COMMUNICATION THEORY

referencebyStephenW.Littlejohn.pdf

Home >Literature homework help >COMMUNICATION THEORY

Encyclopedia of Communication Theory Evaluating Communication Theory

Contributors: Author:Stephen W. Littlejohn Edited by: Stephen W. Littlejohn & Karen A. Foss Book Title: Encyclopedia of Communication Theory Chapter Title: "Evaluating Communication Theory" Pub. Date: 2009 Access Date: October 28, 2020 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc. City: Thousand Oaks Print ISBN: 9781412959377 Online ISBN: 9781412959384 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n135 Print pages: 364-366

© 2009 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

javascript:void(0);

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n135

Scholars use several criteria to evaluate theories in order to establish their contribution to the body of knowledge and usefulness. This entry summarizes several evaluative criteria and provides a measure of the overall qualities of a good theory.

Evaluation Criteria

Theoretical Scope

Scope refers to the comprehensiveness or breadth of a theory. Although theories vary in coverage, some level of generality is necessary for a theory to have value. In other words, a theory must explain events beyond a single observation. One can explain an observation, but that explanation is not theoretical if it does not apply to other observations as well. In other words, a theory must cover a range of events. The more observations that a theory covers, the better the theory is judged to be.

A theory can have two types of generality. The first is the extent of a theory's coverage. If a theory addresses a wide spectrum of topics, it has value in helping us understand characteristics that span many aspects of communication. For example, a theory might explain how people create meaning in all forms of communication. Because the topic of meaning is so broad and covers such a wide spectrum of events, the theory would help us understand many things about communication in all its forms.

The second type of generality applies a narrow concept across many situations. The theory in this case would not address very many topics but would be widely applicable across many situations. For example, a theory might explain attitude change, a relatively narrow topic applicable in many kinds of communication, from interpersonal exchanges to media campaigns. Such theories have power because they explain something in many different kinds of situations.

Good theories can possess either of these types of generality. In applying this criterion, the critic looks at the usefulness of the theory in explaining a range of experiences. Does it have an appropriate level of generality? Is its coverage so narrow that it is not very helpful or so broad that it is meaningless? To whom is the theory's breadth most relevant? A theory that looks very narrow from one vantage point may actually turn out to be quite useful to certain scholars and practitioners who work in a relatively limited field. For example, general communication scholars may find a theory of early childhood communication development too narrow to help understand communication processes across the life span, yet early childhood specialists may find the scope of such a theory just right for the kind of work they do.

Consistency

The criterion of consistency refers generally to the coherence or fit between a theory's philosophical assumptions and substantive claims. Are the theory's concepts and explanations consistent with the theory's assumptions? For example, if a theory assumes that genetics and learning determine behavior, then it leaves little room for individual human choice. We might question such a theory's appropriateness in making claims about decision making, since deterministic premises cannot lead logically to decision-making conclusions.

Appropriateness is related to the language used in theoretical statements. For example, the term decision making implies weighing options and making choices, while the term behavior does not necessarily imply choice. On the other hand, if a theorist claims that behavior is determined by previous events, then he or she would be perfectly consistent in making behavioral predictions.

Theoretical publications are not always explicit about a theory's philosophical assumptions. Often these need to be inferred from the various statements and claims within the theory, leading to the need for internal consistency among claims and explanations. Also, we get insight into a theory's premises by the methods used to verify it. For example, case studies are often used to verify theories that rely on differences among

SAGE Reference

Page 2 of 5 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

situations, while experimental studies are often used to verify theories that make causal predictions across situations. If a critic perceives that the methods used to test the theory are inconsistent with the claims of the theory itself, he or she might fault the theory on the grounds of consistency.

Heuristic Value

A heuristic is a tool that helps set direction, solve problems, or suggest ideas. A theory can be valuable if it leads to further ideas for research and additional theory development. Theories in the social sciences are rarely ends in themselves but serve to suggest fruitful avenues for investigation and concept development. Scholars may ask the questions, Where can we go with this theory? Where does it lead us in our investigations? A theory that is helpful in this way is said to have heuristic value.

A theory has heuristic value if it suggests new ways to look at old variables, provides new hypotheses to test, points to fresh situations to investigate, or opens new fields of practice. A theory may have validity in that it seems true but does little to promote ongoing scholarship. Such a theory would fail the heuristic test.

Validity

Validity is the extent to which a theory is “true.” However, truth can be measured in a variety of ways, so validity is really a great deal more than simple truth. Depending on the type of theory, validity can be assessed in three ways.

The first form of validity is the correspondence between the theory's claims and observations. If the theory corresponds with what people have observed in their research, it is said to be valid in this sense of the word. Indeed, one of the primary functions of research is to test the validity of theories, or, conversely, to lead to theoretical claims that are valid by establishing a correspondence between research results and theoretical claims. This first form of validity is traditional and commonly used. It is perhaps the only form of validity recognized in mainstream sciences. However, social sciences typically use theory for reasons to explain concrete reality, requiring an expansion of the criterion.

The second form of validity is generalizability, or scope, as defined above. A theory is valid if you can predict outcomes in new situations based on claims developed from research in known situations. Sometimes called predictive validity, this standard values theories that accurately predict what will happen in a situation that has not yet been examined. If an experiment results in outcomes expected based on the theory, this experiment adds weight to the validity of the theory. However, a theory does not have to predict a cause-effect relationship to be generalizable. A theory might explain that people use a certain type of expression in certain kinds of situations. When this is apparent in a case previously not studied, validity is at work.

Third, validity can refer to the utility or usefulness of a theory. A theory can be said to have practical validity, which means that it is valuable for some use. This is the primary form of validity applied to practical, as opposed to predictive, theories. Here the critic asks, Does this theory help us achieve an important goal? Does it highlight certain ideas that help us understand or navigate a challenging life situation? Does it identify the dimensions of situations that should be taken into account when engaging in a certain practice? Does it describe certain outcomes that might be possible and thereby help us identify our goals?

Obviously, a theory may have more than one type of validity. We already know that every theory should have some level of generalizability. In addition to this, however, the theory may display correspondence and utility. In general, the more a theory can do, the better that theory is judged to be.

Parsimony

Parsimony is logical simplicity or theoretical elegance. A theory that reaches a claim in a few simple steps

SAGE Reference

Page 3 of 5 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

is superior to one that reaches the same claim through a longer chain of logical steps. Stated differently, a theory's power is increased when it can reach its conclusions with just a few key concepts rather than many. If a theory is parsimonious, it has gotten to the bottom of things quickly: It has identified the most basic explanatory variables or mechanisms. It predicts a lot from just a little.

Like all the criteria, however, parsimony is relative. A theory should be logically simple, but not simplistic. A good theory reduces complex experiences to a manageable and understandable set of factors without losing the richness and complexity of human experience. A theory may be highly parsimonious but in the process lose much of its heuristic value. It may be parsimonious but not very generalizable. The theory may be so parsimonious that it is closed and resistant to productive change.

Openness

Although the classical ideal for a theory in science is to be final and closed—answering all questions—in many branches of the social sciences, openness is held as a higher value. Even in physics, which aims to end itself by producing a Theory of Everything, many scientists know this is unrealistic and always want openings for the next step. Thus a good theory is actually tentative and open to new extensions. A good theory acknowledges that it is incomplete.

Theories can be open in three ways. They may invite development through intension, or development of more detail within particular concepts; by extension, or development of additional concepts; and by revolution, meaning that there are questions the theory cannot answer, and when these are addressed, entirely new concepts come to light.

Making an Overall Judgment

Although these six criteria provide a set of measuring sticks, a good theory integrates these and emphasizes those most relevant to the goals of the theory. If a theory is successful, it will have several characteristics:

• 1. The theory will provide new insights. It will not belabor the obvious but lead scholars to see phenomena in ways they might not otherwise have considered. Studying a theory, or producing one, as the case may be, leads the scholar to gain new ideas.

• 2. The theory will be conceptually interesting. It will provide insights that are fascinating to contemplate.

• 3. The theory will develop over time and evolve from one set of concepts to a better, more useful set. It has a history and a literature attached to it. It continues to attract interest and new contributors.

• 4. It is a collaborative product. It has developed as the result of numerous contributions by various scholars. One person may be responsible for providing a key or central idea in the theory, but the theory has gotten better over the years by teams of scholars working together.

• 5. The theory is durable. It passes the test of time. It is not easily abandoned. Even after its heyday, the theory is still taught because its concepts are useful.

• validity • theories • generalizability • theories of power • test theory • scope • third way

SAGE Reference

Page 4 of 5 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

Stephen W. Littlejohn http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n135 See also

• Metatheory • Theory • Traditions of Communication Theory