Theories and Models of Communication

226 Pages·2013·14.585 MB·English

by  Paul Cobley, Peter J. Schulz

Handbooks Theories and
Commurncabon Snence
Models of
Communication
Edited by
Edited by
Peter Schulz and Paul Cobley Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz
Volume 1
DE GRUYTEP
MOUTON
Preface to Handbooks of Communkation
Univers:tà
data Science series
Sviz.ero
This volume is part ofthe series Handbooks ofCommunication Science, published
from 2012onwards byde Gruyter Mouton. When our generation ofscholars was in
their undergraduate years, and one happened to be studying communication, a
The pubflcation of this series has been partly funded by the Universiti della Svizzera
series like this onewas hard to imagine. There was, in fact, such adearth ofbasic
rediana Urdvershvof Lugaro
and reference literature that frying to make one’s way in communication studies
as our generation did would be unimaginable to today’s undergraduates in the
field. in truth, therewas simply nothing much to turn towhen you needed to cast
a first glance at thekeyobjects in the field ofcommunication. The situation in the
United States was slightly different; nevertheless, it is onlywithin the last genera
tion that the basic literature has really proliferated there.
What one did when looking for an overview or just a quick reference was to
turn to social science books in general, or to the handbooks or textbooks from the
neighbouring disciplines such as psychology, sociology, political science, linguis
tics, and probably other fields. That situation has changed dramatically. There
are more textbooks available on some subjects than even the most industrious
undergraduate can read. The representative key multi-volume International Ency
clopedia ofCommunication has now been available for some years. Overviews of
subfields of communication exist in abundance. There is no longer a dearth for
the curious undergraduate, who might nevertheless overlook the abundance of
printed material and Google whatever he or she wants to know, to find a suitable
Wikipedia entry within seconds.
ISBN: 978-3-11-029480-4 ‘Overviewliterature’ in anacademic discipline serves todrawabalance. There
a-ISBN: 978-3-11-024045-0 hasbeenademandandanecessitytodrawthat balanceinthefieldofcommunica
tion and it is an indicatorofthematuring ofthe discipline. Our project ofa multi
LIbraryotCongress catatoging-In-PubticatlonOats volume series ofHandbooksofCommunication Science is a part ofthis coming-of-
4 CIPcatalog record for this book has been apptied for atthelibrary ofCongress
age movement ofthe field. It is certainlyone of the largest endeavours ofits kind
3’ £
Bibliographic Information pubtished bytheOeutsche tiatinnatbibtlothels within communication sciences, with almost two dozen volumes already planned.
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek liststhis publIcation in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; But it is also unique in its combination ofseveral things.
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnbdnbde. The series is a major publishing venture which aims to offer a portrait of the
current state of the art in the study of communication. But it seeks to do more
© 2013 Waltet de Gruyter Gnrbh, Berlir?/Bosor
than just assemble our knowledge ofcommunication structures and processes; it
Cover image: Oliver Rossi/Photographer’s Choice RF/Gettvimages
ivpesedting: Meta Systenis Wuslern’.ark seeks to integrate this knowledge. It does so by offering comprehensive articles in
°dinting: Hubert & Co. Gnthh & Cu, NC. Gotihinea all the volumes instead ofsmall entries in the style ofan encyclopedia. An exten
°rodCd 00 acid-ree DaDe sive index in each Handbook in the series, serves the encyclopedic task of rind
M
iI relevant specific pieces of information. There are already several handbooks in
- FSC, FSC’GOiS43 j sub-disciplinesofcommunication sciencessuch aspolitical communication, meth
odology, organisational communication but none so far has tried to comprehen
—
sively cover the discipline as a whole.
vi — PretacetoHandbooksofCommunicationScienceieries PrefaceLoHandbooksofCommunicationScienc,series — vii
For all that it is maturing, communication as a discipline is still young and Note: administration on this series has been funded by the Università deila
one of its benefits is that it derives its theories and methods from a great variety Svizzera italiana University ofLugano. Thanks go to Ihe president ofthe univer
—
ofworkto other, and oftenolder, disciplines.Oneconsequence ofthis is that there sity, Professor Piero Martinoli, as well as to the administration director, Albino
a variety of approaches and traditions in the field. For the Handbooks in this Zgraggen.
series, this has created two necessities: commitment to a pluralism ofapproaches,
and a commitment to honourthescholarly traditions ofcurrentworkand its intel- Peter J. Schulz. Università della Svizzera iraliana, Luganu
actual roots in the knowledge in earlier times. Paul Cobley, London Metropolitan University
There is really no single object of communication sciences. However, if one
ve:e to posit onepossibleobject itmight be the human communicativeact often
—
conceived as “someone communicates something to someone else.” This is the
departure point for much study of communication and, in consonancewith such
study, itisalsothedeparturepointforthisseriesofHandbooks.Assuch, theseries
doesnotattempt toadopttheuntenablepositionofunderstandingcommunication
sciences as the study of everything that can be conceived as communicating.
Rather, while acknowledging that the study of communication must be multi
facetedorfragmented, it alsorecognizes twovery generalapproachesto communi
cationwhich can bedistinguishedas: a) thesemiotic orlinguistic approachassoci
ated particulartywith thehumanitiesanddevelopedespeciallywherethe Romance
languages have been dominant and b) aquantitative approachassociatedwith the
hard and the social sciences and developed, especially, within an Anglo-German
tradition, Although the relationship between these two approaches and between
theory andresearch has notalways been straightforward, the series does not privi
loge one above the other, in being committed to a plurality of approaches it
assumes that different camps have something to tell each other, In this way, the
Handbooks aspire to be relevant forall approaches tocommunication. The specific
designation “communication science” for the Handbooks should be taken to indi
cate this commitment to plurality; like “the study of communication,” it merely
designates the disciplined, methodologically informed, institutionalized study of
(human) cotmnunication.
On an operational level, the series aims at meeting the needs ofundergradu
ates, postgraduates, academics and researchers across the area ofcommunication
studies, Integrating knowledge of communication structures and processes, it is
dedicated to cultural and epistemological diversity, coveringworkoriginating from
around the globe and applying very different scholarly approaches. To this end,
the series is divided into 6 secdons: “Theories and Models of Communication”,
“Messages, Codes and Channels”. “Mode of Address, Communicative Situations
and Contexts”, Metbodologies”, “Application areas” and “Futures”. As readers
wiii see the first four sections are fixed; yet it is in the nature ofour field that the
“Applicarion areas” will expand. It is inevitable that the futures forthe field prom
ise to be intriguing with their proximity to the key concerns of human existence
on this planet (and even beyond), with the continuing prospect in communication
sciences that that future is increasingly susceptible ofprediction.
Contents
Preface to HandbooksofCammunkation Science series v
—
Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz
1 Introduction—1
William F. Eadie and Robin Goret
2 Theories and models ofcommunication: foundations and heritage 17
Theoriesand models
Robert T. Craig
3 Constructingtheories in communication research—-—39
Richard 1. Lanigan
4 Information theories—59
Dirk Baecker
5 Systemictheories ofcommunication—85
Philip Lieberman
6 biologicaland neurological bases of communication—101
Gabriele Siegert and Bjorn von Rimscha
7 EconomIc bases ofcommunication—123
Cees j. Hamelink
8 NormatIve bases forcommunication—147
Christopher Tindaie
9 Models ofcommunicativeefficiency—163
John 0. Greene and Elizabeth Dorrance Hall
10 Cognitive theories of communication—181
Jonathan T. Delafield-Butt and Colwyn Trevarthen
11 Theories ofthe developmentofhuman communication—199
Paul Cobley
12 SemiotIc models ofcommunication—223
Tim Wharton Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz
13 Unguistic action theories of communication—-241 1 Introduction
Adrian Bangerler and Eric Mayor
14 Interactional theories ofcommunication 257 Abstract: This essay introduces the current volume and also gives a sense of its
—
contents in relation to theentire series ofHandbooks ofCommunicationScience. It
Lijiang Shen considers two broad definitions of communication and the problems of the
ii Communication as persuasion 273 objects’ ofcommunication science. It giws a sense ofhow the terms ‘theory’ and
—
‘model’ are used in thevolume aswell as some ofthe dilemmas that have existed
Mov and 3rnd:or Bosh in the field in respect oftheory.
16 Theories of public ooinion—289
Keywords: Communication, definitions, theories, theory, models, research, object.
David Lrnwie science, interdisciplinarity
:7 Mediation theory 309
Kim Chrisoan Schroder
1 Defining communication and defining
1$ Socio-cuttural models of communication—327
communication sciences
Components of communication Thisvolumeis the inaugural handbook in themultiple-volumeHandbooksofCom
municationScience amajor publishing venturewhich aims to offer a portrait of
—
Charles C Self lhecurrent ‘state oftheart’ in the study ofcommunication. Itwas thought appro
19 Who -—351 priate, then, that the first volume in the series of handbooks presented the main
models and theories of communication, thus producing a sense of the frame in
Dale Hample which much ofthe study ofcommunication takes place. Yet, even before theories
20 What—369
and models axe considered, there needs to be an awareness of the problems
involved in defining the object of communication science, in delineating the
Pamela, Shoemaker, Mime Riccio and Philip ft. Johnson
breadth of the domain of study and even the naming of the discipline which is
21 Whom 383
devoted to research in that domain.
Definitions of communication commonly refer to etymology. Usually, this
Davide Botchini and Amy Shirong lu
involves notingthat the Latin root of‘communication’ communicare means ‘to
22 Channel 397 — —
share’ or‘to be in relationwith’ and has its own relations in English to ‘common,’
‘commune,’ and ‘community,’ suggesting an act of ‘bringing together.’ (cf. Cobley
Mary Beth Oliver, Julia K- Woolley and Anthony M. Limperos
2008, Rosengren 2000: 1; Schement 1993: 11; Beattie 1981: 34). Yet, thisseemingly
23 Effects 411
inclusive and broad definition of communication is not the only one that arises
from the invocation of etymology. Peters (2008; cf. Peters 1996 and Craig 2000),
somewhat differently, notes that ‘communication’ arises from the Latin noun com
Biographical sketches—425
municatio, meaning a ‘sharing’ or ‘imparting’; arguably, this has little relation to
terms such as union or unity, but rather links to the Latin munus (duty, gift). As
-:ndex
such, its rootsenses have todowith change, exchange, and goodspossessedby a
number of people. These differently inflected senses of the roots of ‘communica
tion’ have consequences for the way that the object of ‘communication science’ is
conceived;butbeforeexpandingonthis,letusconsiderhowconiniunicatlonstudy ThesetwobroadapproacheshaveInformedinvestigationintocommunicationboth
has been understood. atthelevelofforming thediscipline’s theoryaswellas its actualcollection ofdata.
Communication studyisvery much a modern discipline; yet it also has a long Yet, the relationship between these approaches and between theory and research
tradition and deep roots in philosophy and rhetoric. lt was only in the twentieth has not always been straightforward. Furthermore, the relationship has unfolded
century that itdeveloped into an organized field with its own institutional history, in the West largely independent ofAsiatic culture and its different conceptions of
itsownappointedprofessorsandacademic journals. Atthispoint, ‘communication theactofcommunication.Thekeyfactorsinthisuneven developmentareinherent
science’ developed out of several traditions, including those of the also recently incommunicationstudyand intimatelyconnected; theyconcernboth communica
developing psychology and sociology. Like these disciplines, it has a proliferation tion study’s fragmentation and its object.
of foci. The National Communication Association (NCA) in the United States sees Before considering these, a few words should be offered on the designation
communication study as a discipline focusing on: ‘communication science.’ In the last century and a half, many disciplines have
claimed ‘scientific’ status for themselves. Often, the claim is made to bolster that
how humans useverbal andnonverbal messages tocreatemeaning in variouscontexts (from discipline, giving it a reputation for truth and rigour that it may not necessarily
mu person groupsInmassaudiences) acrossculturesusingavarietyofchannelsand media. deserve, The claim has sometimes assisted institutionali2ation of disciplines,
Thediscipitneisespecially interestedtnthe impactofthosemessageson human behavior. underpinning the establishment of university departments and the winning of
communication asadisciplineincludes thestudyofcommunication ininterpersonalrelation
grants for research in the area. On the other hand, and often as a backlash, the
ships, groups, organizations, andacrosscultures; rhetorical theoryandcriticism;performance
studies; argumentation and persuasion; technologicallymediatedcommunication; and popu term ‘science’ has sometimesbeenconsidered derogatoryorpreciselyindicative of
larcutrure. lhetpP/vrvw.natcori.nrg. accessed 20April2012) an undeserved status. Particularly in the ‘postmodern’ moment in which science
hasbeenoneofthe‘grand’or‘metanarratives’(Lyotard 1984)towhichpeoplehave
What is important here, firstly, is that communication study is envisaged as a expressed credulity, it has been assumednot only thatsciencedoes not embody a
discipline in its own right, in the same way that psychology and sociology have narrative of progress but that it is open to question for its self-justifications, its
become, This status was not achieved without struggle Donsbach (2006: 439) vacillations, itsuncertainty, its sexistandotherideological pre-dispositions. There
—
cites the famous 1930 statement byTdnnies on the proposal for the establishment is understandable resistance, therefore, to the term ‘communication science,’ Yet,
ot ‘press research’ alongside sociology in the German academic system: “Why the study ofcommunication has not justbeen the province ofAnglophone acade
would we need press research within sociology? We don’t need a chicken or duck mia. Indeed, arguablyitsmajorconstituencyisinGermany. Certainly, communica
science within biology.” Contemplating this leads to two further observations (ion study is pursued at a consolidated institutional level not just in the UK and
aboutcommunicationstudyas a field its interdisciplinarity(Cooren 2012; Living- North America but in a number ofEuropean countries and, increasingly, in Asia.
—
stone 2009) and its similarities with sociology which will be considered further In these areas ‘science’ tends to have a connotation which differs from that ofthe
—
below, Secondly, the range ofcommunication, the proliferation ofcommunication English term and is associated, instead, simply with disciplinary rigour and the
science’s foci across interpersonal relationships, groups, organizations, cul virtuesofthe higherlearningingeneral, in contrast to, say, anecdotalorjournalis
—
tures is crucial: communication study is no more to be defined solely as the tic accounts of phenomena. As such, ‘communication science,’ like ‘the study of
—
study of mass media as it is to be depicted as focused on isolated linguistic communication,’ designates the disciplined, methodologically informed, institu
exchanges between individuals, tionalized study ofcommunication rather than the guaranteed path to truth and
Although it is already a broad church and may have to become ever more progress(seealsoCraig, Chapter3). However,itisclearthatoneproblemregarding
Catholic in its embrace ofcommunicative phenomena in the future, communica how communication science derives or constructs its models a problem that
—
tionscienceisnotthestudyofeverythingthatcanbeconceivedascommunicating. informs the concern over the designation ‘science’ arises over communication
—
Instead, it can be described in terms of two very general approaches to its object study’s object and its fragmentation.
which have come to a head in the last 100 years:
a semiotic or linguistic approach associated particularly with the humanities
and developed especlaily where the Romance languages have been domi 1.1 Communication science and its objects
nantl
a quantitative approach associated with the hard and the social sciences and A concern about communication science as a discipline is its very fragmentation.
developed, especially, within an Anglo-German tradition. Itisadomain madeup ofmanysub-domainsandsub-disciplines. This isundenia
kiwi cor’iev and Petei I Schulz Introduction 5
the; yet thedomain ofcommunicationhas all theattributes thatrender itan estab an extent about psychology, too). As such, appendicitis is palpably ‘bad.’ an ‘esih
lished discipline. ft is an institutionalized field, with journals, associations, depart that demands cure or amelioration. However, the equivalent situation does not
menial structures, professorialchairs and all theparaphernaliacontributingto the hold in communicationscience. Many people, including communicationresearcn
ursanization ofattempts to maintain quality of investigation and scientific status. ers and teachers, may believe that the communication phenomenon ofpornogra
As who any other rigorous discipline, one can find out about its key issues by phy is ‘bad’; but there is certainly no consensus on this issue. For communication
consulting a Large number of core journals, esteemed and peer-reviewed, as well science, it is still difficult to arrive at a foolproofdefinition ofpornography. in the
as journals that may have less esteem forvarying reasons. The discipline, llke any second place, a definitive account ofthe ‘effects’ ifany ofpornography on all
— —
other, monitors rigour in its research methods which are recognized by numerous people, of all different kinds, is a long way away. The object of communication
national research councils, in Europe, thesubjectareaiswellembedded inuniver science is therefore underdetermined and inescapably so. Furthermore, there are
siuns in countries such as Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands. Belgium, Sweden, numerous reasonsforthis. Ifwetakeanexamplefromthefoundation ofmedicine,
Norway, Spain, parts of Italy, Switzerland, Austria (with the UK as an anomalous we know that Hippocrates (1983 [c. 430—330 BC]: 185) advanced medical science
case where, notwithstanding the London School of Economics, communication by observing that a symptom exists as such when it is found to be identical in
study has not formally embedded itself in the elite universities, although media Delos, Scythia and in Libya. Where the object of communications is concerned,
soidies is strong in anumber ofother UKuniversities). TheEuropeanCommunica theoppositeis thecase: theobjectwillbesubjecttosometimes significantlydiffer
lion and Research Association (ECREA), is the result of a merger of a number of ent degrees ofdifference according to geography and context. This is the reason,
rein ively powerful communication associations across Eurone. In the USA, com too, that the study of communication can never be organized according to the
munication science is professionally organized by the National Communication implementation ofjust onemethod, typically either adopted from a social science
Association iNCA) and international organizations, including the International template orfrom a humanities one. The frequentlyextreme variation and richness
rommuinication Association (ICA). In Africa, the most prominent communication ofthe cultural context in which communicationtakes place dictates that a diverse
association is probably the South African Communication Association (SACOMM). set ofmethods is crucial to the taskofattempting tounravel thenatureofcommu
In Asia, besides several national organizations, thereis the Pacific andAsianCom nication in different places and contexts. This is not to say that the object ofcom
nunication Association (PACA). It should be remembered. though, that communi munication science can be simply summed up as ‘cultural signs’ or ‘signs in con
cation study is not just concentrated in the work of professional societies and text.’ Whilst these are dominant in communication science, there are also
institutional structures. At the margins ofthefield anddomain thereismuch work endeavnurs which serve to illustrate the illusory basisofthe nature/culture divide.
that is not easily assimiLated into professional concerns and, in some cases, is not One ofthese is the investigation ofcommunication disorders (Rieber 1981; Dainico
c:arrently easy to assimilate into the project ofcommunication science as a whole. et al. 20t0): another is biosemiotics (see Cobley, Chapter 12).
Examples might include theoutputofresearchersand teachersworkingon scripts, Unlike medicine, then, it is difficult to say what communication science is riot
sonic journalism, creative writing, some aspects ofcommunicative efficiency, and about. Communication is sufficiently general that it suffuses other disciplines ot
so on. objects. This is so to the extent that it is even easy to find examples in which the
This last point has a direct bearing on the conceptualizing ofcommunication interactionofcells orotherorganic entitiesaresaid to beinvolvedin communica
science and how it develops theoriesand models in thatit raises the issue ofwhat tion.’ Often, this term is used in a self-consciously metaphorical way. Yet, on the
might be the object of this discipline. Ifwe were to compare communication sci same level, itwould bestrange to encounter asociology ofneurons orthephiloso
ence with medicine, the immediate impression is that the latter seems to have a phy of metals. Communication science, ofcourse, is not alone in having a diverse
clearer, defined sense of its object there may be some local debate about what profusion ofobjects. Because oftheir focus on objects which change according to
—
medicine’s object is, but thereis aclearconsensus regardingwhat medicine is not issues ofsociality, geography, time, and context, both communicationand sociol
about, Communication study is different: there is no clear consensus regarding its ogy, despite their many differences, are fragmented. Communication science and
object and, indeed, it is constantly compelled to chase new objects. In a case of psychology, again with many differences, have a slightly different experience of
appendicitis, medicine will employ such procedures as diagnosis, prognosis, sur fragmentation, with the latter discipline being fragmented in some areas and uni
gery, meoical and biochemical analysis of the inflammation and so on (notwith fied in others. There is reallyno singleobject ofcommunicationscience. However,
standing thepossibilityofinterrogatingthematterwithreferencetomedicalsociol ifonewere topositonepossibleobjectitmightbethehumancommunicativeact
—
ogy, health psychology and other means allied to medicine). What is outstanding often conceived as “someone communicatessomething to someone else”. This, of
is that in such cases medicine has a clear sense ofpathology (one can say this to course, is the thread of one of the most fundamental models of communication
6 PaulCobleyand Peter Schulz Introduction —‘—‘ 7
offered by Lasswell (1948; 37): Who says what towhom in what channel and with which there is continuity of communication, frotn plants, through animals, to
what eftect? Of course, it iswell known that Lasswell’s model leaves out all man humans,plusaconcomitantconcern that‘communication asapplied to say, cells,
ner of noise and contextual matters as well as embedding assumptions such as is merely ‘metaphorical’ but, as yet, this has not been developed. Yet, it snouid
that there is necessarily any effect’ in communications The contributions in See be qualified that, insofar as communication science takes as its object human
don 2 of thisvolume. ‘Components ofcommunication, arevery much aliveto this communication, the act of‘communication’ is not reified. What the study or corn
tact and point out the most salient shortcomings of the model where relevant. munication is concerned with is not communication as a material and ‘finished’
indeed, we might add that in addition to questioning the character of the ‘who,’ entity. Rather, it is concerned with the manifold nature of human behaviour in
what-’ whom.’ channel’ and ‘effect,’ it would notbe impossible to make a credi communication. Stating this does not amount to sympathy with the discredited
late argument about the way in which rhe elements in between says’ (glottocen project of ‘behaviourism,’ nor is it an alignment with the so-called behavioural
—
-to’ (attributing intentionalityL ‘in’ (aspatialmetaphor privilegingdissemina sciences. Instead,itindicatesthattheobjectofcommunicationscience is anempil-
non over representation), ‘and with what’ (assuming an attuned destination) are ical entity which, far from being stable and consisting of matter, is susceptible to
— the vagaries ofchanges in human behaviour and historical forces.
open to criticism because they do not account for the entirety of the vicissitudes
01 communications. Nevertheless, as a hook for discussion and as a short
mnemonic for recalling the genera) object of communication science, Lasswell’s 1.2 Defining communication theories and mode’s
formula still serves,
There is a problem, though, with too great a degree of generality in the study
Oneofthegreatachievementsin thedefinitionofcommunicationsciencein recent
ofcommunication, Theideaof‘part-communication,’ forexample the beliefthat
— years has been the International Encyclopedia of Communication in 12 volumes
everything communicates in some way or another is one possible position that
— (2008) edited by Wolfgang Donsbach. It represents a major step in the task of
could be taken in communication. However, it is not desirable for this series of establishing a sense of the range of objects ofcommunication science, However,
Handbooks not, we believe, for communication science as a whole. There are a in its definition of terms and outlining of topics, it is not necessarily designed to
number of reasons for this. Firstly, it is not clear that everything does communi offer a sense of ongoing research, the ‘state of the art’ in communicatiort science
care. There are some objects which harbour the potential to communicate but sel or an overview ofthe materials that will equip the field to meet future challenges,
dom. do- play a part in the world of communication; there are also things which Wesee the present series ofHandbooks ofwhich the currentvolume is the first as
remain resolutely on the fringes of experience and are not considered in their the next stepin theEncyclopedia’ssynopticwork. Important to the current project
capacity how--ever limited to communicate. More importantly, a pan-communi is theconstitution ofthefield for thisreason, theeditors oftheotherHandbooks
cation pe—rspective tends to —prevent rather than promote investigation; it presents and the contributors to this vo—lume are leading and agenda-setting scholars. The
an unlimited array of objects about which it is difficult say anything regarding task for thisvolume, aheadoftheother Handbooks, is toconsiderthe rough struc
what unifies them or in what way they are related. As with all academic work, ture for the field that arises from the range of its pursuits (intercultural communi
communication science is compelled to identify common features and patterns cation, organizational communication, broadcasting and so forth), to set this
whicn wili illuminate the workings of its objeus. Indeed, in the etymologically’ against theareasofcommunicationsciencethat areestablished globally(thestudy
inflected definitions at the commencement of this Introduction, there are clear ofcommunicative competence, rhetoric, political communication including influ
imperatives with respect to this task. One definition invoking ‘community’ and ence,’ ‘persuasion,’ etc., commercial communication, also including ‘influence,’
-,
‘bringing together’ tends towards a proliferation of communication science’s ‘persuasion,’ etc., the study ofmedia) and rising fields such as the study of com
—
objects; the other focusing on exchange, gift, participation and the way that a municationtechnology orhealthcommunication, and to focus onthekey models!
—
municipal impulsecreatesanevent lendsitselftoamorespecificsetofcontextu theories that have developed sometimes from specific areas but have had conse
—
alized objects or processes. At the root ofcommunication science, to be sure, it is quences for communication study as a whole. To do this, of course, we need to
possible that a broad conception ofcommunication would be tenable. This would haveanunderstandingofwhatconstitutesa‘model’or‘theory.’ Asafield, commu
include communication among animals and plants. However, communicationsci nication science has been very profligate in its spawning and naming of theories
entists have been mindful ofthe fact that theentire field would be untenableifits locally. Partofthisvolume’sremitis todecidewhata ‘theory’ or ‘model’ is as well
central conception ofcommunication was too broad. Theway thatcommunication as presenting the most important of these.
science has so far manifested itself has meant that the key concern has been with As astart, we can describe a modelas asimplified pictureofa partof the real
human communication. There remains a residual concern about the extent to world. Itrepresentscharacteristicsofreality, but onlysomeofthem. Likea picture,
B PaulCXIIFmidPetitI.SChUlZ I IrEvMn..IIa — a
model is auch simpler Wan the phenomena it is supposed to represent or essay that has lost noneofits acumensince it was w’riuenmore than 20 years ago,
eNpiain. For example, a mode] of an aeroplane resembles the real aeroplane with Charles Sergei (1991) asked (and answered!) the question of why there have been
respect to some parts of an aeroplane wings, tail, wheels. etc. although it is so few genuine communication theories. lie found that certain historical legacies.
—
likely to missothercharacteristics forexample, wing flapsand slats. Considering a fixation on methodology at the expense of theory and risk aversion on the part
—
the model, we can learn something about the size or the proportion ofwings and of researchers had made theory parochial and almost utterly context-dependent,
fuselage. but this would not necessarily tell us anything about its speed (see also Not that much has changed since Berger’s essay and scholars in the field still
iantgan, Chapret 4). struggle with the shortage of theories, for which new explanations were founo
in a similar manner, a theory is supposed torepresent or explain the phenom since Serger described his. Many theories in the field have been borrowed frum
sna to which it reters. There are plenty of defmitions of what a theory is. Some other disciplines, mainly from sociology, social psychology and political science,
scholars describe theory as a symbolic construction (Kaplan 1964: 296), others as and adapted to the needs and interests ofcommunication science. And, as Berger
“a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that notes, communication science has not yet exported as much as it has imported
present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, fromotherfields; assuch, communication researchhas notyetbecome anautono
with the purpose ofexplaining and predicting the phenomena” (Kerlingerand Lee mous scientific enterprise with its own theoretical frameworks. What often hap
2000: ii). What iscommon in these as well as inother defmitionsis thefundamen pened was that communication theorists refined existing theoretical frameworks,
tal idea that a theory consists of abstract or concrete concepts or constructs that from other disciplines rather than developing their own which then could have
function as representations or means by which we are able to understand and been embraced by other disciplines.
handle the complex reality. Concepts are “building blocks” (Jaccard and Jacoby The question of why theories are so important in the field leads us to one
2010: 10) for all thinking and understanding of the physical and social world additional observation. Communication science provides us with extensive knowl
around us, regardless ofwhether these blocks are used by scientists ornon-scien edge about theworld in which we live. Such knowledge ofwhat happened in the
cists. in addition, a theory implies a statement about relationships between the past, what is happening right now and what will happen in the future would.
concepts or constructs that are inherent to it. There are different types of such however, be incomplete if it did not also tell us why certain events are likely to
statements, These may connect concepts and constructs; in addition, many theo happen. So, communication theories provide us with an explanation for the phe
ries in the social sciences include either relational or causal statements. A rela nomena they also describe (hopefully accurately), In fact, the explanation of
tionalstatementdescribes theassociationorcorrelation between concepts. Inprac observedphenomena is at the coreofanytheory. Once we are able to explain why
tice, it means hat the existence of one concept conveys information about the certainthingshappen, thiswillalsoallowus, atleastto a certainextent, topredict
existence of another concept. A causal statement, in contrast, means that one what is likely to happen in thefuture (see also Cobley, Chapter 12). Both explana
concept is considered to be the cause of a second concept. Despite the fact that tion and prediction are constitutive parts of a theory. Both function as guidance
theories differ in manyrespects and have beenclassified indifferent types oftheo regarding our understanding ofsome aspects of our experience: they allow us to
ries, at the core of all theories stands the Fundamental idea of a set ofstatements say, with a high degree of probability, what is going to occur and reoccur. With
about the relationship between concepts or constructs (Jaccard and Jacoby respect to this explanatory power itisnotdifficult to understandwhycommunica
2010: 28). Somethingvery similarapplies also to models: theyalwaysincludecon tion science continues to claim that the field needs mainly theory-based research.
cepts, constructs and therelationsbetween them.Thisiswhy, in thisvolume, both Theories are good or useful to theextent that they explain, allow us to predict
terms, theory and model, are used interchangeably. and to the extent chat theyfit our experience ofevents and reality. Theories may
From this perspective, scientific knowledge ofa discipline is basically nothing be rejected simply because they do not fit, meaning they do not make sense in
more than acorpus oftheoretical statements in theaforementioned sense.Theoriz lightofour experience, orlack credibility. In the 1990s especially, postmodernism
ing or modelling includes the conceptualization of phenomena in terms ofa set of questioned the basic assumption in communication theory, which is based on the
concepts or constructs and relationships among them. Learning what a discipline idea of fit that is, the correspondence between the relations of concepts and
—
is about and what is the common wisdom in this field means studying its major constructs as conceived in theories, on the one side, and the empirical data that
theoriesand models. Thatiswhat this first volume olthe Handbooksseriesintends more orless fit these concepts and relations on the otherside. Postmodern think-
to 00. ing, inopposition to this idea, holds thatcorrespondenceor‘consensus’ areintrin
Yet, it should be acknowledged that while theories have arisen in different sically modernist notions that lead to totalitarian and totalizing ways of thinking.
areas ofcommunication science, the work of forging theory is far from over. In an Indeed, postmodernism implies that there cannot be one correspondence or con
-
to Pact Cadteyand PetE5 Scnult lfltrOd’J(t!OIi 11
seosusbut, instead, that thereare manypossiblecorrespondences which are often studied. The centralityofverbal communication to communication science derives
in conflict with others. Additionally postmodernism rejects the idea of a reason toa great extent from its institutionalization.The historyof the studyofnonverbal
tng, rntionai subjectat thecentre ofanytheoryand replacesit wath an individual’ communication is marked by its almost total lack of institutionalization globally.
that is conceived of as a product of various discursive practices and knowledge Visualcommunication (asopposedto,say,auditorycommunication)isan example
structures. Without thscussing the details of this critical approach toward theory, of an area that has become institutionalized for specific historical reasons. The
it should be sufficient to mention at this point that by the same token that post- studyofcommunication technologyis remarkablefor its rapid institutionalization
modernism criticizes the traditional idea of theory, it also tends to imply that its and the fact that it is related to other endeavours by virtue ofinvolving investiga
awn approach based on therecognitionofnumerouscontingent forces issome tion of the extensions ofhuman processes.
— —
how more fitting’. Ultimately, this prevents communication sciencefrom develop Models and theories of communication also need to attempt to account for
ing sounder theories and fits’ in the future. It threatens to bethe end ofa number the matters in the third section of volumes within this series: mode of address.
of fields, but especially communication science. This is the case not so much communicative situationsand contexts.Anykind ofcommunication takes place in
because ofpostinodernism’s critique ofconsensus and empirical certainty; rather, agiven context — narrow, broad,intermediate,rule-bound — its mode. Itisthrough
itis becauseoftheway that postmodernismhasattemptedto encouragecommuni mode (conceived in thisway) thatsome traditions incommunication sciencecome
cation theory to shut up shop and in tail back on the risk aversion and fixation on together: interpersonal communication, small group communication, mass com
methodology that Berger so cogently delineated. One of the objectives of the cur munication. Additionally, ifone compares speech communication and mass com
rent book is to contribute to ensuring that this does not happen. munication,it isnotablethat theyhavemuch in commonandstudycan becarriert
out on this basis. Yet, if the communication situation changes for example, if
the communicationis taking placeduring awar thecomparison—can berendered
—
1.3 Theories and models in the field invalid. Thus, there are fluctuating differences and similarities in interpersonal
communication, mass communication and organizational communication that
theories and models must take into account.
Ihe way that theories and models are figured in this volume corresponds to the
Communication is also sludied according to a range of methodologies which
way in which the series of Handbooks has been conceived. The series aims to
have been developedin thehistoryofcommunicationsciencefor theirhonedabil
integrateknowledge ofcommunication structures and processes, not to split them
ity to addressquestions that arise from both communication in specific areas and
into littlepieces. It is committedtoapluralisticapproachtothe field,both interms communication across a number of areas. Commonly in research the object and
oftheoriesandmethods. It issupposedtodocumentthecurrentstateofknowledge
method are intertwined. However, it should be remembered that what one finds is
in the held, whilst also describingtheintellectual rootsofthat knowledge. Itseeks not always entirely determined by how onelooks for it sometimes research in a
acoherent terminologywhilstacknowledgingthat thisisnotpossibleinallinstan specific area ofcommunicationsthrows upunanticipated— empiricaldevelopments.
ces. And it embracesaoy theoryor model thatcan enlighten communication proc Somedevelopmentsin some areas (obviousexamples are developingtechnologies
esses, or burgeoningsocial networks) will create new research areas. So, whether one is
Following the present volume on theories and models of communication, the carrying out research using quantitative or qualitative research methods in a par
Handbooks atedivided intofiveareas, thelastbeingasinglevolumeonthefutures ticularareaofthecommunicationlandscape, theories and models are not extrane
for communication science. The first area of volumes is on messages, codes and ous. Ifstudying therapidgrowthofonlinesocialnetworksin thelast decade, then
channels. Issuestodowith thesefeaturestronglyinthecurrentvolume: theessays the body of work on network theory (see Chapters 4, 5, 12 and 19 by Lanigan,
in this volume loosely arranged around Lasswell’s formula for communication Baecker, CobleyandSelfrespectively)shouldhaveenabledatleastsome cootextu
trudy necessarilyconsider themessage (especially‘What’) and channel. The chan alizing projectionregardingthe growth ofcontemporarysocial networking. In line
nel, of course, takes in communication technology, verbality, nonverbality, and with theory, as well as with newobjects, research methods sometimes have to be
othervisualcommunication. Codeis particularlyimportant in consideringcommu adjusted.This may go hand-in-handwith the development ofnew (sub)flelds and
nicationbecauseithascommon andspecializeddefinitions, involvingeitheravery with consequenteffects on the methodologyofresearchin those (sub)fields. Jour
specific function or a mote varied one associated with themanydifferent forms of nals and publications in the field are usually taxed with the task of representing
communication verbal, nonverbal, specificallyvisual and connected to different new methods and developments.
—
communicationtechnologies (see alsoCobley, Chapter 12). Moreover,we mustcon Ashasbeennoted, oneofthedilemmasfacing theoriesand modelsofcomrnu
sides where and how the messages, channels and codes of communication are nicationis thattheobjectsofcommunicationsseemtoproliferatetosuchanexteor