Speech Chapter 3 Weighing The Words Outline Introduction Not All Theories Are Equally Effective

CHAPTER 3

WEIGHING THE WORDS

Outline

I. Introduction.

A. Not all theories are equally effective.

B. The utility of a theory may be judged by applying the appropriate criteria used by

behavioral scientists and a wide range of interpretive scholars to weigh the theories

of their colleagues.

II. What makes an objective theory good?

A. Scientific standard 1: Prediction of future events. Prediction in physical science is

more accurate than in social science, where it is based on probability.

B. Scientific standard 2: Explanation of the data.

2. It focuses attention on crucial variables and away from irrelevant data.

4. It explains both the process and the results.

C. Scientific standard 3: Relative simplicity. The rule of parsimony dictates that all

things being equal, we accept the simpler explanation over the more complex.

D. Scientific standard 4: Hypotheses that can be tested. If there is no way to prove a

theory false, then any claim that it’s true seems hollow.

1. They shy away from the put-up-or-shut-up standard—they aren’t testable.

2. They are never-miss shots.

E. Scientific standard 5: Practical utility.

1. This requirement is consistent with social psychologist Kurt Lewin’s claim that

there is nothing as practical as a good theory.

3. The wider the scope of a theory’s application, the greater its practical utility.

F. Scientific standard 6: Quantitative Research

2. The idea that numbers are more reliable than words runs deep in the scientific

community.

3. Through experiments, scientists seek to establish a cause-and-effect

4. Surveys rely on self-report data to discover who people are and what they think,

feel, and intend to do—the key components of our attitudes.

III. What makes an interpretive theory good?

A. Interpretive standard 1: Clarification of values.

2. They seek to unmask the ideology behind messages.

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

3. Of course, not all interpretive scholars occupy the same moral ground, but there

are core values most of them share.

4. Many theorists value individual liberty and equality. Krippendorff’s Ethical

5. Many interpretive scholars value equality as highly as they do freedom.

6. Critical theorists, in particular, insist that scholars can no longer remain ethically

detached from the people they are studying, or from the political and economic

implications of their work

B. Interpretive standard 2: New understanding of people.

2. Rhetorical critics, ethnographers, and other humanistic researchers seek to gain

3. Whereas science wants objective explanation, humanism desires subjective

understanding.

4. Klaus Krippendorff’s Self-Referential Imperative states that, as theorists, we are

both the cause and the consequence of what we observe.

C. Interpretive standard 3: Aesthetic appeal.

2. 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.

D. Interpretive standard 4: A community of agreement. A theory must have widespread

scrutiny and usage.

1. We can identify a good interpretive theory by the amount of support it generates

2. Interpretation of meaning is subjective, but whether the interpreter’s case is

reasonable or totally off the wall is ultimately decided by others in the field.

E. Interpretive standard 5: Reform of society.

1. They want to expose and publicly resist the ideology that permeates the

accepted wisdom of a culture.

3. The aim of critical scholarship is to unmask communication practices that create

or perpetuate power imbalances in an attempt to stimulate change.

4. To the extent that the theory stimulates students to rethink, respond, and react

to this “free–market” process, it is a good interpretive theory.

F. Interpretive standard 6: Qualitative research

2. Textual analysis and ethnography are the two methods most often used to study

how humans use signs and symbols to create and infer meaning.

4. Through ethnography, participant-observers experience a culture’s web of

meaning.

IV. Contested turf and common ground among theorists.

A. Although the differences that separate objective and interpretive theorists are

meaningful, they can friendly with each other across their lines of difference.

1. It requires mutual respect for each other’s interest and recognition of their

intellect.

2. It requires a mutual appreciation that scientific theorists are comparing multiple

3. The two sets of six criteria are not as different as they might seem.

a. Both prediction and value clarification look to the future.

b. An explanation can further understanding of motive.

c. Simplicity has aesthetic appeal.

B. It is important for the two communities to at least be familiar with the other’s work.

C. Although all theories featured in this book have merit, they also have weaknesses

elucidated by the standards set forth in this chapter.

Key Names and Terms

Rule of parsimony (Occam’s razor)

Given two plausible explanations for the same event, we should accept the simpler

version.

Falsifiability

The requirement that a scientific theory must be stated in a way that it can be tested

and disproved if it is indeed wrong.

Experiment

A research method that manipulates a variable in a tightly controlled situation in order

to find out if it has the predicted effect.

Survey

Self-referential imperative

Include yourself as a constituent of your own construction.

Critical theorists

Scholars who use theory to reveal unjust communication practices that create or

perpetuate an imbalance of power.

A method of participant observation designed to help a researcher experience a

culture’s complex web of meaning.

Principal Changes

This chapter has been edited for clarity and readability. However, the overall content

remains the same as in the 9th edition.

Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters

• What sorts of questions are best answered with numbers? What sorts of questions

are best answered with words?

• Think about things you’ve learned in school. How do you know whether the

knowledge you’ve been taught is right and good? Is that a question you’ve

considered?

beauty of the words?

• What is the role of education in clarifying our values?

Suggestions for Discussion

Parsimony-is it always a good thing?

In discussion, you may wish to complicate the scientific standard of relative simplicity a

bit. Although the rule of parsimony dictates that we favor the simplest explanation of a given

phenomenon, it is also the case that complex phenomena often require intricate theories.

Therefore, expecting simplicity is not always useful (to invoke another scientific standard for

good theory). An economics professor once compared theory building to magic. Some

added explanatory and predictive potential merits the increased complexity. If it does not,

then the theory is not valuable.

For a humorous illustration of the pitfalls of parsimony, you might discuss the “yada–

yada” episode from Seinfeld (season 8, episode 19). In this episode, George realizes that his

new girlfirend’s use of the phrase “yada yada” is both an asset and a liability. At first, her

Objective explanation/subjective understanding

When I teach this chapter, I pause very carefully over the objective explanation/

subjective understanding dichotomy that the authors establish between scientific and

interpretive theory. (It is located in their discussion of “Interpretive Standard 1”). I want

students to understand that the “self–referential imperative” does not exclude the importance

Aesthetic appeal

I cannot help but pause for a moment on interpretive standard #3, “aesthetic appeal.”

Although it is true that many interpretive scholars view their work as art, or at least as artistic

(and I applaud this belief), many do not. Unfortunately, ponderous prose is prevalent in the

Exercises and Activities

Which standard is indispensable?

As you approach this chapter, with the 12 different criteria, work through each of the

standards systematically, making sure that students understand both sets and the relationship

between them. Then, try asking students to indicate which of the standards is, for him or her,

indispensable to good theory building. Next, if they could add a second essential standard,

which would it be? Are the first and second essential standards they chose from the same

Evaluating well-known theories

To help solidify the standards presented in the chapter, it may be useful to choose one or two

well-known theoretical systems such as capitalism, Marxism, Darwinism, creationism, or

Freudianism and run them through the twin criteria for scientific and interpretive theories. In

student body they may or may not; if they don’t, taking the time to educate them on such

theories probably isn’t worth the effort. And if you do venture into non-communication theories,

you would be wise to circle back to communication by the end of the class session.

Further Resources

Empirical methods

Martin W. Bauer and Bankole A. Falade, “Public Understanding of Science: Survey Research

Around the World,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and

Technology, Brian Trench and Massimiano Bucchi (eds.), Routledge/Taylor & Francis

Group, New York, 2014, pp. 140-159.

Jin Hong Ha and Lois Boynton, “Has Crisis Communication Been Studied Using an

Interdisciplinary Approach? A 20-Year Content Analysis of Communication

184. (See also the companion piece below by Manning & Kunkel.)

Ethnography and other interpretive methods

A good basic ethnography text is Wendy Bishop, Ethnographic Writing Research: Writing It

Down, Writing It Up, and Reading It, Boynton/Cook, Portsmouth, NH, 1999.

For other examples, see:

Ronald C. Arnett, “Philosophy of Communication: Qualitative Research, Questions in Action,”

Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, Vol. 17, 2016, pp. 1-6.

Elissa Foster, Communicating at the End of Life: Finding Magic in the Mundane, Lawrence

Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2007.

Andreas Hepp, Cindy Roitsch, and Matthias Berg, “Investigating communication networks

contextually: Qualitative Network Analysis as Cross-Media Research,” Mediekultur:

Journal of Media & Communication Research, Vol. 32, 2016, pp. 87-106.

Zoi Kalou and Eugene Sadler-Smith, “Using Ethnography of Communication in Organizational

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Ross Louis, “Food as Social Justice: Critical Ethnography as a Lens for Communication

Activism,” Communication Teacher, Vol. 30, 2016, pp. 87–93.

Jimmie Manning and Adrianne Kunkel, “Qualitative Approaches to Dyadic Data Analyses in

Family Communication Research: An Invited Essay,” Journal of Family

Communication, Vol. 15, 2015, pp. 185-192.