Defining Communication

Hundreds of definitions of communication abound in literature. The Internet alone hosts myriads of definitions that vary from defining communication as a mere tool to communication as a meaning-making process. In 1970s, approximately three decades ago, Frank Dance was able to document over 100 definitions of communication. Since then, more definitions have emerged not just in the West but even in the East. And yet, despite these multitude definitions, COMMUNICATION is one word that even communication scholars are having difficulty defining. As Littlejohn put it "the word communication is abstract, and like all words, possesses multiple meanings."

I believe that finding a common and unified definition of communication is futile. People have different cultures and experiences. But what is important is to define communication by looking into the tradition, paradigm, context, and situation it is being used for. Thus, it is better to define communication in terms of its utility rather than in terms of its correctness. For the purpose of this discourse, I would define communication in this way:

A process of creating and sharing information and knowledge within, between, or among individuals to arrive at a shared meaning and mutual understanding or to achieve the desired change that takes into account the interests, needs and capacities of all concerned.

This definition is quite limited and does not cover all aspects of communication. But let me emphasize the basic dimensions, concepts or postulates of communication. The concepts below are considered by many communication scholars as the point of convergence when defining communication as a process:

• Communication is dynamic, it is ever-changing with no clear beginning and ending.
• Communication is systemic, it consists of interdependent parts that interact continuously and affect one another.
• Communication interacts through symbols and how we select and organize them affects how other interprets our messages.
  
• Communication is grounded in perspective, it is contextual, and meaning is personally constructed, meanings are in people, not in words.
  

Given that communication is always context driven, as a DEVCOM scholar my definition of communication is anchored in the context of DEVCOM. The definition I gave above highlighted two functions:

• arriving at a shared meaning or mutual understanding; and
• achieving a desired change.
  

It is important to note that how we communicate is aligned to the purpose and goals of our developmental undertakings as DEVCOM scholars and practitioners. It definitely follows that the purpose of development dictates how we should communicate.

As DEVCOM scholars, when we communicate we become catalysts for change. We communicate with the intent not only to inform but to influence the behavior of our audience, how they think, feel, and act. In DEVCOM, we are purposive, we communicate to achieve the desired outcome and change. We are also results-oriented when we communicate. We evaluate the impact we have madel; if indeed we have made one, or if we have achieved or reached our purpose and goals.

Communication in DEVCOM also involves participation of the people. Participation may mean differently for many people, that is why it is important for people in communication act to share the meaning to achieve mutual understanding. When we communicate for development, we consciously or unconsciously assign values to the messages we communicate. So it is important to make these values and biases known and clearly understood when we communicate.