• Calibration/feedback
7. How are members affected by the changes that occurred within this system? What
suggestions would you offer for being flexible in the face of changes and events?
8. How do changes in the system impact communication among members within and
outside the system?
4. Developing a Model to Depict a Theory of Communication
Objective: To have students visualize the relationships that exist among variables in
explaining communication behaviors
14
Chapter 3: Thinking About Theory and Research
Directions:
1. Divide students into groups.
3. After groups have come up with their ideas for events, instruct them to create a
model that includes different elements that should be taken into consideration when
explaining or understanding the communication that takes place in that context or
situation. Encourage students to express the relationship between the communication
behaviors that were listed and the resulting outcomes.
4. Have a class discussion focusing on these questions:
a. Do you think communication can be effectively explained by developing
models and theories to explain the behaviors that occur? Why?
b. Do you believe that the covering law and rules approaches to answering
questions about the nature of reality are distinct in their applicability to
particular communication behaviors? Why, or why not?
5. The Value of Values
Objective: To have students begin to address questions of axiology
Materials: None
Directions:
1. Divide the class into small groups.
2. Assign each group a different axiological position.
• Research should always be value-free.
3. Ask group members to write down their feelings about the pros and cons of their
group’s assigned position and discuss these opinions with fellow group members.
4. Have each group share these findings with the class.
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
6. Approaching the Approaches
Objective: To help students investigate the theoretical perspectives behind each of the three
approaches to research.
Materials: None
Directions:
1. Divide the class into three groups.
3. Ask each group to develop a list of the potential strengths and weaknesses of each
approach. Emphasize to students that because the approaches are rooted in
philosophical ideology, it is difficult to suggest that any one approach is better than
the next. However, students should be encouraged to think about and evaluate with a
critical eye each of these approaches in an effort to better understand the
philosophical foundations of the research process.
4. Ask each group to share its list and opinions with the class, encouraging other groups
to challenge and question those observations.
7. Theory Application in Groups
Objective: To have students apply and understand the three perspectives on theory-building
Materials: None
Directions:
2. Ask each group to create a statement, one that follows the covering law approach,
3. Have each group share these statements with the class, making sure to explain how
and why each example illustrates that particular approach.