More on Theory

Importance of theory

Theories are the academic foundation of every discipline; they are important because they are the means by which we codify and organize what we know. They allow us -- scholars, teachers, and students -- to transform information into knowledge. We do not see the world as separate bits of data. Rather, we organize, categorize, and synthesize information, seeking patterns and discovering connections among the data in our worlds. A starting point, then, to understanding any field is its organized knowledge -- or theories -- developed by generations of previous scholars.

Besides organizing data, theories also focus our attention on important variables and relationships. Theories function as guidebooks that help us understand, explain, interpret, judge, and act into, in this, the communication happening around us. They help us clarify what we are observing, which helps us understand relationships among various parts and helps us better interpret and evaluate what is going on around us. This makes theories valuable observational aids, indicating not only what to observe but how to observe, as well as enabling us to make predictions about outcomes and effects in the data.

Theoretical speculation can serve a heuristic function, guiding series of studies that fill in gaps in our knowledge about some communication phenomenon. Theories help us to grow and communicate knowledge. As investigators publish their theoretical observations and speculations, the theories function to encourage discussion, debate and criticism.

Theories contribute to evaluation as well. They can address values and enable us to judge the effectiveness and propriety of certain behaviors. Theories also provide a way to challenge existing cultural life and to genera new ways of living.


Defining Theory

In its broadest term, a theory is any organized set of concepts, explanations, and principles of some aspects of human experience. All theories are abstractions. They always reduce experience to set of categories and as a result always leave something out. But theories are not just intellectual abstraction; they are ways of thinking and talking that arise from different interests, and they are useful for addressing different kinds of practical problems.

Theories are also human constructions. A theory is a way of seeing and thinking about the world. As such it is better seen as the 'lens' one uses in observation than as a 'mirror' of nature. Since theories are constructions, questioning a theory's usefulness is wiser than questioning its truthfulness. Any given truth can be represented in a variety of ways, depending on the theorist's orientation.

Theories are intimately tied to action. How we think --- our theories -- guide how we act; and how we act -- our practices -- guide how we think. In the world of scholarship, formal theories and intellectual practices are inseparable.

Basic Elements of Theory

There are four elements of theory:

1) Philosophical assumptions. The assumptions to which a theorist subscribes determine determine how a particular theory will play out. Knowing the assumptions behind a theory, then is the first step to understanding any given theory. Philosophical assumptions are often divided intor three major types: assumptions about epistemology, or questions of knowledge; assumptions about ontology or questions of existence, and assumptions about axiology or questions of value.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge, or how people know what they claim they know. The following questions are among the most common questions of epistemological concern to communication scholars:

To what extent can knowledge exist before experience? Many believe that all knowledge arises from experience. We observe the world and thereby come to know about it. Yet is there something in our basic nature that provides a kind of knowledge even before we experience the world?

To what extent can knowledge be certain? Does knowledge exists in the world as an absolute, there for the taking by whoever can discover it? Or is knowledge relative and changing? The debate over this issue has persisted for hundreds of years among philosophers, and communication theorists position themselves in various places on this continuum as well.

By what process does knowledge arise? This question is at the heart of epistemology because the kind of process selected for discovering knowledge determines the kind of knowledge that can develop from that process. There are at least four positions on the issue. Rationalism suggests that knowledge arises out of sheer power of the human mind to know the truth. This position places ultimate faith in human reasoning to ascertain truth. Empiricism states that knowledge arises in perception. We experience the world and literally "see" what is going on. Constructivism holds that people create knowledge in order to function pragmatically in the world and that they project themselves into what they experience. Constructivists believe that phenomena in the world can be fruitfully understood many different ways and that knowledge is what the person has made of the world. Finally, taking constructivism one step further, social constructionism teaches that knowledge is a product of symbolic interaction within social groups. In other words, reality is socially constructed and a product of group and cultural life.

Is knowledge best conceived in parts or wholes? Those who take a gestalt approach are holistic, they believe that phenomena are highly interrelated and operate as a system. Analyst, on the other hand, believe that knowledge consists of understanding how parts operate separately.

To what extent is knowledge explicit? Many philosophers and scholars believe that you cannot know something unless you can state it. Within this view, knowledge is that which explicitly be articulated. Others claim that much of knowledge is hidden or tacit.

Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being. Epistemology and ontology, then go hand in hand because our ideas about knowledge depend in large part on our ideas about being the one known about. In communication, ontology centers on the nature of human social interaction because being is intricately intertwined with issues of communication.

Four issues are important in ontology. First, to what extent do humans make real choices? On the one side of the issue are the determinists who state that behavior is caused by a multitude of prior conditions that largely determine human behavior. Humans, according to this view, are basically reactive and passive. On the other side of the debate are the pragmatists, who claim that people plan their behavior to meet future goals. This group sees people as active, decision-making beings who affect their own destinies. Middle positions also exist, suggesting either that people make choices within a restricted range or that some behaviros are determined whereas others are a matter of free will.

A second ontological issue is whether human behavior is best understood in terms of states or traits. The question deals with whether there are fairl stable dimensions -- traits -- or more temporarily conditions affecting people, called states. The state view argues that humans are dynamic and go through numerous states in the course of a day, year, and lifetime. The trait view believes that poeple are mostly predictable because they displya more or less consistent characteristics across time. Traits, then, do not change easisly, and in this view, humans are seen as basically static. There is of course, an in-between position, and many theoriests believe that both traits and staets characterize human behavior.

Is human experience primarily individual or social? Those scholars who attend to the individual focus on particular behaviors. The unit of analysis is the individual psyche. Many other social scientists however, focus on social life as the primary unit of analysis. These scholars believe that humans cannot be understood apart form their relationship with others in groups and cultures.

To what extent is communication contextual? Some philosophers believe that human life and action are best understood by looking at universal factors; others believe that behavior is richly contextual and cannot be generalized beyond the immediate situation. In communication, the middle ground is a strong stance, with scholars believing that behavior is affected by both general and situational factors.

Axiology. Branch of philosophy concerned with studying values. For the communication scholar, there axiological issues are especially important/

Can theory be value free? For classical science, theories and research are value free, that scholarship is neutral, and that what the scholar attempts to do is to uncover the facts as they are. Another position is that science is not value free because the researcher's work is always guided by preferences about what to study, how to conduct inquiry, and the like.

A related value issue, To what extent does the process of inquiry itself affect what is being seen? Traditional scientific viewpoint is that scientists must observe carefully without interference so that accuracy can be achieved. On the other side, critics maintain that theory and knowledge themselves affect the course of human life.

Should scholarship be designed to achieve change or to reveal knowledge without intervention? To what extent should scholarship attempt to achieve social change? Should scholars remain objective, or should they make conscious efforts to help society change in a positive ways? Many believe that the proper role of the scholar is just to produce knowledge. Other scholars believe that responsible scholarship involves an obligation to promote positive change.

Overall then, two general positions reside in these axiological issues. On the one hand, some scholars seek objectivity and knowledge that they believe is largely value free. On the other side is value-conscious scholarship in whihc researchers recognize the importance of values to reserach and theory, are careful to acknowledge their particular standpoint, and make a concerted effort to direct those values in positiv ways.

2) The second element of a theory is its concepts or categories. Things are grouped into conceptual categories according to observed qualities. In our everyday world, some things are considered to be trees, some houses, some cars. Humans are by nature conceptual beings.

Concepts -- tersm and definitions -- tell us what the theorist is looking at and what is considered important. To determine concepts, the communication theorist observes many variables in human interaction and classifies and lables them according to perceived patters. The result -- and a goal of theory -- is to formulate and articulate a set of labeled concepts. Those theories that stop at the conceptual level -- theories in which the goal is to provide a list of categories for something without explaining how they relate to one another -- are known as taxonomies.

3) Explanations. Element of theory that identifies regularities or patterns in the relationships among variables. Answers the question why?

4) Principles. A principle is a guidelines that enables you to to iterpret an event, make judgements about what is happening, and then decide how to act in the situation.

All About Theory

One of the reasons I took my PhD is to strengthen my theoretical foundation and competency in conducting research. I wanted to have a deeper understanding and comprehension of advanced communication theories and how these theories can be applied in the development of our country in relation to the overall global development. I also want to to integrate the conceptual and theoretical foundation of development communication to open and distance learning.

So looking back this past two years, what have I learned so far about theories?

According to Craig, to study communication theory means to become actively engaged in the project of theorizing communication. Theorizing is a formalized extension of everyday sense-making and problem solving. It begins with a heightened awareness of our own communication experiences and expands that awareness to engage with communication problems and practices in the social world.

According to Littlejohn, at the heart of theory construction is the process of inquiry. Inquiry is the systematic study of experience that leads to understanding, knowledge and theory. There are three stages in the process of systematic inquiry:

1) Asking questions. Questions can be of various types. Questions of definition call for concepts as asnwers, seeking to clarify what is observed or inferred: What is it? What will we call it? Questions of fact ask about properties and relations in what is observed: What does it consist of? How does it relate to other things? Questions of value probe aesthetic, pragmatic, and ethical qualities of the observed: Is it beautiful? Is it effective? Is it good?
2) Observation. Looking for answers by observing the phenomenon under investigation. Methods of observation vary significantly from one tradition to another. Some scholars observe by examining records and artifacts, others by personal involvement, others by using instruments and controlled experimentations, and others by interviewing people. Whatever method is used, the investigator employs some planned method for answering the questions.
3) Constructing answers. Attempt to define, describe, and explain -- to make judgments and interpretations about what was observed. This stage is usually referred to as theory.

These stages of inquiry is not linear but rather affects and is affected by one another. Observations often stimulate new questions, and theories are challenged by both observations and questions. Theories lead to new questions, and observations are determined in part by theories.

Methods of inquiry can be grouped into three broad forms of scholarship:

Scientific scholarship. Objectivity, standardization, and replication are important in science because scientists assume that the world has observable form, and they view their task as seeing the world as it is. The world sits in wait of discovery, and the goal of science is to observe and explain the world as accurately as possible. Because of the emphasis on discovering a knowable world, scientific methods are especially well suited to problems of nature.

Humanistic scholarship. Whereas science is associated with objectivity, the humanities are associated with subjectivity. Science aims to standardize observation; the humanities seek creative interpretation. Whereas science is an "out there" activity, the humanities stress what is "in here." Science focuses on the discovered world; the humanities focus on the discovering person. Science seek consensus; the humanities seek alternative interpretations. Humanists often are suspicious of the claim that there is an immutable world to be discovered, and they tend not to separate the knower from the known. Because of its emphasis on the subjective response, humanistic scholarship is especially well suited to problems of art, personal experience, and values.

Social-scientific scholarship. Although many social scientists see this kind of research as an extension of natural science, using methods borrowed from the sciences, social science is actually a very different kind of inquiry. Paradoxically, it includes elements of both science and the humanities but is different from both. In the past, the majority of social scientists believed that scientific methods alone would suffice to uncover the mysteries of human experience, but today many realize that a strong humanistic element is also needed. Communication involves understanding how people behave in creating, exchaning, and interpreting messages. Consequently, communication inquiry makes use of the range of methods from scientific to humanistic.

Developing Theories

First, a scholar or group of scholars becomes curios about a topic. The topic maybe personal, or may be an extension of what he or she has been reading in literature, or provoked by a conversation with mentors or colleagues. Then the results of reading, observing, and thinking -- of scholarly investigation must be shared with others. Ultimately, a scholar's work must go out for peer review.

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.

The 8th Habit

I first read the book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey when I was taking my Masteral program. I remember it was one of the assigned readings in the course Managerial Leadership. I took that course during the First Semester of SY 1997-1998, more than a decade ago. That book was quite a hit during that time so I even bought my own copy. But like any other books assigned to that class, I read the book and forgot it eventually.

I've completely forgotten the existence of that book not until about a few years back when I was doing an inventory of my personal books. I saw the book, browsed the pages and the subtitle in page 23 caught my eye, The Power of a Paradigm. I was in that stage in my life where I was evaluating my own paradigm. I think I've just finished reading The Secret and I was into Wallace Wattles' The Science of Getting Rich. I was so caught up in the abundance mentality that all my decisions, the way I think and talk, and even the writings in my blogs reflected that mentality. So I pulled the book from the shelf and started reading it again. Since then, I've been a fan of Stephen Covey. I even bought two more recent books, Leader in Me and The 8th Habit.

To tell you about the contents of these books will not do justice to Stephen Covey. Reading these books was a personal experience for me. A process that others may not go through even if they read these books over and over again. But for me, the experience was life changing. It was not something that changed me overnight or maybe it would even take years before I would be able to integrate all those concepts into my everyday habit. But the message is very clear, we need to have a paradigm shift. As Albert Eintein said, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." I've been so fixated on changing my personality, attitude, behavior, techniques, etc. that I even bought and read so many quick-fix books. I was so convinced that if I just set my mind on certain things, everything will just follow. I was a believer of the old maxim "Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve." Then after I've read and re-read the 7 Habits, I slowly realized that I was following the Personality Ethic paradigm, and that like millions of people in the world, I was so caught up in a superficial quest of temporarily addressing my own pesonal problems.

As I read and get acquainted with the other books of Stephen Covey, I realized that I'm starting to have a paradigm shift, a new way of thinking, a new lens, a new perspective. In the process, I'm starting to get re-acquainted with my own self. So two years ago, I decided to take charge of my life. I applied for a PhD program and asked permission from my boss to study full time. I slowly integrated the concepts that Dr. Covey was saying into my life. I was tired of blaming the circumstances around me, of being a 'victim', of thinking what if, so I decided to take control of my own life. Initially, I heard comments that my PhD program is not 'appropriate' or suited to my current work. But I did not let myself be affected or be distracted by those comments, I have a freedom to choose... "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In those choices lie our growth and our happiness." According to Dr. Covey, the size of the space in between is largely determined by a person's biological make-up and by his/her upbringing and present circumstances. But the key point is that there is that space, it maybe large for those who grew up in a loving and supporting environment, or it may be small for those with challenging genetic and environmental influences. This framework, I think, answers the crux of the ontological controversy whether or not humans have free will and, if so, how much or what is the scope of that free will.

According to Julia Wood, the ontological assumption of determinism assumes that human behavior is governed by forces beyond individual control, determined by biology and the environment. What we are now are products or inevitable results of our genetic inheritance, environmental influences, or a combination of these two. To quote Sigmund Freud, "Biology is destiny." Freudian psychology postulates that whatever happens to a person when he/she was a child would shape his.her character and personality and will govern his/her entire life. At the other end of the spectrum is the assumption that humans have free will and the freedom to choose. But many people, uninformed by the traditions of this assumption, thought that having free will means to have complete control over their lives. But this is not the case, scholars framed by this assumption believe that free will is still bounded or guided by our cultural background and previous experiences.

Personally, I am guided by this ontological assumption that we human beings have the freedom to choose. It is my belief that we create meanings and interpret our experiences. This belief surfaces my own ontological assumption that there is no single reality or singular interpretation of meaning. The way I interpret a phenomenon may be different from the interpretations of other people. My interpretation is framed by my own experiences. This is what Dr. Covey was saying about freedom to choose -- that our genetic inheritance and our own circumstances do not determine how we should react as individuals. Even with just a small space of freedom, we can choose to swim upstream against powerful genetic, social and cultural currents and find our freedom expanding.

Going back to my personal choice to pursue a PhD in Development Communication (DEVCOM) instead of a program that is directly related to management (considering that my Masters is in Management and I belong to the Faculty of Management and Development Studies) , I believe that I have expanded that freedom by exercising my own choice. So why DEVCOM, aside from the fact that my bachelors degree is in DEVCOM?

This choice was heavily influenced by my new paradigm, a new thinking that sees people not as mere objects to be controlled or managed but as social beings that should be inspired. I found myself, thinking, reflecting and contemplating how genuine change can be achieved. The change that Dr. Covey was talking about when he wrote the 7 Habits, a change that is principle-centered, character-based, "inside-out" approach. I became increasingly disturbed by how societal problems have continued to escalate at an alarming rate. I've started asking myself, am I not part of this society? Shouldn't I have a voice in this society that I live in? Aside from this heightened self-awareness, I've come to realized that I'm leaving in an era where a significant shift in history is still happening. We are now in the Information/Knowledge Worker age and going towards the Age of Wisdom. As Peter Drucker, one of the greatest management guru, put it: "In a few hundred years, when the history of our time is written from a long-term perspective, it is likely that the most important event those historians will see is not technology, not the Internet, not e-commerce. It is an unprecedented change in the human condition. For the first time -- literally -- substantial and rapidly growing numbers of people have choices. For the first time, they will have to manage themselves. And society is totally unprepared for it."

Indeed, our society is not prepared to handle the massive changes that are happening right now. The Information age has rendered many skills and techniques irrelevant. Many people are still using the Industrial age paradigm in dealing with the challenges of this new age. In the field of management, we still treat people as if they are things to be controlled and managed. Dr. Covey posed the question, "what's the direct connection between controlling 'thing' paradigm that dominates today's workplace and the inability of managers and organizations to inspire their people to volunteer their highest talents and contributions?" He provided a very simple answer... people make choices. When confronted with a difficult situation at work, people decide how they would react. They will be the ones to decide how much of their time they would devote to their work depending on how they are treated. Dr. Covey wrote the 8th Habit as a response to this challenge. He offered a two-part solution -- Find your voice and Inspire others to find theirs. Dr. Covey summarized the first solution, finding your voice, in the story of Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank - a pioneering organization that extends microcredit to the poorest of the poor in Bangladesh . How did he find his voice? First, he sensed a need to help the poor people. The voice of conscience inspired him to take action. Since his talent matched the need, he disciplined his talent to provide a solution. Then he also tapped his passion. Out of that need grew a vision. This vision has become an inspiration for others to find their voices as well. Thus, inspiring others to find their voice is a leadership challenge. By inspiring others to find their voices, you are communicating to them to the message to lead themselves. The way Dr. Covey defined leadership in his book is at its most elemental and practical level. "Leadership is communicating to people their worth and potential so clearly that they come to see it themselves."

For me, this is the best definition of leadership that captures its essentiality and practicality. This definition captures DEVCOM's ultimate goal of bringing out the best in people. From the words of Nora Quebral, " Development Communication is the art and science of human communication linked to a society's planned transformation from a state of poverty to one of dynamic socio-economic growth that makes for greater equity and the larger unfolding of individual potential."

Covey's definition of leadership is embodied in Gandhi's quote "We must become the change we seek in the world." I believe that in finding one's own voice, expressing it, and inspiring others to find theirs is what DEVCOM is really all about. It's becoming a leader of oneself and then leading others to lead themselves as well "from poverty to a dynamic state of socio-economic growth."

How did the study of communication got started?

World War II had a tremendous impact on the field of communication since it brought to the United States such immigrant scholars from Europe as Kurt Lewin, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and Theodor Adorno; it attracted US scholars like Carl I. Hovland and Harold D. Laswell to communication research; and it connected these scholars who were to launch the field of communication study into a dense network. Thus an invisible college of communication scholars came together in Washinton, D.C. They met in formal conferences and informally in carpools, on military bases, and in federal government offices. Communication was considered crucial in informing the American public about the nation’s war-time goals, and the details of food and gas rationing and other war-related concerns.

So in 1943, when Dr. Wilbur Schramm returned to Iowa from his wartime duties in Washington D.C., he had a vision to found the first PhD program in mass communication and the first communication research. He organized the PhD program while he was director of the Iowa Journalism school. Schramm was influenced by those scholars who were conducting communication research connected with World War II. This brought together scholars from psychology, sociology, and political science to form the new field of communication. Wilbur Schramm was considered to be the founder of communication study and is the central figure in its history.

Why do we need to study communication?

Most of our waking hours are spent communicating than doing anything else. We think, we talk to ourselves, we converse with other people, we listen to radio, we watch TV, we surf the Internet, write emails, participate in fora, etc. As the Palo Alto group said in their famous dictum, “One cannot NOT communicate.”

This dictum is indeed quite true. Communication is central to all humans. All aspects of our daily lives are affected by communication. But since communication has become part of our daily activities and routine, most people have taken communication for granted. Many people, especially those in the hard sciences, regard communication as a trivial phenomenon and find it irrelevant to study communication systematically.

But now that we are living in the information/knowledge era, communication has found its rightful place and has gained immense popularity. With globalization and the fast changing technology, the field of communication has been redesigned and redefined. Communication has become more essential than ever.

Communication has many functions in our daily lives: we need communication for socialization; to send out information; to educate people; to persuade someone; and for entertainment.

George Herbert Mead (1934) theorized that humans are talked into humanity. He meant that human beings gain personal identity through communicating with others. Mead theorized that we first see ourselves through the eyes of others, so their messages are extremely important in forming the foundations of self-concepts.

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.

Communication as a discipline

What constitutes a discipline? Is communication a discipline?

Webster's defines discipline as a branch of knowledge. As a body of knowledge, discipline has an established set of concepts and facts. It is dynamic, constructed and tested through time and space by academics and scholars. According to Bridges (2004), a discipline means that "enquiry was conducted in accordance with some established rules and procedures which provided the basis for among other things distinguishing truths from falsity, warranted from unwarranted beliefs."

According to Flor (2007), a discipline has three aspects: theory, policy and practice. All these aspects are products of research and inquiry.

Thus, a discipline is constituted through research. A discipline is an established field of inquiry. It has gone through the rigors of research and has established a tradition of scholarly work. A discipline must have scholars, both academics and practitioners, who formally communicate relevant knowledge through publications and other scholarly work.

Given this requirements of discipline, it can be concluded that communication is definitely a discipline. Over the years, communication as a discipline has gone through various paragdimatic shifts. Communication scholars continue to conduct research to contribute to this body of knowledge.

References

David, Bridges (2004) The Disciplines and Discipline of Educational Research. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Manchester Metropolitan University

Flor, Alexander (2007) Development Communication Praxis. University of the Philippines Open University

My Personal Bubble

Filipinos are touchy people. We love to hug, to hold hands, or just to put our arms around our family and friends. This is our way of telling our loved ones how much we love them, how much we care for them, and that we appreciate their presence in our lives.

Touch sometimes replaces talk. This is especially true to Filipino families wherein the family culture itself represses talk and dialogue. As a result, emotions are repressed and are often shown through touch.

But what if this culture of touch invades someone else's personal space?

This concern can be addressed by understanding the concept of proxemics. Proxemics refers to the type of non-verbal communication that is concerned with the physical space that an individual builds between himself and the person he/she is interacting with. People's need for 'personal space' or what is sometimes referred to as 'personal bubble' is a normal behavior of human beings. The amount of space needed or what a person perceives belongs to him/her depends on social norms, situational factors, personality characteristics, and level of familiarity. Distance between two persons during a casual conversation usually varies between 18 inches to four feet. But when a person talks before a crowd, the usual distance is around 10 to 12 feet.