Kęstas Kirtiklis Vilnius University Not by Communication Alone: The Importance of Epistemology in the Field of Communication Theory Paper in progress It is often asserted that communication sciences experience identity problems. A sign of this situation are repetitious discussions on identity in conferences and thematic issues of journals (e.g. Journal of Communication in 1983, 1993, 2008). The questions debated are fundamental: is there such thing as communication science / communication theory? Why are there so many (or so few) communication theories? What should be counted as a communication theory? And so on. Contrary to the widely spread position this paper argues that particular conceptions of communication depend on particular epistemological premises; attention to those premises in distinguishing theoretical traditions of communication theory brings communication sciences closer to the rest of social sciences. In 1999 American communication scholar Robert Craig published an influential 1 article Communication theory as a Field, which suggested a solution to the problem of disunity. According to Craig, the potential of communication theory as a field can best be realized [ ] not in a unified theory of communication but in a dialogical-dialectical disciplinary matrix, a commonly understood (though always contestable) set of assumptions that would enable productive argumentation across the diverse traditions of communication theory (Craig 1999: 120). If communication theory cannot be unified into the classical scientific paradigm, it might be united into a common discussion forum, where various theoretical traditions could take part in the discussion without loosing their identity and converging between themselves. How can this be achieved? On what basis should this discussion forum emerge, what would be its common denominator? 1 Although Craig s metatheory did not evoke much critical discussion, his metatheoretical framework was widely used in communication theory textbooks (cf. Craig 2007: 125)
According to Craig (Craig 1999: 121), it could be developed using a constitutive metamodel, based on James Carey s ritual model of communication (Carey 2009: 15). Theories would communicate according to this metamodel, just as people communicate according to the first order model. However, the conception of the ritual model of communication is rather vague. Craig presents it simply as a more open and democratic alternative to the transmission model (Craig1999: 125 126), whereas Carey describes it as the model for communication in time rather than in space; he also emphasizes the ability of the former type of communication to draw people together, to create their commonness (Carey 2009: 15). The differences between two models are sketched in figures 1 and 2: SENDER MESSAGE RECEIVER NOISE Figure 1 Transmission model of communication Figure 2 Constitutive model of communication
As communication between people, according to constitutive model, creates communicative community, so communication between theories, according to constitutive metamodel, creates a dialogical dialectical field of communication theory. Various conceptions of communication are the messages communicated in this field. Seven traditions (Craig 1999: 135-148) participate in this forum, each with a particular conception of communication, which is the only criterion for distinguishing them: Rhetorical tradition defines communication as a practical art of discourse; Semiotic tradition - as intersubjective mediation by signs; Phenomenological tradition - as the experience of otherness; Cybernetic tradition - as information processing; Sociopsychological tradition - as expression, interaction, and influence; Sociocultural tradition - as the (re)production of social order; Critical tradition - as discursive reflection. Craig dismisses all other criteria for classification of communication, suggesting that communication theories [ ] have something to agree and disagree about - and that something is communication, not epistemology (Craig 1999: 135). However, the question arises: are conceptions of communication really so independent from epistemology, as Craig suggests? At first glance, Craig s traditions seem arbitrary, based on the vide range of apparently incommensurable backgrounds. The conceptions of communication seem rather artificially created, meant to tell apart otherwise identical traditions (e.g. is sociocultural tradition not preoccupied with otherness, or isn t mediation by signs (encoding / decoding) a part of information processing?). The idea of practical theory is rather vague too. What is the practical side of the communication metatheory - solution of communication problems? In that case it is not entirely clear how metamodel / metaheory differs from the first order models and theories. And if it is the practical way of solving the theoretical disputes, then it is not clear, how it can help communication research, which is traditionally viewed as the practical side of any theory. Craig seems to underestimate communication research in his metatheory. Due to this underestimation his metatheory looses (or more precisely, does not develop) its
relationship to the rest of the social sciences and their theoretical and methodological debates. Research is scientific activity, based on particular methodology. Methodology is not only the bunch of methods; it is first and foremost the answer to the fundamental question - what is science? On that answer the particular attitude towards the objects and the methods of research depends. Epistemology is an important part of any research methodology. And epistemology in communication theory is primarily concerned with the knowledge of messages, their content and their meaning. Further I will provide a brief sketch of the three epistemological positions and their impact on the conceptions of message and communication. Naturalist epistemology. 2 Naturalist epistemology is based on the Cartesian divide between the observer and the observed (object). It is the active observer who gets the observational data from the experiment, measurement, observation. Though the data might be distorted by fault of instruments or observer, justifiable knowledge remains possible. In communication theory naturalist view inspires conception of communication which is schematized in the transmission model. Sender and receiver are independent from each other, and the meaning of the transmitted message is independent from both. There are noises in the communication channel, which may distort the message. However communication is possible, because messages have meaning independent from participants, which could be properly encoded and sent and properly decoded and understood. Naturalist communication research aims at explaining the effects of communication. Effective communication occurs when the messages are encoded, sent and properly decoded. Properly encoded and properly decoded message has a desired causal effect. Interpretive epistemology is an anti-naturalist position, arguing that naturalism cannot be a proper epistemology for socials sciences, because social sciences differ from natural in three main elements: 2 Naturalism is often confused with positivism. Naturalism is an approach in social sciences which argues for the unity of sciences, i.e. that social sciences should not differ from natural sciences in their methodology. Naturalism encompasses not only positivism (logical empiricism), but also its main contemporary rival scientific realism (more on differences between positivism and scientific realism see Pavitt 1999)
1. Reflexivity (the clear observer / observed divide is impossible in social sciences); 2. Complexity of social phenomena; 3. Value ladenness (impossibility to escape value judgments). In the interpretive epistemology explanation of social action through the conception of causality is replaced by understanding of rules according to which people act. The rules, however, are modified in the processes of action and reliable knowledge is achieved via consensus of communicative community. Therefore the notions of what counts as communication and what is communicated depends on the participants of communication processes, and these notions are (re)formulated during the process of communication. Hence communication is conceptualized according to the constitutive / ritual model; the meanings of messages emerge from the consensus of participants. Constructivist epistemology also rejects Cartesian subject / object divide. Yet, contrary to interpretive approach, it emphasizes the role of the observer (who is different from naturalist observer) in acquiring knowledge. Knowledge of reality is observerdependent, in fact, it is created by observer, and therefore it is contingent. For social sciences this means contingency on three levels: cognition, communication and society, of which most important for the present research is communication. In constructivist theory communication is described as an uncertain attempt to cope with uncertainty. Because of the cognitive autonomy of participants, communication itself is porous and unstable (Grant 2003). It is the receiver (observer of communicative reality) who creates communication, i.e. discerns, which objects from the environment should be counted as message or as noise. NOISE MESSAGE NOISE RECEIVER Figure 3 Constructivist model of communication
It is obvious that Craig s theory is based on the interpretive epistemology and it is difficult to see, how theories based on different epistemology can take part in dialogical dialectical field based on his metamodel, without loosing their methodological self. Epistemological frameworks from the contemporary approaches in social sciences provide reasonable foundations for particular ways of theorizing communication. Thereby the number of theoretical traditions is reduced to the number of methodological approaches in communication research. This reduction shows the impossibility of united communication theory; however it offers consolation that other social sciences face the same debates of incommensurable theoretical / methodological approaches and invites to join them in search of solution. Literature Carey, J. W. (2009) Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Revised Edition. New York and London: Routledge. Craig, R. T. (1999) Communication Theory as a Field, Communication Theory, vol. 9, # 2: 119-161. Craig, R. T. (2007) Pragmatism in the Field of Communication Theory, Communication Theory, vol. 17, # 2: 125-145. Grant, C. B. (2003) Destabilizing Social Communication Theory, Theory Culture & Society, Vol. 20(6): 95 119. Pavitt, C. (1999) The Third Way: Scientific Realism and Communication Theory, Communication Theory, vol. 9, # 2: 162-188.