Our Communication, Our World

An Introduction to Communication Studies

v1.0 Richard G. Jones Jr.

1.2 Communication Theory

Learning Objectives
1. Define theory.
2. Define paradigm. 
3. Describe and distinguish among the three paradigms that guide communication theory and research.
4. Describe and distinguish among the seven traditions of communication theory.

When people think of the word theory, they often think of a well-known theory, such as the theory of relativity, or they think
of a guess. Neither of these options gets us close to how communication theory is envisioned, defined, and employed. For our
purposes, we will think of theoryA set of systematic, informed hunches, about the way things work. as a set of “systematic,
informed hunches, about the way things work.” Each part of this definition is important. First, the reference to a set of
hunches gets us away from thinking about theory as a guess. Second, the word informed signals that academics who engage
in theory development have spent many years reading articles and books, talking to experts in their research area, and
presenting ideas at academic conferences and getting feedback on those ideas before they would ever think about adding the
word theory to their work. Finally, the word systematic refers to the progressive and integrated nature of theory
development. A theory doesn’t emerge from one or two concepts or variables. Theories develop as a conceptual framework is
scaffolded around concepts, ideas, and the relationship among them. 
A theory isn’t a guess. Instead it’s a framework or lens that helps systematically guide our thinking about communication.
© Shutterstock
Theory has also been defined metaphorically. My favorite metaphor for theory is a lens. Just as a lens can help us focus on a
certain characteristic of our visual field, theory helps us focus on a specific aspect of communication. Different theories, like
different lenses, focus on different things. For example, a 3D lens makes movies jump off the screen. A rose-colored lens
makes the world seem pink and perhaps cheerful. Think of how the various lenses and filters you can use on your
smartphone make your photos appear different. Communication theories are similar. Think back to our earlier definition of
communication as the process of generating meaning by sending and receiving verbal and nonverbal symbols and signs that
are influenced by multiple contexts. Some communication theories focus on generating meaning, some focus on verbal
communication, and some focus on context. Keep the above definition and metaphor of theory in mind as we map out the
key areas of communication theory and research in this chapter and then as we explore specific contexts of communication
throughout the book.
Communication studies, given its interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary history and scope, has adapted many theories from
related social sciences and humanities. We also have theories that we can call our own. Throughout this book, you will be
exposed to key theories that have been adopted and employed by communication scholars in various contexts. First we will
learn about philosophical concepts that guide how we think about the world around us. 

Paradigms: Our Ways of Knowing

ParadigmsModels that provide us, as communication scholars, with ways of knowing and ways of posing and answering
questions related to communication phenomena. are models that provide us, as communication scholars, with ways of
knowing and ways of posing and answering questions related to communication phenomena. In this section, we will focus on
how paradigms guide our thinking about theory. In the next section, on communication research, we will concentrate on how
paradigms guide our research, or how we go about posing and answering questions and evaluating our process and findings.
Before we go into each paradigm, we need to learn some new vocabulary that will help us understand the foundations and
tenets of theory and theorizing. 
When communication scholars begin a research project, they’ve probably already made a commitment to a particular
paradigm based on their personal interest, research area, and/or their training. Many communication scholars end up
aligning their paradigmatic commitments with those of the mentors they have worked with during their graduate education.
In any case, each paradigm comes with its own set of philosophical assumptions, that then influence the development of
concepts, explanations, and principles. In order to understand paradigms, we must understand the philosophical
assumptions that structure them. 

Epistemology
Epistemology asks: How do we know what we know? How certain is knowledge? And, how does knowledge arise?

© Shutterstock
 How do we know what we know? This is a question that philosophers have pondered and debated for thousands of years and
is referred to as epistemology. In short, epistemologyA branch of philosophy that considers how people know what they
know. is a branch of philosophy that considers how people know what they know. While this may be a new vocabulary word
for you, we have all found ourselves in that deeply reflective state where we start to wonder what is real and what is not, and
further, how we know what is real and what is not. There are two key questions that we will now consider to help us
understand epistemology, and, as with most things philosophical, there are multiple answers to each question. 
1. Can knowledge be certain? 
 Answer 1, Knowledge is certain: A universal stance would argue that there is a reality that exists separate from our direct
experience and that, through systematic thinking and researching, we can discover absolute truths about that reality. In
short, knowledge is out there, ready and waiting to be discovered. 
 Answer 2, Knowledge is relative: A relativist stance would argue that reality is subjective and comes to be through human
experience. Therefore knowledge is not certain and truths are relative to humans’ subjective experiences. Rather than
discovering knowledge and claiming it as truth, we can seek to understand how individuals and groups talk about their
experiences, their subjective realities.

2. How does knowledge arise?

 Answer 1, We know empirically, through our sensory perceptions and reasoning: One position would argue that we come to
knowledge through our perception of the world. We take in information through our senses and empirically develop
knowledge about reality. Aside from observations, we can also use our uniquely human reason and rationality to logically
make sense of the world around us. Since this position assumes there is a reality out there for us to take in through our
senses, it matches up with the universal stance described in the first question. 
 Answer 2, Knowledge is socially constructed through human experience: A second position would argue that knowledge is
socially constructed through human interaction and experience. There is no reality until people co-construct it through
communication, thoughts, and actions. This position aligns with the relativist stance described in the first question. 

I hope you can begin to see, based on what you’ve learned about epistemology—our first concept related to theory
development—that the answers one chooses for these two questions start to fit together to create a particular way of viewing
the world. This is the first building block of a paradigm. 

Ontology
Now that we have considered the roots of how we know what we know, we can move on to consider the fundamentals of
human existence. OntologyThe branch of philosophy that considers human nature. is the branch of philosophy that
considers human nature. In communication studies, questions of ontology help us conceptualize the communicator(s) we
want to study. To help us understand ontology, we will consider three questions. 
1. Do humans make their own choices? 
 Answer 1, Human behavior is controlled by forces outside of their control: A deterministic position would argue that
although humans perceive choice, their thoughts and behaviors are largely determined by cognitive, psychological, and
sociological variables that they were either born with or socialized into. In this case, human behavior can be studied,
predications can be made about future behavior, and those findings can be generalized to the larger population.
 Answer 2, Human behavior is largely a matter of free will but is also influenced by outside forces: A pragmatic position
would argue that humans have a large degree of free will which they exercise to make choices, plan goals, and inform their
thoughts and behaviors.  

2. Are humans primarily individual or social? 

 Answer 1, Humans are primarily individual: Scholars who focus on the individual are largely concerned with psychological
processes. Their aim is to discover how internal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influence actions.
 Answer 2, Humans are primarily social: Scholars who focus on the social aspect of human existence argue that humans are
inseparable from their relationships, group memberships, and cultural experiences.
 Answer 3, Humans are both individual and social: In communication studies, most scholars take a middle ground view in
regards to this question and adopt a socio-psychological perspective that takes into account the individual and the group. 

3. How contextual is communication?

 Answer 1, Communication is universal: One position would argue that behavior, including communication, is governed by
universal laws that are generally applicable across contexts.
 Answer 2, Communication is contextual: Another position would argue that behavior, including communication, is very
contextual and situational and therefore cannot be generalized across contexts. 
 Answer 3, Communication is universal and contextual: Most communication scholars take a middle ground view and
acknowledge that there are general universal traits and contextual factors that influence our communication behaviors.

Axiology
 AxiologyThe branch of philosophy that considers how values inform the research process. is the branch of philosophy that
considers how values inform the research process. 
1. How do values inform the research process?
 Answer 1, Values do not influence the research process: A traditional scientific approach would argue that theory can be
value-free, meaning the researcher and the research process are objective and his or her personal experiences and values can
remain separate from the research process and the interpretation of the findings. 
 Answer 2, Values are inseparable from the research process: Other positions would argue that researchers’ values and
subjective experiences influence theory development and research and should be reflected on and incorporated into the
scholarly process. 
 Answer 3, The degree to which values inform the research process varies: Complete objectivity is a position that is largely
rejected by social scientists who acknowledge that a scholar’s work is influenced by their way of viewing the world, by their
specific academic training, and by their personal preferences for what they study and how they study it. Although the
researcher is acknowledged as part of the process, objectivity is still the goal for many communication researchers. 

I know that diving into the depths of philosophical thinking about how we think can lead to brain strain. These are likely new
concepts, and you probably still have many questions. However, I am confident that as we continue through this chapter and
into the rest of the book, you will begin to develop an understanding of the importance of paradigms and how they influence
how we think about communication. Now, as we move into our discussion of the three main paradigms of knowing in
communication studies, you will notice that each paradigm has its own epistemological, ontological, and axiological
assumptions. 

Social Scientific Paradigm

The social scientific paradigmResearch paradigm that strives for objectivity and assumes that reality and truth exist
separately from human experience and can be discovered through logical and empirical methods. strives for objectivity and
assumes that reality and truth exist separately from human experience and can be discovered through logical and empirical
methods. This paradigm aligns most closely with the scientific method that we all learned in middle and high school science
classes. However, since social scientists work with humans instead of universal laws of physics, their assumptions and
methods are not as surgically precise due to the messy and complex nature of human communication and behavior. I don’t
mean to say that physics, biology, and chemistry are easy and simple; however, planetary motion, cells, and elements are
predictable while humans are often irrational and contradictory. Applying hard line scientific methods to studying people
would be difficult, although not impossible. Instead, social scientists seek to generalize and predict within parameters
deemed acceptable by their respective academic fields or methods. For example, when using statistics to analyze human
communication and behavior, scholars look at probability and correlation rather than causality and certainty. 
Statistical analysis is often used by researchers in the social science paradigm.
© Shutterstock
The social scientific paradigm is the most pervasive in the social sciences. Scholars in psychology, education, sociology, and
political science, for example, largely work within the social scientific paradigm. Since many of the theories that
communication studies has adopted and adapted came from psychology and sociology, it makes sense that this would be a
predominant paradigm in subfields of communication that more closely align with those social sciences, such as
interpersonal communication, intercultural communication, and health communication. 
 Philosophical Assumptions within the Social Scientific Paradigm
How certain is knowledge? There is an external reality and truths that can be discovered.
Through reasonable and rational logical thinking and/or
How does knowledge arise?
empirical observations.
Do humans make their own Human behavior is largely determined by biology and
choices? environment.
Are humans primarily individual Human behavior and communication are influenced by
or social? individual and social factors.
How contextual is Communication is individual and contextual, but results
communication?  should be generalizable.
How do values inform the Complete objectivity is impossible, but subjectivity should
research process? be minimized.

Interpretive Paradigm
The interpretive paradigm Research paradigm that embraces subjectivity, assumes that multiple realities exist that are
socially constructed through human interaction, and assumes that those realities can be understood through intersubjective
methods that strive for rich detailed description.embraces subjectivity, assumes multiple realities exist that are socially
constructed through human interaction, and assumes those realities can be understood through intersubjective methods that
strive for rich, detailed description. Just from this definition, you can see that the social scientific paradigm and the
interpretive paradigm have starkly different epistemological assumptions. Whereas the social scientific paradigm strives for
objectivity, the interpretive paradigm embraces subjectivity. Whereas the social scientific paradigm assumes a singular
knowable and discoverable reality, the interpretive paradigm assumes multiple realities exist that are socially constructed
through human interaction. Some students’ first reaction to the interpretive paradigm is, “That’s not very systematic or
rigorous.” However, theory and research driven by any of the three paradigms is systematic and rigorous. Remember
that “systematic” was a key part of our definition of theory. Even though scholars working in the interpretive paradigm aren’t
making predictions, using statistics, or generalizing their findings to the larger population, they still follow accepted steps in
theory building and methods of research that require many hours if not years of study, practice, refinement, and execution.  

Philosophical Assumptions within the Interpretive Paradigm

How certain is knowledge?
How does knowledge arise?
Do humans make their own
choices?
Are humans primarily
individual or social?
How contextual is
communication?
How do values inform the
research process?
Multiple realities exist with multiple valid interpretations.
Through interpretation of the lived experience of individuals and
groups being studied.
Human choice is largely a matter of free will.
Human behavior and communication are influenced by
individual and social factors.
Communication is individual and contextual, but context is very
important in order to understand lived experience.
The researcher’s subjectivity is acknowledged and embraced.

Critical Paradigm
The critical paradigmResearch paradigm that assumes that multiple realities exist that are influenced by social, cultural,
and political forces and that those realities should be questioned in order to reveal hidden power structures that are
maintained by dominant ideologies in order to instigate social change. assumes that multiple realities exist that are
influenced by social, cultural, and political forces and that those realities should be questioned in order to reveal hidden
power structures that are maintained by dominant ideologies in order to instigate social change. When you think about the
word “critical” you may think about someone criticizing your appearance, performance, or attitude. Critical is not used in the
same sense here. Critique in this case is used as a tool in order to look behind the curtain of taken-for-granted assumptions
in order to see the ways in which power operates in our society to privilege some and disadvantage others. 
Researchers working in the critical paradigm expose power imbalances and advocate for social change.

© Shutterstock

Philosophical Assumptions within the Critical Paradigm

Multiple realities exist that are influenced by dominant
How certain is knowledge?
ideologies.
Through critique of the status quo that reveals hidden power
How does knowledge arise?
structures that sustain inequality.
 Philosophical Assumptions within the Critical Paradigm
Do humans make their own Human choices are made in relation to dominant ideologies that
choices? influence our perceptions and thinking.
Are humans primarily Human communication and behavior are influenced by
individual or social? individual and social factors in relation to dominant ideologies.
How contextual is Communication cannot be divorced from social, cultural, and
communication?  political context. 
How do values inform the Researchers should be self-reflexive about how their identities
research process? and positionalities influence the research process. 

Traditions of Communication Theory

As I have mentioned before, communication studies is a broad, diverse, and interdisciplinary field. Because of this,
communication studies has had an identity crisis as scholars within our field have tried to articulate where we fit within the
structure of academia and academic thought, how we have adopted and expanded from other disciplines, and how we have
our own unique history and organic contributions to theory and research that should be acknowledged. Various scholars
have taken this identity crises head on. I had the privilege of getting my doctorate at the University of Denver, which was the
home of renowned communication scholar Frank E. X. Dance, who was also a historian of communication and
communication studies. For one of his projects, professor Dance identified and analyzed all the various definitions of
communication in scholarly publications. His list reached 126, and that was in 1976! Robert T. Craig also embarked on a
mission to map out the wide terrain of communication theory in order to get a holistic view of how the field coheres. He
identified seven traditions of communication theory that we will discuss further below. 

Rhetorical Tradition
The rhetorical tradition is the oldest of the traditions of communication theory. Dating back to the sophists and the
philosopher Aristotle of ancient Greece, the rhetorical tradition focuses on how people use available means of persuasion in
public communication. Rhetoric, however, doesn’t just refer to public persuasive speaking. Ethics, notions of citizenship, and
participative democracy were also important components of early rhetorical theorizing. Today, rhetoricians (those who
engage in rhetorical theorizing and/or analysis) apply these principles in a broad range of contexts, including political
communication, advertising, social movements, and popular culture artifacts such as reality television shows and horror
films. 

Theories Associated with the Rhetorical Tradition

Symbolic Convergence Theory—Ernest Bormann 

Rhetoric—Aristotle 
Dramatism—Kenneth Burke 
Narrative—Walter Fisher
Source: Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2019).

Semiotic Tradition
Semiotics refers to the study of signs. In semiotics, a sign is anything that can stand in for something else. Semiotics can be
traced back to early language theory of the 1600s and more recently to linguistics. Semioticians (scholars who work in the
semiotic tradition) may focus on images or words and what they symbolize. Although a graphic designer or a film director
may intend for their creation to mean something specific, signs and symbols can have multiple meanings. In this regard,
much of semiotic analysis focuses on how people interpret the meanings of signs and how those interpretations connect to
larger sign systems in society and culture. Research in the semiotic tradition has focused on architecture, food advertising,
and even professional wrestling. 
 Theories Associated with the Semiotic Tradition

Semiotic Theory—variations by Charles Peirce, Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Morris, and

Roland Barthes
Film Theory—Christian Metz
Genderlect Styles—Deborah Tannen
Source: Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2019).

Phenomenological Tradition
The phenomenological tradition focuses on how people connect, or not, as they go about their everyday lives and
acknowledge and understand, or not, each other’s experiences and standpoints. Subjectivity is a key part of this tradition, as
it acknowledges that we each have our past experiences, our stories, and that no two people have the same reality or
standpoint. Researchers in the phenomenological tradition also study how people can find authentic communication
through dialogue. Even though two people can’t have the same reality, phenomenologists (scholars who work in this
tradition) want to understand those fleeting moments when we do experience a connection that’s deeper than a typical
interaction. We’ve all had that experience where we just really “click” with someone or “get them” and “they get us.” It’s hard
to describe, but we usually know it when it happens, or realize it right after that moment has passed. These moments of
dialogue and connection, phenomenologists would argue, happen when we become less self-conscious, when we lessen the
distance, emotionally and physically, between our self and the other. Scholars who work in this field have a difficult task,
however, because these moments of dialogue cannot be created or predicted. 

Theories Associated with the Phenomenological Tradition

Relational Dialectics Theory—Leslie Baxter

Coordinated Management of Meaning—W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen
Source: Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2019).

Cybernetic Tradition
The cybernetic tradition may sound like it has more to do with computers or robots than it does with communication, but it
actually deals with both. The term cybernetic applies to artificial intelligence as well as communication because this tradition
focuses on information processing. From this perspective, the human mind is analogous to a computer processor
because thought—the precursor to communication—and interpretation—what happens as we receive communication—occur
as our brain processes the information we have received through our senses. As we learn more about communication models
and the communication process, you will note that this view of communication aligns with the transmission model of
communication in which a sender encodes a message, transmits it through a channel (the spoken word, for example) that is
then decoded by the receiver. After the decoding process happens, more communication can be sent as feedback. Within this
model, miscommunication can occur due to noise, distraction, or information overload. This tradition of communication
theory has been applied to the communication that takes place with family systems and friendship networks. 

Theories Associated with the Cybernetic Tradition

Communication Privacy Management Theory—Sandra Petronio

Media Multiplexity Theory—Caroline Haythornthwaite
Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making—Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran
Source: Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2019).
Socio-Psychological Tradition
The socio-psychological tradition focuses on internal, psychological processes that influence our thoughts, behaviors, and
communication. This tradition acknowledges that humans are complex and that our communication is caused or at least
influenced by conscious and subconscious processes, such as our personalities, emotional states, attitudes, and
values. Scholars in this tradition employ social scientific methods to better understand these processes and their effects.
They believe that, despite our complexity, when we learn about these processes we can become more conscious or aware of
them, which could in turn improve our communication. Research in this area has in fact exposed or contradicted many of
our common sense assumptions about how we behave and communicate. Findings have challenged the notion that we are
rational and logical beings. For example, the elaboration likelihood model has shown that we tend to make decisions or
judgments based on emotion or attraction to the message sender instead of thinking through the logic of the message we are
processing. Also, cognitive dissonance theory has shown that when we act in ways that do not align with our closely held
beliefs or values, we tend to rationalize our way out of it in order to end the mental discomfort we feel after we behave in a
way that contradicts our beliefs or values. These are just two examples that highlight the prevalence of perceptual errors and
show that we often act in predictable ways rather than exercising conscious free will over our thoughts and behaviors. 

Theories Associated with the Socio-Psychological Tradition

Expectancy Violations Theory—Judee Burgoon

Social Penetration Theory—Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor
Uncertainty Reduction Theory—Charles Berger
Elaboration Likelihood Model—Richard Petty and John Cacioppo
Cognitive Dissonance Theory—Leon Festinger
Face-Negotiation Theory—Stella Ting-Toomey
Source: Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2019).

Socio-Cultural Tradition
Theories in the socio-cultural tradition explore how people create a shared reality through interaction.

© Shutterstock
The socio-cultural tradition focuses on interaction and context and how our daily interactions are influenced by socio-
cultural patterns while also reproducing those patterns. Scholars in this tradition focus on how communication and
interaction create a shared reality. This shared reality, however, is connected to our larger social and cultural norms into
which we have been socialized from birth and often take for granted. Theorizing and research in this tradition is broad and
can be employed in any of the three paradigms we discussed. Socio-cultural research can also draw from and connect to
other traditions, such as the phenomenological or semiotic tradition. 

Theories Associated with the Socio-Cultural Tradition

 Theories Associated with the Socio-Cultural Tradition
Symbolic Interactionism—George Herbert Mead
Cultural Approach to Organizations—Clifford Geertz and Michael Pacanowsky
Media Ecology—Marshall McLuhan
Source: Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2019).

Critical Tradition
The critical tradition and the critical paradigm are the most recent to emerge in communication studies. Originating as an
offshoot of Marxism, the critical tradition became employed in communication studies following the social movements and
social change of the 1960s and 70s. As feminist theory, critical race theory, and queer theory developed in the wake of these
social movements, some communication scholars adopted a critical perspective to examine the ways in which
communication perpetuates and resists dominant ideologies. The critical tradition falls almost exclusively into the critical
paradigm, as scholars in this tradition seek to expose power imbalances, reveal the ways in which knowledge and power are
connected, and work toward social change. The critical tradition also questions traditional ways of theorizing and
researching that are practiced by scholars within the social scientific paradigm. Likewise, theory and research in the critical
tradition has been critiqued by scholars aligned with other paradigms for politicizing scholarship and research. 

Theories Associated with the Critical Tradition

Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations—Stanley Deetz

Cultural Studies—Stuart Hall
Standpoint Theory—Sandra Harding and Julia T. Wood
Source: Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2019).

The paradigms and traditions discussed in this section may seem distinct and self-defined. Viewing them so neatly, however,
would over-simplify the complexity of theory building and the varying philosophies that inform the scholarly process. They
are very useful to provide students, especially students new to the discipline, with a conceptual map of how communication
can be viewed. In some cases, a student may be drawn to one paradigm or tradition over another due to an intrinsic interest.
In other cases, the course of study a student chooses may align with a paradigm or tradition. One of the things that drew me
to the field of communication was my own fascination with human behavior. I’ve always loved people-watching and looking
for patterns. Over the course of my academic study and my own academic scholarship, I have worked within all three
paradigms and within most of the traditions. Hopefully, you share my fascination with communication and have questions
that you would like to answer as a communication scholar. While theory helps move us toward answers by providing a
framework and a lens through which to view communication, we must move on to the next step, the research process, in
order to answer our questions or test our claims. 

Getting Real
Research in Action

Each chapter in this book includes a “Getting Real” feature that gives examples of how concepts covered in the section have
been explored or applied in recent and relevant communication research. To help review the paradigms and traditions of
communication theory, I am including an example from each tradition. I will also identify the paradigm and the theory and
research methods used. We will learn more about research methods in the next section. 

Rhetorical Tradition

 Article: “Improving Patient Activation in Crisis and Chronic Care Through Rhetorical Approaches to New Media
Technologies”
 Authors: Aimee K. Roundtree, Aimee Dorsten, and John J. Reif
 Source: Poroi: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis & Invention, 2011
 Theory: Rhetorical theory
 Method: n/a
 Semiotic Tradition 

 Article: “Aesthetic and Family Frames in the Online Sharing of Children’s Birthday Photos”
 Authors: Li Wang, Pertti Alasuutari, and Jari Aro
 Source: Visual Communication, 2014
 Theory: Framing Theory
 Method: Textual Analysis

Phenomenological Tradition

 Article: “Grieving Gender: Trans-identities, Transition, and Ambiguous Loss”

 Author: Kristen Norwood
 Source: Communication Monographs, 2013
 Theory: Relational Dialectics Theory
 Method: Interviewing

Cybernetic Tradition

 Article: “The Functionality of Social Tagging as a Communication System”

 Authors: Poong Oh and Peter Monge
 Source: International Journal of Communication, 2013
 Theory: Information Foraging Theory 
 Method: Content Analysis

Socio-Psychological Tradition

 Article: “Let’s Be Facebook Friends: Exploring Parental Facebook Friend Requests from a Communication Privacy
Management (CPM) Perspective”
 Authors: Jeffrey T. Child and David A. Westermann
 Source: Journal of Family Communication, 2013
 Theory: Communication Privacy Management
 Method: Survey

Socio-Cultural Tradition

 Article: “New Media, Old Racisms: Twitter, Miss America, and Cultural Logics of Race”
 Authors: J. David Cisneros and Thomas K. Nakayama
 Source: Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2015
 Theory: Cultural Studies
 Method: Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Tradition

 Article: “‘It’s Like She's Eager to be Verbally Abused’: Twitter, Trolls, and (En)Gendering Disciplinary Rhetoric”
 Author: Kirsti K. Cole
 Source: Feminist Media Studies, 2015
 Theories: Feminist Theory
 Method: Feminist Rhetorical Criticism

Key Takeaways
 Think of theory as a set of systematic, informed hunches, about the way things work. Theories also act as lenses that help
us focus on specific aspects of communication. 
 Paradigms are models that provide us, as communication scholars, with ways of knowing and ways of posing and answering
questions related to communication phenomena.
 There are three philosophical assumptions that help establish the boundaries of a paradigm and guide theory and research
within that paradigm: epistemology, ontology, and axiology.
 The three main paradigms in communication studies are: social scientific, interpretive, and critical. 
 There are seven traditions of communication theory: rhetorical, semiotic, phenomenology, cybernetic, socio-psychological,
socio-cultural, and critical.
 Exercises
1. Do some research on your department and communication faculty. If your department has various tracks or options, with
which paradigms and traditions do they align? If not, look at your faculty member’s online profiles or their curriculum vitae,
which will list their research interests and their publications (if they are research faculty). Which paradigms, theories, and
traditions do you see represented among your faculty? 
2. Having learned about the assumptions of the three main paradigms in communication studies, which one do you most
identify with and why? 
3. Having learned the seven traditions of communication theory, which one do you most identify with and why? 

‹ PreviousNext ›
Footnotes

1. Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2019), 2-5. ↑

2. Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2019), 4-5.↑

3. Gerianne Merrigan and Carole L. Huston, Communication Research Methods, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 33-34.↑

4. Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2019), 4-5. ↑

5. Stephen W. Littlejohn, Karen A. Foss, and John G. Oetzel, Theories of Human Communication, 11th ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2017), pp.
8-9. ↑

6. Em Griffin, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Sparks, A First Look at Communication Theory, 10th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2019), 4-5.↑

7. Stephen W. Littlejohn, Karen A. Foss, and John G. Oetzel, Theories of Human Communication, 11th ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2017), pp.
9-10. ↑

8. Stephen W. Littlejohn, Karen A. Foss, and John G. Oetzel, Theories of Human Communication, 11th ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2017), p
11. ↑

9. Gerianne Merrigan and Carole L. Huston, Communication Research Methods, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 34.↑

10. Gerianne Merrigan and Carole L. Huston, Communication Research Methods, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 36-37.↑

11. Gerianne Merrigan and Carole L. Huston, Communication Research Methods, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 37-38.↑

12. Frank E. X. Dance and Carl E. Larson, The Functions of Human Communication: A Theoretical Approach (New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston,
1976), 23.↑

13. Robert T. Craig, "Communication Theory as a Field," Communication Theory 9, no. 2 (1999): 132-149.↑

14. Robert T. Craig, "Communication Theory as a Field," Communication Theory 9, no. 2 (1999): 138-139.↑

15. Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1949), 16.↑

16. Robert T. Craig, "Communication Theory as a Field," Communication Theory 9, no. 2 (1999): 143.↑

17. Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag, 1986), 7. ↑

18. Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957) 4