Communication Theory as a Field

In a seminal article by Robert Craig (1999), he argues that communication theory has not yet emerged as a coherent field of study. Although there are a number of communication theories, there is no consensus on communication theory as a field. Rather than addressing a field of theory, communication scholars seem to operate in separate domains. It is very seldom that communication theorists refer to the works of other scholars on communication theory. It is as if they do not acknowledge each others' works. In the words of Craig, "There are no common goals, that unite them, no contentious issues that divide them. For the most part, they simply ignore each other." Craig attributed this incoherence to the multi-disciplinary origins of communication and the way scholars have misused fragments of other disciplines into its own culture.

According to Craig, to remedy this incoherence does not mean to have grand unified theory of communication. A unified theory will never be possible since no active field of inquiry has a fully unified thoery. To have a perfectly coherent field would mean a static and dead field. For Craig, the potential of communication theory as a field can best be realized by a dialogical-dialectical coherence: "a common awareness of certain complementarities and tensions among different types of communication theory, so it is commonly understood that these different types of theory cannot legitimately develop in total isolation from each other but must engage each other in argument." In other words, the goal is to find a different kind of coherence based on a common understanding of the complementarities and tensions of these theories and a commitment to manage these tensions through dialogue.

As a basis for dialogical-dialectical coherence, Craig proposed a tentative theoretical matrix constructed on the basis of two key principles:

1) The constitutive model of communication as metamodel. A constitutive model is the opposite of a transmission or informational model of communication. According to Craig, this model "conceptualizes communication as a constitutive porcess that produces and reproduces meaning." Communication is the primary social process that constitutes our common world. According to Craig, communication is "not a secondary phenomenon that can be explained by antecedent psychological , sociological, cultural or economic factors; rather communication itself is the primary process that explains all these factors." Thus, communication is the primary process by which human life is experienced; communication constitutes reality.

For practical purposes, however, Craig does not reject other models of communication, such as the transmission model. He argues it would not be a fair fight considering that "the transmission model, as usually presented is scarcely more than a straw figure set-up to represent a simplistic view." Also, a transmission view of communication does resonate in many practical settings such that we often think of communication as the sending and receiving of information rather than as creation and recreation of social realities. Examples are found in our daily lives: we talk about "sending a person a message" or opening our inbox. These are clearly oriented toward transmission. Thus, from a practical point of view, transmission view should not be totally rejected. Craig further argues that simply contrasting these two models fails to account for the rich variety of ways in which scholars have often thought about the communication process. Craig proposes that we recast the constitutive view of communication as a "metamodel" or as an overarching ways of thinking about communication theory, rather than as a definition of communication.

2) Communication theory as metadiscourse. Craig envisions communication theory as an open field of discourse engaged with the problems of communication as a social practice, a theoretical metadiscourse that emerges from, extends, and informs practical discourse. Craig further proposed to reconstruct communication theory as a theoretical metadiscourse engaged in dialogue with the practical metadiscourse of everyday life.