In our course CED 211, one of the objectives stated in our syllabus is for us to be able to identify and analyze the contribution of theories and principles of learning. This objective clearly calls for a clear comprehension of the theories and principles of learning as well as a careful analysis or breaking down of these different theories and principles.
Theorists disagree about how to define the word learning. Some theorists propose a definition such as this one: Learning is a relatively permanent change in behavior due to experience. Others propose a definition along these lines: Learning is a relatively permanent change in mental association due to experience.
To analyze these two definitions, require a comparison and contrast of their similarities and differences.
Both definitions are similar because they both describe learning as a relatively permanent change -- something that lasts for a period of time. Both shows that change is due to experience. It results from specific experiences that students have had.
They are also different because the first one describes learning as a change in behavior, the second one as a change in mental associations.
This difference shows the opposing view on learning and represents the different learning theories adhered to and practiced by educators. Although these theories are like night and day when it comes to their differences, they are also like night and day when it comes to their relationship with one another. They complement one another.
Behaviorism, cognitive and social cognitive theory encompass different views on learning.
So let us take a look at each theory or rather family of theories and see how these theories are used by educators.
Behavioral Learning Theory
According to this theory, learning occurs when environmental stimuli produce a relatively permanent and observable change in a learner's response or behavior. Stimuli are observable environmental event that has the potential to exert control over a behavioral response. A response is an overt behavior by a learner. For the behaviorists, response and behavior should be observable.
Let me discuss basic concepts about the types of stimuli:
1) Eliciting stimuli - are observable environmental stimuli that comes immediately before a response and that automatically elicit or produce that response. An example is a hand towards another person's face (stimulus) and the other person moves his/her head or put his/her hand to protect his/her face (response).
2) Consequences - a stimulus that occurs immediately after a response and has the effect of making a response more or less likely to occur again. This is defined in terms of effect on the response. To qualify as a consequences, a stimulus must either increase or decrease the likelihood of response.
3) Antecedents - stimulus that precedes a response and cues learners to respond in a certain ways if they want to earn reinforcement or avoid punishment. Example is when a teacher gets very quiet when her students are noisy. Then the students quiet down and pay attention if they want reinforcement or avoid punishment.
Together, Antecedents, Behavior (response), and Consequences are ABCs of learning. When you use the ABCs to understand your student's behavior, your are looking for the antecedents that cue a behavior and the consequences that affect the livelihood of a behavior occurring again.
Under the behavioral learning theories, there are three main theories: Classical Conditioning by Ivan Pavlov, Operant Conditioning by Burrhus Frederick Skinner, and Contiguity Learning Theory by Edwin Guthrie.
Both Contiguity Learning and Classical Conditioning focus on the role of eliciting stimulus in learning while in Operant Conditioning, the focus are on the role of antecedents and consequences to explain learning.
Contiguity Learning (Edwin R. Guthrie). Learning occurs when an eliciting stimulus and response become connected because they have occurred together. As a result of this connection, when the eliciting stimulus occurs in the future, the connected response tend to occur. Example of this is when students learn to respond to fire alarms by practicing certain response during fire drills. Students may learn their math facts by producing correct response to the eliciting stimulus of a flash card or worksheet. Practicing them together connects the problem (stimulus) and answer (response).
Contiguity learning often occurs in classroom through drill and practice activities. This has been criticized because they tend to emphasize the learning of low-level skills at the expense of meaningful, conceptual understanding.
Classical Conditioning (Ivan Pavlov). Involves situation in which two stimuli become associated, and as a result, they both now elicit similar response. Pavlov and colleagues noted that the dogs in the laboratory start salivating to environmental stimuli other than food. So they began pairing the presentation of food with a second stimulus such as bell, light, buzzer. They found that if food was presented with one of these other stimuli, the two stimuli become associated and they then both elicited salivation.
Operant Conditioning (Burrhus Frederick Skinner; has its historical roots in empiricism and ideas of E.L. Thorndike and J.B. Watson). In operant conditioning, the response comes first followed by a reinforcing consequence. The reinforcing consequence in actually a stimulus. (R - S).
There are three conditions for operation conditioning to occur:
- The individual must make a response. To be reinforced -- to learn-- the learner must first make a reponse. Behaviorists belive that little is accomplished by having students sit quietly and listen passively to their teacher. Instead, students are more likely to learn when they are making active, overt responses in the classroom. For example, Pamela will learn her cursive letters most easily by writing them.
Just to add on Thorndike, from his theory on instrumental conditioning, he specified three conditions that maximizes learning:
- Law of effect - stated that the likely recurrence of a response is generally governed by its consequences or effect generally in the form or reward or punishment.
- Law of recency - stated that the most recent response is likely to govern the recurrence
- Law of exercise - stated that the stimulus and response associations are strengthened through repetition.
The basic assumptions of behaviorism are:
- People's behaviors are largely the result of their experiences with environmental stimuli. Many behaviorists believe that, with the exception of a few simple reflexes, a person is born as a "blank state" or tabula rasa, with no inherited tendency to behave one way or another. Over the years, the environment "writes" on this slate, slowly molding, or conditioning, the individual into an adult who has unique characteristics and ways of behaving.
- Learning can be described in terms of relationships among observable events -- that is, relationships among stimuli and responses. Behaviorists have traditionally believed that the processes that occur inside a person (thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, etc) cannot be observed and so cannot be studied scientifically. Psychological inquiry should instead focus on things that can be observed and studied objectively; more specifically, it should focus on the responses that learners make and the environmental stimuli that bring those responses about.
- Learning involves a behavior change. From a behaviorist perspective, learning itself should be defined as something that can be observed and documented; in other words, it should be defined as a change in behavior.
- Learning is most likely to take place when stimuli and responses occur close together in time.
- Many species of animals, including humans, learn in similar ways. Behaviorists assume that many species share similar learning processes; hence, they apply the learning principles that they derive from observing one species to their understanding of how may other species (including humans) learn.
Principles of Learning
- Learning is measurable and observable.
- Learning complicate behaviors occurs gradually and step-by-step.
- Learning results from the effects of stimuli on responses.
Classroom Implications
- Teachers and educators must keep in mind the very significant effect that students' past and present environments are likely to have on the behaviors they exhibit. So by changing the environmental events that our students experience, we may also be able to change their behaviors.
- Provides a useful explanations for how students acquire important emotional responses and attitudes
- Students can learn to associate an initially neutral stimuli with stimuli that already elicit strong emotions. Eventually, they respond to those school stimuli with the same emotions.
- Classical conditioning can also explain how we implicitly learn certain attitudes
- From a classical conditioning perspective, if people or items are paired with other stimuli that produce positive or negative emotional response, those people or items eventually can produce the same emotional response.
- Serves as a reminder to teacher that they can unintentionally produce attitudes or emotional associations for school that they do no want their students to learn.
About Me
- silenttalk
- We live in a world of paradox, where there is both peace and tension, where silence and dialogue happen simultaneously. This is the world I know, the world that makes sense to me, the world that never ceases to amaze me.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
A Sketch of the Field: Seven Traditions
Communication theories have traditionally been classified by disciplinary origin (e.g. psychology, sociology, rhetoric), level of organization (e.g. interpersonal, organizational, mass), type of explanation (e.g. trait, cognitive, system-theoretic), or underlying epistemology (e.g. empiricist, interpretive, critical).
By contrast, Craig proposed to divide the field accordingly to underlying conceptions of communicative practice. A startling effect of this shift in perspective in that communication theories no longer bypass each other in their different paradigms or on their different levels. Communication theories suddenly now have something to agree and disagree about -- and that "something" is communication, not epistemology.
The Rhetoric Tradition. This tradition theorize communication as a practical art of discourse or the basic art and practice of human communication. Originally concerned with persuasion, rhetoric was the art of constructing arguments and speechmaking. The focus has broadened to encompass all of the ways humans use symbols to affect those around them and to construct the worlds in which they live. Central to the rhetoric tradition are the five canons of rhetoric -- invention, arrangement, style, delivery and memory. With the evolution of rhetoric, these five canons have undergone a similar expansion. Invention now refers to conceptualization -- the process through which we assign meaning to data through interpretation, an acknowledgment of the fact that we do not simply discover what exist but create it through the interpretive categories we use. Arrangement is the process of organizing symbols -- arranging information in the light of the relationships among the people, symbols, and context involved. Style concerns all of the considerations involved in the presentation of those symbols, form choice of symbol system to the meanings we give those symbols, as well as all symbolic behavior from words and actions to clothing and furniture. Delivery has become the embodiment of symbols in some physical form, encompassing the range of options form nonverbals to talk to writing to mediated messages. Memory, no longer refers to simple memorization of speeches but to larger reservoirs of cultural memory as well as to processes of perception that affect how we retain and process information.
The Semiotic Tradition. Semiotics is the study of sign. This tradition includes a host of theories about how signs come to represent objects, ideas, states, situations, feelings, and conditions outside of themselves. Sign, as the basic concept that unifies this tradition, is defined as the stimulus designating something other than itself. Within semiotics, one will encounter the terms sign and symbols. Some theorists, like Peirce classifies symbol as a type of sign. Peirce defined semiosis as a relationship among a sign, an object and a meaning. Most semiotic thinking involves the basic idea of the triad of meaning, which asserts that meaning arises from relationship among three things -- the object (or referent e.g. the animal dog), the person (or interpreter) and the sign (the word). All three elements form the irreducible triad depicted in the well-known model of C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards. Here a symbol and object (the referent) are connected through the interpretation in the mind of the person. The relationship between the symbol and the referent is arbitrary. Symbols are connected to referents only by indirect, agreed-on conventions of how to use words. Semiotics is often divided into three areas of study -- semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics. Semantics addresses how signs relate to their referents or what sign stands for. Whenever we ask the question"What does a sign represent?" we are in the realm of semantics. Dictionaries, for example are semantic reference books; they tell us what words mean, or what they represent. As a basic tenet of semiotics, representation is always mediated by the conscious interpretation of the person, and any interpretation of meaning for a sing will change from situation to situation. A more refined semantic question, then is, "What meaning does a sign bring to the mind of a person within a situation." The second area of study is syntactics, or the study of relationships among signs. Semiotics rests on the belief that signs are always understood in relation with other signs. Indeed, a dictionary is nothing more than a catalogue of the relationship fo one sign to other signs. In general, we think of syntactics as the rules by which people combine signs into complex systems of meaings. When we move from a single word (dog) to a sentence (The cute dog licked my hand), we are dealing with syntax or grammar. Pragmatics, the third major semiotic study, looks at how signs make a difference in people's lives or the practical use and effects of sings. From a semiotic perspective, we must have some kind of common understanding not just of individual words but of grammar, society and culture in order for communication to take place. People can communicate if they share meanings.
The Phenomenological Tradition. This tradition concentrates on the conscious experience of the person. Theorists in this tradition assume that people actively interpret their experience and come to understand the world by personal experience with it. The term phenomenon refers to the appearance of an object, event or condition in your perception. Stanley Deetz summarizes three basic principles of phenomenology. First, knowledge is conscious. Knowledge is not inferred from experience but is found directly in conscious experience. Second, the meaning of a thing consists of the potential of that things in one's life. In other words, how you relate to an object determines its meaning for you. For example, you will take your communication theory course seriously as an educational experience when you experience it as something that will have positive impact on your life. The third assumption is that language is the vehicle of meaning. We experience the world through the language used to define and express that world. We know keys because of their associated labels: "lock", "open", "metal", "weight", and so forth. The process of interpretation is central to most phenomenological thought. Sometimes known by the German term Verstehen (understanding), interpretation is the active process of assigning meaning to an experience. In the semiotic tradition, interpretation is considered to be separate from reality, but in phenomenology, interpretation literally forms what is real for the person. You cannot separate reality form interpretation. Interpretation is an active process of the mind, a creative act of clarifying personal experience.
The Cybernetics Tradition. Cybernetics is the tradition of complex systems in which many interacting elements influence one another. Communication is understood as a system of parts, or variables, that influence one another, shape and control the character of the overall system, and like any organism, achieve balance as well as change. The idea of a system form the core of cybernetic thinking. Systems are set of interacting components that together form something more than the sum of its parts. Any part of the system is always constrained by its dependence on other parts, and this pattern of interdependence organizes the system itself. In addition to interdependence, systems are also characterized by self-regulation and control. In other words, systems monitor, regulate and control their outputs in order to remain stable and achieve goals. Systems are embedded within one another such that one system is part of a larger system, forming a series of levels of increasing complexity. Although theories of the cybernetic tradition are excellent for understanding relationships, they are less effective in helping us understand individual differences among the parts of the system.
The Sociopsychological tradition. The study of the individual as a social being is the thrust of the sociopsychological tradition. The theories of this tradition focus on individual social behavior, psychological variables, individual effects, personalities and traits, perception and cognition. Most of the current work in this tradition in communication focuses on message processing, with an emphasis on how individuals plan message strategies, how receivers process message information, and the effects of message on individuals. Given these three interests, it is no mystery that persuasion and attitude theory have dominated this tradition for many years. A still-populart part of the sociopsychological approach is trait theory, which identifies personality variables and communicator tendendcies that affect how individuals act and interact. This tradition can be divided into three large branches. First is the behavioral wherein we see theories that concentrate on how people actually behave in communication situations. Such theories look at the relationships between communication behavior -- what you sa and what you do --in relation to such variables as personal traits, situational differences, and learning. Second, is the cognitive which centers on patterns of thought. This branch concentrates on how individual acquire, store, and process information in a way that leads to behavioral outputs. In other words, what you actually do in a communication situation depends not just on stimulus-response patterns, but also on the mental operations used to manage information. The third general variation is biological. Researchers under this branch are interested in the effects of brain functions and structure, neurochemistry, and genetic factors in explaining human behavior.
The Sociocultural Tradition. This tradition focuses on patterns of interaction between people rather than on individual characteristics or mental models. Although individuals do process information cognitively, this tradition is much less interested in the individual level of communication. Instead, researchers in this tradition want t understand ways in which people together create the realities of their social groups, organizations and cultures. These theories then to be interested in how meaning is created in social interaction. Many sociocultural theories also focus on how identities are established through interaction in social groups and cultures. Sociocultural scholars thus focus on how identity is negotiated from one situation to another. Symbols, already important in interaction, assume different meanings as communicators move from situation to situation.
The Critical Tradition. Although there are several varieties of critical social science, all share there essential features. First, the critical tradition seeks to understand the taken-for-granted systems, power structures, and beliefs -- or ideologies -- that dominate society, with a particular eye to whose interests are served by those power structures. Questions such as who does and does not get to speak, what does and does not get said, and who stands to benefit from a particular system are typical of those asked by critical theorists. Second, critical theorists are particularly interested in uncovering oppressive social conditions and power arrangements in order to promote emancipation, or a freer and more fulfilling society. Understanding opresion is the first step to dispelling the illusions of ideology and to taking action to overcome oppressive forces. Third, critical social science makes a conscious attempt to fuse theory and action. Such theories are clearly normative and act to accomplish change in the conditions that affect society or as Della Pollock and J. Robert Cox put it... "to read the world with an eye towards shaping it." Critical theories therefore frequently ally themselves with interests of the marginalized groups. In the field of communication, critical scholars are particularly interested in how messages reinforce oppression in society.
Pragmatism.
By contrast, Craig proposed to divide the field accordingly to underlying conceptions of communicative practice. A startling effect of this shift in perspective in that communication theories no longer bypass each other in their different paradigms or on their different levels. Communication theories suddenly now have something to agree and disagree about -- and that "something" is communication, not epistemology.
The Rhetoric Tradition. This tradition theorize communication as a practical art of discourse or the basic art and practice of human communication. Originally concerned with persuasion, rhetoric was the art of constructing arguments and speechmaking. The focus has broadened to encompass all of the ways humans use symbols to affect those around them and to construct the worlds in which they live. Central to the rhetoric tradition are the five canons of rhetoric -- invention, arrangement, style, delivery and memory. With the evolution of rhetoric, these five canons have undergone a similar expansion. Invention now refers to conceptualization -- the process through which we assign meaning to data through interpretation, an acknowledgment of the fact that we do not simply discover what exist but create it through the interpretive categories we use. Arrangement is the process of organizing symbols -- arranging information in the light of the relationships among the people, symbols, and context involved. Style concerns all of the considerations involved in the presentation of those symbols, form choice of symbol system to the meanings we give those symbols, as well as all symbolic behavior from words and actions to clothing and furniture. Delivery has become the embodiment of symbols in some physical form, encompassing the range of options form nonverbals to talk to writing to mediated messages. Memory, no longer refers to simple memorization of speeches but to larger reservoirs of cultural memory as well as to processes of perception that affect how we retain and process information.
The Semiotic Tradition. Semiotics is the study of sign. This tradition includes a host of theories about how signs come to represent objects, ideas, states, situations, feelings, and conditions outside of themselves. Sign, as the basic concept that unifies this tradition, is defined as the stimulus designating something other than itself. Within semiotics, one will encounter the terms sign and symbols. Some theorists, like Peirce classifies symbol as a type of sign. Peirce defined semiosis as a relationship among a sign, an object and a meaning. Most semiotic thinking involves the basic idea of the triad of meaning, which asserts that meaning arises from relationship among three things -- the object (or referent e.g. the animal dog), the person (or interpreter) and the sign (the word). All three elements form the irreducible triad depicted in the well-known model of C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards. Here a symbol and object (the referent) are connected through the interpretation in the mind of the person. The relationship between the symbol and the referent is arbitrary. Symbols are connected to referents only by indirect, agreed-on conventions of how to use words. Semiotics is often divided into three areas of study -- semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics. Semantics addresses how signs relate to their referents or what sign stands for. Whenever we ask the question"What does a sign represent?" we are in the realm of semantics. Dictionaries, for example are semantic reference books; they tell us what words mean, or what they represent. As a basic tenet of semiotics, representation is always mediated by the conscious interpretation of the person, and any interpretation of meaning for a sing will change from situation to situation. A more refined semantic question, then is, "What meaning does a sign bring to the mind of a person within a situation." The second area of study is syntactics, or the study of relationships among signs. Semiotics rests on the belief that signs are always understood in relation with other signs. Indeed, a dictionary is nothing more than a catalogue of the relationship fo one sign to other signs. In general, we think of syntactics as the rules by which people combine signs into complex systems of meaings. When we move from a single word (dog) to a sentence (The cute dog licked my hand), we are dealing with syntax or grammar. Pragmatics, the third major semiotic study, looks at how signs make a difference in people's lives or the practical use and effects of sings. From a semiotic perspective, we must have some kind of common understanding not just of individual words but of grammar, society and culture in order for communication to take place. People can communicate if they share meanings.
The Phenomenological Tradition. This tradition concentrates on the conscious experience of the person. Theorists in this tradition assume that people actively interpret their experience and come to understand the world by personal experience with it. The term phenomenon refers to the appearance of an object, event or condition in your perception. Stanley Deetz summarizes three basic principles of phenomenology. First, knowledge is conscious. Knowledge is not inferred from experience but is found directly in conscious experience. Second, the meaning of a thing consists of the potential of that things in one's life. In other words, how you relate to an object determines its meaning for you. For example, you will take your communication theory course seriously as an educational experience when you experience it as something that will have positive impact on your life. The third assumption is that language is the vehicle of meaning. We experience the world through the language used to define and express that world. We know keys because of their associated labels: "lock", "open", "metal", "weight", and so forth. The process of interpretation is central to most phenomenological thought. Sometimes known by the German term Verstehen (understanding), interpretation is the active process of assigning meaning to an experience. In the semiotic tradition, interpretation is considered to be separate from reality, but in phenomenology, interpretation literally forms what is real for the person. You cannot separate reality form interpretation. Interpretation is an active process of the mind, a creative act of clarifying personal experience.
The Cybernetics Tradition. Cybernetics is the tradition of complex systems in which many interacting elements influence one another. Communication is understood as a system of parts, or variables, that influence one another, shape and control the character of the overall system, and like any organism, achieve balance as well as change. The idea of a system form the core of cybernetic thinking. Systems are set of interacting components that together form something more than the sum of its parts. Any part of the system is always constrained by its dependence on other parts, and this pattern of interdependence organizes the system itself. In addition to interdependence, systems are also characterized by self-regulation and control. In other words, systems monitor, regulate and control their outputs in order to remain stable and achieve goals. Systems are embedded within one another such that one system is part of a larger system, forming a series of levels of increasing complexity. Although theories of the cybernetic tradition are excellent for understanding relationships, they are less effective in helping us understand individual differences among the parts of the system.
The Sociopsychological tradition. The study of the individual as a social being is the thrust of the sociopsychological tradition. The theories of this tradition focus on individual social behavior, psychological variables, individual effects, personalities and traits, perception and cognition. Most of the current work in this tradition in communication focuses on message processing, with an emphasis on how individuals plan message strategies, how receivers process message information, and the effects of message on individuals. Given these three interests, it is no mystery that persuasion and attitude theory have dominated this tradition for many years. A still-populart part of the sociopsychological approach is trait theory, which identifies personality variables and communicator tendendcies that affect how individuals act and interact. This tradition can be divided into three large branches. First is the behavioral wherein we see theories that concentrate on how people actually behave in communication situations. Such theories look at the relationships between communication behavior -- what you sa and what you do --in relation to such variables as personal traits, situational differences, and learning. Second, is the cognitive which centers on patterns of thought. This branch concentrates on how individual acquire, store, and process information in a way that leads to behavioral outputs. In other words, what you actually do in a communication situation depends not just on stimulus-response patterns, but also on the mental operations used to manage information. The third general variation is biological. Researchers under this branch are interested in the effects of brain functions and structure, neurochemistry, and genetic factors in explaining human behavior.
The Sociocultural Tradition. This tradition focuses on patterns of interaction between people rather than on individual characteristics or mental models. Although individuals do process information cognitively, this tradition is much less interested in the individual level of communication. Instead, researchers in this tradition want t understand ways in which people together create the realities of their social groups, organizations and cultures. These theories then to be interested in how meaning is created in social interaction. Many sociocultural theories also focus on how identities are established through interaction in social groups and cultures. Sociocultural scholars thus focus on how identity is negotiated from one situation to another. Symbols, already important in interaction, assume different meanings as communicators move from situation to situation.
The Critical Tradition. Although there are several varieties of critical social science, all share there essential features. First, the critical tradition seeks to understand the taken-for-granted systems, power structures, and beliefs -- or ideologies -- that dominate society, with a particular eye to whose interests are served by those power structures. Questions such as who does and does not get to speak, what does and does not get said, and who stands to benefit from a particular system are typical of those asked by critical theorists. Second, critical theorists are particularly interested in uncovering oppressive social conditions and power arrangements in order to promote emancipation, or a freer and more fulfilling society. Understanding opresion is the first step to dispelling the illusions of ideology and to taking action to overcome oppressive forces. Third, critical social science makes a conscious attempt to fuse theory and action. Such theories are clearly normative and act to accomplish change in the conditions that affect society or as Della Pollock and J. Robert Cox put it... "to read the world with an eye towards shaping it." Critical theories therefore frequently ally themselves with interests of the marginalized groups. In the field of communication, critical scholars are particularly interested in how messages reinforce oppression in society.
Pragmatism.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, June 28, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
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."
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."
Monday, June 21, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)