Speech Chapter 2 Talk About Theory Outline Introduction Behavioral Scientists Are Scholars Who Apply

CHAPTER 2

TALK ABOUT THEORY

Outline

I. Introduction.

A. Behavioral scientists are scholars who apply the scientific method to describe,

predict, and explain recurring forms of human behavior.

II. Two communication scholars view a heartwarming ad.

A. Glenn: An objective approach.

2. They want to explain and predict human behavior.

4. In science, theory and research walk hand in hand.

B. Marty: An interpretive approach.

2. The ad activates emotions by incorporating the form of the cycle within a mini-

narrative.

III. Objective or interpretive: Sorting out the labels.

A. The objective and interpretive approaches to communication study differ in starting

point, method, and conclusion.

B. Scholars who do objective study are scientists concerned with behavior and

attitudes.

III. Ways of knowing: Discovering truth or creating multiple realities?

A. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge.

B. Scientists assume that truth is singular.

1. Reality is accessible through our senses.

3. Good theories are mirrors of nature, true as long as conditions remain the

same.

C. Interpretive scholars seek truth as well, but many interpreters regard that truth as

socially constructed through communication.

1. Truth is largely subjective and meaning is highly interpretive.

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

2. Knowledge is always viewed from a particular standpoint.

3. The knower cannot be separated from the known.

5. Multiple meanings or multiple versions of truth are acceptable.

6. Successful interpretations are those that convince others.

IV. Human nature: Determinism or free will.

A. Scientists stress the forces that shape human behavior; interpretive scholars focus

on conscious choices made by individuals

B. Determinists argue that heredity and environment determine behavior.

2. Behavior is the response to a prior stimulus.

C. In contrast, interpretive scholars tend to use explanatory phrases such as “so that”

or “in order to” because they attribute a person’s action to conscious intent.

1. They focus on conscious choices of individuals, not on why choices are made.

2. They believe that significant decisions are value laden.

D. As individual freedom increases, predictability of behavior decreases.

V. The highest value: Objectivity or emancipation?

A. When we talk about values, we are discussing priorities, questions of relative worth.

VI. The purpose of theory: Universal laws or guides for interpretation?

A. Scientists seek universal laws; interpreters strive to interpret individual texts.

VII. Objective or interpretive: Why is it important?

A. You cannot fully understand a theory without knowing its assumptions about truth,

human nature, the purpose of theory, and its values.

B. It is helpful when thinking through theories to have a way of organizing them into

VIII. Plotting theories on an objective-interpretive scale: A metatheoretical way of comparing

theories featured in the book. Objective and interpretive labels anchor the ends of a

continuum, with many theories in between.

Key Names and Terms

Behavioral scientist

A scholar who applies the scientific method to describe, predict, and explain recurring

forms of human behavior.

Rhetorician

A scholar who studies the ways in which symbolic forms can be used to identify with

people, or to persuade them toward a certain point of view.

Objective approach

The assumption that truth is singular and is accessible through unbiased sensory

observation; committed to uncovering cause-and-effect relationships.

Resonance principle of communication

Study of what it’s like to be another person, in a specific time and place; assumes there

are few important panhuman similarities.

Epistemology

The study of the origin, nature, method, and limits of knowledge.

Determinism

The assumption that behavior is caused by heredity and environment.

Empirical evidence

Data collected through direct observation.

Stanley Deetz

Communication scholar from the University of Colorado who believes that every general

communication theory has two priorities—effectiveness and participation. His theory of

organizational communication is featured in Chapter 21.

Emancipation

Principal Changes

This chapter has been edited for clarity and readability but the content is consistent

with the previous edition of A First Look.

Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters

• What sorts of classes have you tended to enjoy: those in the humanities, such as

English or history, or those in the sciences, such as physics or math?

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

• Are you hoping that your study of communication theory will give you insight into

general laws of human nature, or insight into specific human situations?

• Take a look at your department’s course offerings. Which courses most excite you?

Do you think they’re likely to have an interpretive or an objective bent to them?

Suggestions for Discussion

A dichotomy on a continuum

The principle challenge in presenting this material is to communicate the important

characteristics of the objective/interpretive dichotomy without oversimplifying, exaggerating, or

polarizing the discipline in absolute terms. Students need to understand that fundamental

differences exist between the two theoretical positions, but if they are seen as entirely

separate and mutually exclusive, then the nuances of the theories discussed throughout A

First Look will be compromised. In discussion, therefore, remind students that the camps are

themselves theoretical constructs designed to approximate, but not to straightjacket, reality.

Make sure that students don’t characterize interpretivists as completely subjective, solipsists

When discussing this chapter, be sure students understand that although the terms

“scientific” and “objective” are used interchangeably in the text, interpretive scholars do not

agree on a singular label. You may want to explain and discuss why some postmodern

communication scholars, for example, reject humanists’ emphasis on tradition, or why some

interpretive scholars mistrust rhetoricians’ emphasis on argument and conscious

intentionality. When Andrew raises this point with his class, he points out that interpretivists

like to argue about words because they very much believe that words are important, and the

very diversity of labels they choose reveals this commitment to the power of words. This is also

Theory and research

Be sure to emphasize the intimate relationship between theory and research. Although

the official subject of the book is the former, I encourage you to draw students’ attention to

how the authors integrate theory development and refinement with research; you might want

to remind them to look for the connection throughout the text. In many communication

programs (both at the undergraduate and graduate levels), students will take separate theory

and research methods courses. This is a good time to have a discussion about the overlap

between those areas of study. I have sometimes described theory as the “thinking” class and

methods as the “working” class, causing students who think this is work to laugh. What I

Exercises and Activities

Analysis of an ad

A good exercise is to ask students to bring their own print or television advertisements

to class the day you discuss the chapter. Depending on the size of your class, require each

student to write or present orally a short explanation of how the piece they’ve chosen would be

analyzed by an objective and an interpretive communication scholar. They’ll appreciate the

fine analyses produced by Sparks and Medhurst much more after they‘ve tried their own, and

you’ll be able to gauge their level of comprehension. The problems they encounter with this

assignment will help you to see what concepts require further explanation.

When Andrew teaches this chapter, he accomplishes this by first showing the

Lining up along the continuum

As you systematically work through the components of the objective and interpretive

perspectives, make sure students understand each binary set: singular truth vs. multiple

realities, determinism vs. free will, objectivity vs. emancipation, and so forth. With each pair,

ask your students to indicate with which element they are more comfortable. For example, a

Clarity / emancipation

Prediction / criticism

Unbiased / emotional

Effectiveness / participation

The first word is the objective choice, and the second word is the interpretive choice.

For each objective choice, students score a zero; for each interpretive choice, they score a one.

think they appear on one end of the continuum or the other or, as will probably the case for

most students, why they think they landed in the middle. As the course develops and their

knowledge of the field develops, this initial stand serves as a useful reference point. In

addition, you might ask students to suggest where other courses and instructors in the major

would be placed along the continuum. This activity helps contextualize the overall discipline

for students. It’s also an opportunity for you to be candid about where you fall on the

continuum, which serves as a reference point for students as they make sense of your

approach to teaching communication theory.

A similar approach can effectively integrate interactive classroom response devices

(“clickers”), particularly useful if you teach a larger lecture. After explaining the core concepts

of epistemology, determinism, objectivity or emancipation, and universal application versus

interpretive understanding, display a slide asking students to rank their position. You might

pose the question “What’s your view of human nature?” using a 6–point scale from “totally

Further Resources

This article further clarifies—and complicates—the “scientific” approach to communication

theory:

Charles Pavitt, “The Third Way: Scientific Realism and Communication Theory,”

Communication Theory, Vol. 9, 1999, pp. 162-188.

If you would like to read more about Em Griffin’s view of communication research, I’d

Alan G. Gross, Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael S. Reidy, Communicating Science: The

Scientific Article from the Seventeenth Century to the Present, Oxford University Press, New

York, 2009.

Free will and determinism

One of the finest discussions we know of the debate over free will and determinism is William

James, “The Dilemma of Determinism,” The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular

Philosophy, 1897, pp. 145-183. Because the text is sufficiently old that it is in the public

Other ideas to inform your discussions

Nancy Baym, Scott W. Campbell, Heather Horst, Sri Kalyanaraman, Mary Beth Oliver, Eric

Rothenbuhler, René Weber, and Katherine Miller, “Communication Theory and

Research in the Age of New Media: A Conversation from the CM Café,” Communication

Monographs, Vol. 79, 2012, pp. 256-267.

Kathleen M. Galvin and Dawn O. Braithwaite, “Theory and Research From the Communication

Field: Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families,” Journal of Family Theory &

Juliane Mora, (2016). “Socially Constructing Learning Space: Communication Theory and

Pedagogy for Social Justice,” Review of Communication, Vol. 16, 2016, pp. 176-191.

Georgette Wang, “Culture, Paradigm, and Communication Theory: A Matter of Boundary or

Commensurability?,” Communication Theory, Vol. 24, 2014, pp. 373-393.