talk about theory - wikispaces · talk about theory i ... kenneth burke’s theory of dramatism...

Talk About Theory

I met Glenn Sparks and Marty Medhurst my ! rst year teaching at Wheaton Col-lege. Glenn and Marty were friends who signed up for my undergraduate per-suasion course. As students, both men were interested in broadcast media. After graduating from Wheaton, each went on for a master’s degree at Northern Illi-nois University. Each then earned a doctorate at a different university, and both are now nationally recognized communication scholars. Glenn is on the faculty at Purdue University; Marty is at Baylor University. Despite their similar backgrounds and interests, Glenn and Marty are quite different in their approaches to communication. Glenn calls himself a behavioral scientist , while Marty refers to himself as a rhetorician . Glenn’s training was in empirical research; Marty was schooled in rhetorical theory and criticism. Glenn conducts experiments; Marty interprets texts. To understand the theories ahead, you need to ! rst grasp the crucial differ-ences between the objective and interpretive approaches to communication. As a way to introduce the distinctions, I asked Glenn and Marty to bring their scholarship to bear on a television commercial that was ! rst aired a few months before Super Bowl XLI. Both the commercial and the game featured football star Peyton Manning.

TWO COMMUNICATION SCHOLARS VIEW A DIEHARD FAN

In 1998 Peyton Manning was drafted to play quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. A year earlier, MasterCard had launched its “Priceless” campaign, which suggests that the credit card company has both a sense of humor and the wisdom to realize that some of the best things in life can’t be bought, no matter what your credit limit. Nine years later, Peyton and “Priceless” commercials were still going strong. Manning was poised to lead the Colts to a 2007 Super Bowl victory, and MasterCard was using his star power to project the company’s image. Adweek sets the scene:

Peyton Manning is one of the few superstar athletes who shows he can act in his commercials. We’ve seen his cheerleader-for-the-everyday guy before. This time he’s rooting for the waitress who drops her tray, the latte guy who’s burned by escaping steam, and the movers who let a piano escape down a hill. “That’s okay guys. They’re not saying ‘boo,’ they’re saying ‘mooooooovers.’ ” 1

The fourth scene, captured in Figure 2–1 , is Manning shouting encourage-ment to the paperboy who made an errant throw: “That’s alright, Bobby. You’ve

Behavioral scientistA scholar who applies the scientific method to describe, predict, and explain recurring forms of human behavior.

RhetoricianA 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.

2 CHAPTER

13

gri34307_ch02_013-024.indd 3 12/01/11 8:06 AM user-f469gri34307_ch02_013-024.indd Page 13 12/01/11 8:06 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

14 OVERVIEW

still got the best arm in the neighborhood.” All four scenes illustrate the spoken and written message of the ad: Support for your team is priceless—especially when they’ve screwed up. It’s something money can’t buy. “For everything else, there’s MasterCard.” Social scientist Glenn and rhetorical critic Marty take dif-ferent theoretical approaches as they analyze how the ad works.

Glenn: An Objective Approach

The distinguishing feature of this commercial is football superstar Peyton Man-ning. The folks at MasterCard are obviously convinced that his celebrity appeal will rub off on the public image of their credit card. As a social scientist, I’d like to discover if they are right. The answer will help scholars and advertisers better predict what persuasive techniques really work. If this “branding” strategy proves effective, I would also want to ! nd out why it does. Objective researchers want to explain as well as predict . Theory is an essential tool in the scienti! c effort to predict and explain. For this type of commercial, I might turn to source credibility theory , proposed by Carl Hovland and Walter Weiss as part of the Yale Attitude project on persuasion. 2 They suggest that expertise and trustworthiness are the two main ingredients of perceived credibility. For football fans who watched the ad, there’s no question that Peyton Manning is a highly competent quarterback. And cheering on ordi-nary people who are having a bad day may suggest that he’s on our side and won’t steer us wrong. The central premise of source credibility theory is that people we view as trusted experts will be much more effective in their attempts to persuade us than sources we distrust or regard as incompetent. Herbert Kelman’s theory of opinion change also offers insight. Kelman said that when people forge a bond of identi! cation with a highly attractive ! gure like Manning, they’ll gladly embrace his persuasive pitch. 3 In contrast to many top

FIGURE 2–1 Diehard Fan Peyton Manning Shouting EncouragementPhoto © 2007 MasterCard. All rights reserved. No photo reproduction without the prior written consent of MasterCard. Reprinted courtesy of McCann Erickson.

Objective approachThe assumption that truth is singular and is acces-sible through unbiased sensory observation; committed to uncovering cause-and-effect relation-ships.

Source credibilityPerceived competence and trustworthiness of a speaker or writer that affects how the message is received.

gri34307_ch02_013-024.indd Page 14 12/01/11 8:06 AM user-f469gri34307_ch02_013-024.indd Page 14 12/01/11 8:06 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

CHAPTER 2: TALK ABOUT THEORY 15

athletes who come across as surly, uptight, or egotistical, Manning is upbeat, relaxed, and encouraging as he cheers on people like us who don’t have his fan base. As a scientist, however, I can’t just assume that this commercial is persuasive and the theories I applied are correct. Manning’s expertise is football—not ! nance. Do viewers transfer his expertise from the gridiron to credit cards? I’d want an objective test to ! nd out if celebrity appeals really work. I might ! nd out if this ad campaign was followed by either an increase in new card applica-tions or a spike in the number of charges made by MasterCard users. Or I could test whether the ad has the same effect on viewers who don’t know who Man-ning is—he’s never identi! ed in the ad. Testing the audience response is a crucial scienti! c enterprise. Even though a theory might sound plausible, we can’t be sure it’s valid until it’s been tested. In science, theory and research walk hand in hand.

Marty: An Interpretive Approach

I see this ad for MasterCard, starring NFL quarterback Peyton Manning, as an attempt to identify manliness with money. The ad achieves its effect by inviting the viewer to become part of the “team” being instructed by “Coach” Manning. To become part of the team, one must adopt the attitudes and actions of the coach. Kenneth Burke’s theory of dramatism helps us understand the symbolic action. Since we can consider this 30-second commercial a mini-drama, Burke’s dramatistic pentad of act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose can help provide a framework for interpretation. 4 Peyton Manning is the coach—the agent. Every-day activities such as eating brunch, drinking coffee, moving furniture, and retrieving the morning paper are the background—the scene. Coaching people in the proper attitude is what Manning does in each scene—the act. Using the typical jargon and gestures of a football coach is the vehicle—the agency. And the goal is the acquisition and use of a MasterCard—the purpose. Burke holds that as a drama develops, the symbolic action moves through different stages. He encourages critics to look at the symbolic forms as they move “ from what through what to what .” 5 In this ad, the symbolic action starts with confusion—Wendy dropping the tray of food. It moves through pain and destruc-tion—Johnny scalded by steam, the mover dropping the piano, the paperboy breaking the window. And by the end, the drama arrives at manliness, money, and acceptance—football helmets crashing together (manliness) and forming the MasterCard logo (money), Johnny giving a thumbs-up signal (acceptance). What’s important to notice is that a symbolic transformation has taken place. Throughout most of the ad, Manning is “coaching” the right attitude. We hear it in his language (“You’re the man; Rub some dirt on it; It’s alright, Bobby”). We see it in his gestures (arms raised, palms up, clapping, pointing). Yet by the end of the ad the transformation is complete. It is Johnny who is doing the coaching, with a thumbs-up gesture that signals his acceptance of the right atti-tude and his adoption of the right action—getting a MasterCard. A symbolic equivalence has been established between being manly (like a pro football player) and being in the money (with MasterCard). The message of this ad is clear. To be a man is to have the right attitude about the little trials of life; it is to be part of the home team. Acquiring a MasterCard is a way of symbolically identifying with the tough guys and achieving victory over the obstacles that stand between a man and his goals.

Interpretive approachThe linguistic work of as-signing meaning or value to communicative texts; assumes that multiple meanings or truths are possible.

Burke’s dramatistic pentadA five-pronged method of rhetorical criticism to analyze a speaker’s per-suasive strategy—act, scene, agent, agency, purpose.

IdentificationA perceived role relation-ship that affects self- image and attitudes; based on attractiveness of the role model and sustained if the relation-ship remains salient.


16 OVERVIEW

Although both of these scholars focus on the role of Peyton Manning in promot-ing MasterCard, Glenn’s and Marty’s approaches to communication study clearly differ in starting point, method, and conclusion. Glenn is a social scientist who works hard to be objective. When I refer to theorists and researchers like Glenn throughout the book, I’ll use the terms scientist and objective scholar inter-changeably. Marty is a rhetorical critic who does interpretive study. Here the labels get tricky. While it’s true that all rhetorical critics do interpretive analysis, not all inter-pretive scholars are rhetoricians. Most (including Marty) are humanists who study what it’s like to be another person in a speci! c time and place. But a grow-ing number of postmodern communication theorists reject that tradition. These interpretive scholars refer to themselves with a bewildering variety of brand names: hermeneuticists, poststructuralists, deconstructivists, phenomenologists, cultural studies researchers, and social action theorists, as well as combinations of these terms. Writing from this postmodernist perspective, University of Utah theorist James Anderson observes:

With this very large number of interpretive communities, names are contentious, border patrol is hopeless and crossovers continuous. Members, however, often see real differences. 6

All of these scholars, including Marty, do interpretive analysis—scholarship concerned with meaning—yet there’s no common term like scientist that includes them all. So from this point on I’ll use the designation interpretive scholars or the noun form interpreters to refer to the entire group and use rhetoricians, humanists, postmodernists, or critical scholars only when I’m singling out a particular subgroup. The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists re" ect con-trasting assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of human nature, questions of value, and the purpose of having theory. The rest of this chapter sketches out these differences.

OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE WORLDVIEWS: SORTING OUT THE LABELS

Humanistic scholarshipStudy of what it’s like to be another person in a specific time and place; assumes there are few important panhuman similarities.

WAYS OF KNOWING: DISCOVERING TRUTH OR CREATING MULTIPLE REALITIES?

How do we know what we know, if we know it at all? This is the central ques-tion addressed by a branch of philosophy known as epistemology . You may have been in school for a dozen-plus years, read assignments, written papers, and taken tests without ever delving into the issue What is truth? With or without in-depth study of the issue, however, we all inevitably make assumptions about the nature of knowledge. Scientists assume that Truth is singular. They see a single, timeless reality “out there” that’s not dependent on local conditions. It’s waiting to be discovered through the ! ve senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. Since the raw sensory data of the world is accessible to any competent observer, science seeks to be bias-free, with no ax to grind. The evidence speaks for itself. As Galileo observed, anyone could see through his telescope. Of course, no one person can know it all, so individual researchers pool their ! ndings and build a collective body of knowledge about how the world works.

EpistemologyThe study of the origin, nature, method, and lim-its of knowledge.



Scientists consider good theories to be those that are faithful representations of an underlying reality—mirrors of nature. They are con! dent that once a prin-ciple is discovered and validated, it will continue to hold true as long as condi-tions remain relatively the same. That’s why Glenn believes the credibility of a message source can explain why other media messages succeed or fail. Interpretive scholars seek truth as well, but many interpreters regard that truth as socially constructed through communication. They believe language cre-ates social realities that are always in " ux rather than revealing or representing ! xed principles or relationships in a world that doesn’t change. Knowledge is always viewed from a particular standpoint. A word, a gesture, or an act may have constancy within a given community, but it’s dangerous to assume that interpretations can cross lines of time and space. Texts never interpret themselves. Most of these scholars, in fact, hold that truth is largely subjective—that meaning is highly interpretive. But rhetorical critics like Marty are not relativists, arbitrarily assigning meaning on a whim. They do maintain, however, that objectivity is a myth; we can never entirely separate the knower from the known. Convinced that meaning is in the mind rather than in the verbal sign, inter-preters are comfortable with the notion that a text may have multiple meanings. Rhetorical critics are successful when they get others to view a text through their interpretive lens—to adopt a new perspective on the world. For example, did Marty convince you that the MasterCard ad was an attempt to equate manliness with money? As Anderson notes, “Truth is a struggle, not a status.” 7

DeterminismThe assumption that be-havior is caused by he-redity and environment.

HUMAN NATURE: DETERMINISM OR FREE WILL?

One of the great philosophical debates throughout history revolves around the question of human choice. 8 Hard-line determinists claim that every move we make is the result of heredity (“biology is destiny”) and environment (“pleasure stamps in, pain stamps out”). On the other hand, free-will purists insist that every human act is ultimately voluntary (“I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul” 9 ). Although few communication theorists are comfortable with either extreme, most tend to line up on one side or the other. Scientists stress the forces that shape human behavior; interpretive scholars focus on conscious choices made by individuals. The difference between these two views of human nature inevitably creeps into the language people use to explain what they do. Individuals who feel like puppets on strings say, “I had to . . . ,” while people who feel they pull their own strings say, “I decided to . . . .” The ! rst group speaks in a passive voice: “I was distracted from studying by the argument at the next table.” The second group speaks in an active voice: “I stopped studying to listen to the argument at the next table.” In the same way, the language of scholarship often re" ects theorists’ views of human nature. Behavioral scientists usually describe human conduct as occurring because of forces outside the individual’s awareness. Their causal explanations tend not to include appeals to mental reasoning or conscious choice. They usually describe behavior as the response to a prior stimulus. Note that Kelman’s theory of opinion change that Glenn cited suggests a cause-and-effect inevitability in the persuasion process. We will be swayed by those we ! nd attractive.


18 OVERVIEW

DILBERT © Scott Adams/Dist. by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.

In contrast, interpretive scholars tend to use explanatory phrases such as in order to and so that because they attribute a person’s action to conscious intent. Their choice of words suggests that people are free agents who could decide to respond differently under an identical set of circumstances. Marty, for example, uses the language of voluntary action rather than knee-jerk behavior when he writes about the ad inviting the viewer to become part of the team and Johnny adopting the right attitude. The consistent interpreter doesn’t ask why Johnny made that choice. As Anderson explains, “True choice demands to be its own cause and its own explanation.” 10 Human choice is therefore problematic for the behavioral scientist because as individual freedom goes up, predictability of behavior goes down. Conversely, the roots of humanism are threatened by a highly restricted view of human choice. In an impassioned plea, British author C. S. Lewis exposes the paradox of stripping away people’s freedom and yet expecting them to exercise respon-sible choice:

In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to ! nd traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. 11

Lewis assumes that signi! cant decisions are value laden; interpretive scholars would agree.



Empirical evidenceData collected through direct observation.

When we talk about values, we are discussing priorities, questions of relative worth. 12 Values are the traf! c lights of our lives that guide what we think, feel, and do. The professional values of communication theorists re" ect the commit-ments they’ve made concerning knowledge and human nature. Since most social scientists hold to a distinction between the “knower” and the “known,” they place value on objectivity that’s not biased by ideological commitments. Because humanists and others in the interpretive camp believe that the ability to choose is what separates humanity from the rest of creation, they value scholarship that expands the range of free choice. As a behavioral scientist, Glenn works hard to maintain his objectivity. He is a man with strong moral and spiritual convictions, and these may in" uence the topics he studies. But he doesn’t want his personal values to distort real-ity or confuse what is with what he thinks ought to be. As you can see from Glenn’s call for objective testing, he is frustrated when theorists offer no empir-ical evidence for their claims or don’t even suggest a way in which their ideas could be validated by an independent observer. He is even more upset when he hears of researchers who fudge the ! ndings of their studies to shore up questionable hypotheses. Glenn shares the research values of Harvard soci-ologist George Homans—to let the evidence speak for itself: “When nature, however stretched out on the rack, still has a chance to say ‘no’—then the subject is science.” 13 Marty is aware of his own ideology and is not afraid to bring his values to bear upon a communication text and come under scrutiny. By pointing out the subtle equating of manliness with money, Marty creates an awareness that this is more than a humorous, feel-good spot. Although he doesn’t take an overtly critical stance toward advertising or the capitalist system, his insight is a resource for viewers that enables them to laugh not only at Peyton’s over-the-top support for his “team,” but also at the underlying economic boosterism in the ad. Criti-cal interpreters value socially relevant research that seeks to liberate people from oppression of any sort—economic, political, religious, emotional, or any other type. They decry the detached stance of scientists who refuse to take responsibil-ity for the results of their work. Whatever the pursuit—a Manhattan Project to split the atom, a Genome Project to map human genes, or a class project to ana-lyze the effectiveness of an ad—critical interpreters insist that knowledge is never neutral. “There is no safe harbor in which researchers can avoid the power structure.” 14 In the heading for this section, I’ve contrasted the primary values of scienti! c and interpretive scholars by using the labels objectivity and emancipation . Univer-sity of Colorado communication professor Stan Deetz frames the issue somewhat differently. He says that every general communication theory has two priori-ties— effectiveness and participation. 15 Effectiveness is concerned with successfully communicating information, ideas, and meaning to others. It also includes per-suasion. Participation is concerned with increasing the possibility that all points of view will affect collective decisions and individuals being open to new ideas. It also encourages difference, opposition, and independence. The value question is Which concern has higher priority? Objective theorists usually foreground effec-tiveness and relegate participation to the background. Interpretive theorists tend to focus on participation and downplay effectiveness.

THE HIGHEST VALUE: OBJECTIVITY OR EMANCIPATION?

EmancipationLiberation from any form of political, economic, racial, religious, or sex-ual oppression; empow-erment.


20 OVERVIEW

Why is it important to grasp the differences between objective and interpretive scholarship? The ! rst answer is because you can’t fully understand a theory if you aren’t familiar with its underlying assumptions about truth, human nature, the purpose of the theory, and its values. If you aren’t, things can get confusing fast. It’s like the time my wife, Jeanie, and I were walking around the Art Insti-tute of Chicago, enjoying the work of French impressionists who painted realis-tic scenes that I could recognize. Then I wandered into a room dedicated to abstract expressionism. The paintings seemed bizarre and made no sense to me. I was bewildered and somewhat disdainful until Jeanie, who is an artist, explained the goals these painters had and the techniques they used to achieve them. So too with interpretive and objective communication theories. Right now you are probably more familiar and comfortable with one approach than you are with the other. But when you understand what each type of theorist is about, your comfort zone will expand and your confusion will diminish.

OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

PURPOSE OF THEORY: UNIVERSAL LAWS OR INTERPRETIVE GUIDES?

Even if Glenn and Marty could agree on the nature of knowledge, the extent of human autonomy, and the ultimate values of scholarship, their words would still sound strange to each other because they use distinct vocabularies to accomplish different goals. As a behavioral scientist, Glenn is working to pin down universal laws of human behavior that cover a variety of situations. As a rhetorical critic, Marty strives to interpret a particular communication text in a speci! c context. If these two scholars were engaged in fashion design rather than research design, Glenn would probably tailor a coat suitable for many occasions that cov-ers everybody well—one size ! ts all. Marty might apply principles of fashion design to style a coat that makes an individual statement for a single client—a one-of-a-kind, custom creation. Glenn adopts a theory and then tests it to see if it covers everyone. Marty uses theory to make sense of unique communication events. Since theory testing is the basic activity of the behavioral scientist, Glenn starts with a hunch about how the world works—perhaps the idea that source credibil-ity enhances persuasion. He then crafts a tightly worded hypothesis that temporar-ily commits him to a speci! c prediction. As an empiricist, he can never completely “prove” that he has made the right gamble; he can only show in test after test that his behavioral bet pays off. If repeated studies uphold his hypothesis, he can more con! dently predict which media ads will be effective, explain why, and make recommendations on how practitioners can increase their credibility. The interpretive scholar explores the web of meaning that constitutes human existence. When Marty creates scholarship, he isn’t trying to prove theory. How-ever, he sometimes uses the work of rhetorical theorists like Kenneth Burke to inform his interpretation of the aural and visual texts of people’s lives. Robert Ivie, former editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, suggests that rhetorical crit-ics ought to use theory this way:

We cannot conduct rhetorical criticism of social reality without bene! t of a guiding rhetorical theory that tells us generally what to look for in social practice, what to make of it, and whether to consider it signi! cant. 16



MetatheoryTheory about theory; the stated or inherent assump-tions made when creating a theory.

There’s another reason to master these metatheoretical differences. After exposure to a dozen or more theories, you may ! nd that they begin to blur together in your mind. Classifying them as scienti! c or interpretive is a good way to keep them straight. It’s somewhat like sorting 52 cards into suits—spades, hearts, diamonds, and clubs. In most sophisticated card games, the distinction is crucial. By the end of the course you could have up to 32 cards in your deck of communication theories. Being able to sort them in multiple ways is a good way to show yourself and your professor that you’ve mastered the material. When you can compare and contrast theories on the basis of their interpretive or objec-tive worldview, you’ve begun an integration that’s more impressive than rote memorization. Understanding the objective/interpretive choice points I’ve described can also help you decide the direction you want to take in your remaining course work. Some concentrations in the ! eld of communication tend to have either a scienti! c or an interpretive bias. For example, all the theories I present in the relationship development, in" uence, and media effects sections of the book are proposed by objective scholars. Conversely, most of the theories I cover in the public rhetoric, media and culture, organizational communication, and gender and communication sections are interpretive. You’ll want to see if this is true at your school before you choose the speci! c route you want to take. Finally, theorists in both camps hope you’ll care because each group believes that its brand of work holds promise for improving relationships and society. The scientist is convinced that knowing the truth about how communication works will give us a clearer picture of social reality. The interpreter is equally sure that unearthing communicator motivation and hidden ideologies will improve society by increasing free choice and discouraging unjust practices.

PLOTTING THEORIES ON AN OBJECTIVE-INTERPRETIVE SCALE

In this chapter I’ve introduced four important areas of difference between objec-tive and interpretive communication scholars and the theories they create. A basic appreciation of these distinctions will help you understand where like-minded thinkers are going and why they’ve chosen a particular path to get there. But once you grasp how they differ, it will be helpful for you to realize that not all theorists fall neatly into one category or the other. Many have a foot in both camps. It’s more accurate to picture the objective and interpretive labels as anchor-ing the ends of a continuum, with theorists spread out along the scale.

Objective __________________________________________ Interpretive

Figure 2–2 displays my evaluation of where each theory I feature ! ts on an objective-interpretive continuum. For easier reference to positions on the scale, I’ve numbered the ! ve columns at the bottom of the chart. In placing a theory, I’ve tried to factor in choices the theorists have made about ways of knowing, human nature, what they value most, and the purpose of theory. I’ve consulted a number of scholars in the ! eld to get their “read” on appropriate placements. They didn’t always agree, but in every case the discussion has sharpened my understanding of theory and the issues to be considered in the process of creating one. What I learned is re" ected in the chapters ahead.


22 OVERVIEW

Interpersonal CommunicationSymbolic Interactionism

Coordinated Management of MeaningExpectancy Violations Theory

ConstructivismSocial Penetration Theory

Uncertainty Reduction TheorySocial Information Processing Theory

Relational DialecticsThe Interactional View

Communication Privacy ManagementSocial Judgment Theory

Elaboration Likelihood ModelCognitive Dissonance Theory

Group and Public CommunicationFunctional Perspective on Group Decision Making

Symbolic Convergence TheoryCultural Approach

Critical Theory of Communication ApproachThe Rhetoric

DramatismNarrative Paradigm

Mass CommunicationMedia Ecology

SemioticsCultural Studies

Uses and GratificationsCultivation Theory

Agenda-Setting Theory

Cultural ContextCommunication Accommodation Theory

Face-Negotiation TheorySpeech Codes Theory

Genderlect StylesStandpoint Theory

Muted Group Theory

Objective Interpretive

••••

•••

•

•

•

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

••

••

••

•

••

••

•

•1 2 3 4 5

FIGURE 2–2 Classi! cation of Communication Theories According to Objective/Interpretive Worldview

Of course, the position of each dot won’t make much sense to you until you’ve read about the theory. But by looking at the pattern of distribution you can see that roughly half of the theories have an objective orientation, while the other half re" ect an interpretive commitment. This 50–50 split matches the mix of scholarship I see in our ! eld. When talking about relationships among the theories and the common assumptions made by a group of theorists, your instruc-tor may frequently refer back to this chart. So for easy reference, I’ve reproduced the appropriate “slice” of the chart on the ! rst page of each chapter. Now that you have an idea of the differences between objective and interpre-tive theories, you may wonder whether some of these theories are better than



1. Compare Glenn Sparks’ and Marty Medhurst’s approaches to the Master-Card commercial. Which analysis makes the most sense to you? Why? 2. How do scientists and interpretive scholars differ in their answers to the question What is truth? Which perspective do you ! nd more satisfying? 3. How do you account for the wide-ranging diversity among types of interpre-tive theories (rhetorical, critical, humanistic, postmodern, etc.) as compared to the relative uniformity of objective theories? 4. Think of the communication classes you’ve taken. Did an objective or interpre-tive orientation undergird each course? Was this due more to the nature of the subject matter or to the professor’s point of view?

QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS

A SECOND LOOK Recommended resource: James A. Anderson and Geoffrey Baym, “Philosophies and Philosophic Issues in Communication 1995–2004,” Journal of Communication, Vol. 54, 2004, pp. 589–615.

Metatheoretical overview: James A. Anderson, Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations, Guilford, New York, 1996, pp. 13–77.

Metatheory: Robert T. Craig, “Metatheory,” in Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2009, pp. 657–661.

Contemporary scienti! c scholarship: Charles Berger, Michael Roloff, and David Roskos-Ewoldsen (eds.), Handbook of Communication Science, 2nd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2010.

Contemporary rhetorical scholarship: Sonja Foss, Karen Foss, and Robert Trapp, Contem-porary Perspectives on Rhetoric, 3 rd ed., Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL, 2000.

Defense of empirical scholarship: Robert Bostrom and Lewis Donohew, “The Case for Empiricism: Clarifying Fundamental Issues in Communication Theory,” Communication Monographs, Vol. 59, 1992, pp. 109–129.

Defense of interpretive scholarship: Arthur Bochner, “Perspectives on Inquiry II: Theories and Stories,” in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 2 nd ed., Mark Knapp and Gerald Miller (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994, pp. 21–41.

Scienti! c research: Glenn Sparks, Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview, 3 rd ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2009.

Rhetorical analysis: Martin J. Medhurst, “Mitt Romney, ‘Faith in America,’ and the Dance of Religion and Politics in American Culture,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Vol. 12, 2009, pp. 195–221.

Critical approach to theory: Stanley Deetz, “The Role of Communication Studies,” Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization, State University of New York, Albany, NY, 1992, pp. 65–90.

Research methods: Lawrence R. Frey, Carl H. Botan, and Gary L. Kreps, Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods, 2 nd ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, 2000.

others. I think so. Chapter 3, “Weighing the Words,” offers a set of six standards you can use to judge the quality of objective theories, and a half dozen alternative criteria to discern the worth of interpretive theories. By applying the appropriate criteria, you can see if you agree with my evaluations.


24 OVERVIEW

Bridging science and interpretation: Charles Pavitt, “Answering Questions Requesting Scienti! c Explanations for Communication,” Communication Theory, Vol. 10, 2000, pp. 379–404.

Relationship between theory and research: Robert Bostrom, “Theories, Data and Com-munication Research,” Communication Monographs, Vol. 70, 2003, pp. 275–294.

For a historical perspective on the place of objective and interpretive theory in the ! eld of communication, click on Theory Resources,

then Archive, and select Talk about Communication at www.a! rstlook.com.


talk about theory - wikispaces · talk about theory i ... kenneth burke’s theory of dramatism...

Documents