A tale of two perspectives (and four crucial questions): Opposing schools of thought in communication theory and practice

Griffin (2012) describes communication as “the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (p. 6). Communication is an incredibly complex phenomenon and scholars continue to make attempts to understand both the cognitive processes that produce it and its effects at the interpersonal, group and mass media level. These attempts to understand and explain communication take the form of theories, which could be metaphorically represented as “lenses” or “maps” helping us to better view or navigate the world of communication (Griffin, 2012, p. 5).

But while communication is one discipline, it is a divided one, with two diametrically opposing camps. One school of communication is described as objective, or in some literature, the social science or transmissive view of communication. The other school employs an interpretive or humanistic focus, also variously called the cultural or phenomenological approach. Communication theorists generally gravitate towards one or the other of these two camps. “Membership” of a particular camp has significant implications for the way the communication theorist approaches the tasks of research and scholarship. In fact, the schism is so consequential that the two schools have divergent worldviews, shown in how they answer four fundamental questions. These questions are:

1.    What is truth?
2.    Is human nature governed by determinism or based on free will?
3.    What is a higher value: objectivity or emancipation?
4.    What is the purpose of theory: to provide universal laws or serve as interpretive guides?

The conflicting assumptions of the social science and humanities schools are evident in the responses the two camps provide to these questions. Social science believes it can discover objective truth that is largely applicable to humans. The interpretive school disagrees, arguing that while truth exists, it is not universal. To this end, there are multiple truths, or “multiple realities.”

For the second question, social scientists largely see human nature as ruled by determinism. They see a cause and effect relationship in human behavior and believe that a particular communication stimulus will yield a specific behavioral response. This has been fittingly described as a “hypodermic needle” or “magic bullet” view of communication because of the direct, no-miss, effective impact messages are believed to have.

Interpretive communication theorists disagree with the idea that humans can be that subject to media manipulation. They emphasize individuality and the ability of humans to control how they respond to communication. In the opinion of interpretivists, messages are always filtered through an individual’s cultural context and experiences and this can lead to varying responses to the same message.

Should the highest goal of scholarship be objectivity or emancipation?  The social science school of communication theorists argue for the former, while the humanistic school elevates the latter. For social scientists, personal involvement opens the door to dangerous bias that will mislead researchers searching for the truth. The interpretive camp, on the other hand, places the highest premium on social transformation, particularly liberation from perceived oppression or unfair power dynamics. To achieve this, members of the interpretive school believe involvement by the scholar in his or her work is not only acceptable, but sometimes desirable.

In their answers to the fourth question, social scientists and humanistic theorists again show they are polar opposites. Tied to their response to question 2, social scientists are confident that their theories can uncover universal laws. Interpretive communication theorists wouldn’t go as far. For them, their theories only serve as interpretive guides for understanding human communicative behavior. They provide rules that are flexible and adaptable, not laws that are binding and predictable.

These critical distinctions lead to very different approaches to communication theory and practice by these two schools. It is the reason communication theorists in the social science camp focus on prediction of future events (grounded in the belief in determinism and universal laws) and data-based empirical research (quest for objective truth that can be tested). On the other hand, the core assumptions of the interpretive school serve as the basis for its commitment to societal reform (because the highest value of scholarship is emancipation) and the use of qualitative forms of research that they see as better able to distinguish and comprehend multiple experiences and realities.
Is one of these two camps stronger than the other? Are there any ways to reconcile these differences? Perhaps both perspectives have their own appeal, which would make a pragmatic stance the most practicable position for the communication scholar?

References

Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.