COMMUNICATION THEORY

MoonSun20

ReferenceRobertT.Craig.pdf

Home >Literature homework help >COMMUNICATION THEORY

Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

Metatheory

Contributors: Author:Robert T. Craig

Edited by: Stephen W. Littlejohn & Karen A. Foss

Book Title: Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

Chapter Title: "Metatheory"

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.n244

Print pages: 658-661

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.n244

Metatheory is theory about theory. Every theory is based on certain assumptions about the nature of theory and about fundamental aspects of the phenomena or subject matter theorized. Most often these metatheoretical assumptions are implicit, meaning they are not explicitly articulated within the theory itself. The purpose of metatheory is to explicitly articulate and critique the metatheoretical assumptions that underlie theories and to articulate normative metatheoretical principles to guide the creation and assessment of theories. Metatheory addresses questions such as what is theory. What are the purposes of theory? How should theories be constructed? How should they be tested or critiqued, and by what criteria? In the case of communication metatheory, answering these questions can involve arguments about the fundamental nature of communication as well as about knowledge and inquiry in general.

Communication theorists James A. Anderson and Geoffrey Baym have distinguished four types of metatheoretical assumptions:

1. Ontology: Assumptions about existence such as the nature of the human individual and how we relate to the world around us. For example, some theories assume that human behavior is determined by external causes, while others assume that individuals freely choose how to act. Theories also disagree about whether communication phenomena exist objectively, independent of our theories, or whether those phenomena exist only as socially interpreted, in which case the communication phenomena we study do not exist independently of our theories but are shaped to some extent by the theories we use to interpret them.

2. Epistemology: Assumptions about knowledge such as what it means to know something and how knowledge claims can be validated. Some theories assume that theoretical claims can be supported only by empirical observation, while others assume that theoretical claims can be based on conceptual analysis and rational argument, and still others assume that theories are interpretations of the world that cannot be proven with much certainty, if at all.

3. Praxeology: Assumptions about the practice of theory such as how a theory should be structured and presented and factors that determine a theory's relevance and originality. Theories are always written for particular audiences—intellectual communities in which it is conventionally expected that theories should address certain issues, cite certain precedents (usually previous theories in the same tradition), and be written in certain ways (e.g., using verbal arguments, formal systems of propositions, or mathematical formulas).

4. Axiology: Assumptions about the values that a theory should reflect or how a theory should contribute to society. In the empirical scientific tradition, it is generally assumed that the best way for science to contribute to society is by providing carefully tested, objective, value-free theoretical knowledge. In contrast, normative, value-based theorizing is explicitly intended to evaluate and influence communication practices.

An articulated, logically consistent set of ontological, epistemological, praxeological, and axiological assumptions distinguishes a coherent metatheory or metatheoretical approach, although metatheoretical writings seldom mention all four types of assumptions explicitly. Communication theorists have not agreed on a single metatheory, but continue to develop theories and debate the fundamental assumptions of communication theory from various metatheoretical stances. These debates are not restricted to communication theory, but extend across disciplines into philosophy, the humanities, and the social sciences. Several broad approaches to metatheory can be distinguished, including empirical-explanatory social science, interpretive social science, critical theory, and practical theory. Each of these broad approaches includes a range of contending views. To suggest in a general way how the same communication phenomena can be theorized from some of these different metatheoretical stances, group leadership will be used as a running example.

Scientific Theory and Explanation

Scientific communication theories typically assume, among other things, that human behavior is determined

SAGE Reference

Page 2 of 7 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

by knowable causes (ontology), that theoretical claims can only be proven by empirical evidence (epistemology), that theories should present clear definitions of terms and logically consistent sets of propositions that can be tested empirically by independent investigators (praxeology), and that the purpose of theory is to explain communication phenomena objectively as they are and not to criticize communication practices or argue for value-based normative claims about what communication should be (axiology). For example, a scientific theory of leadership would not attempt to define good leadership or criticize leadership practices in our society. Instead, it might attempt to explain, for instance, how groups respond to particular leadership styles under varying conditions of competition with other groups. Such a theory would need to define key concepts such as leadership styles, intergroup competition, and group response with sufficient clarity and precision to allow direct or indirect empirical observation by means of experimental procedures, survey questionnaires, or behavioral measures. The theory would also need to include statements explaining how these concepts are related empirically in the communication process—for example, the cognitive processes that cause group members to respond more positively to directive leadership styles in conditions of heightened intergroup competition. Hypotheses based on these theoretical explanations could then be tested in empirical studies, thus providing evidence for or against the theory. Although scientifically inclined communication theorists generally agree on this broad picture of theory, they disagree on a number of metatheoretical issues.

Two approaches that have received much attention in recent discussions of scientific theory are postpositivism and scientific realism. Positivism (or logical empiricism) is a philosophy of science that holds that appropriately constructed theories can be strictly verified or falsified by empirical data. This view has been heavily criticized on many grounds and today is largely rejected. Postpositivism rejects the strict assumptions of positivism while continuing to uphold empirical validation, objectivity, and value- free inquiry as pragmatic goals that scientific theory should pursue as far as possible. Scientific realism defends the stronger ontological and epistemological stance that theories should refer to entities and causal mechanisms that really exist independently of our theories about them. Realism opposes more skeptical views such as instrumentalism (which holds that scientific concepts are invented to explain empirical data, but do not necessarily correspond to real entities), and perspectivism (which holds that phenomena do not exist independently of our theories because the perspective or paradigm in which a theory is constructed determines how empirical observations will be interpreted). Other ontological differences within the scientific approach concern whether communication should be theorized primarily at group or individual level of analysis and whether communication phenomena are restricted to interaction processes or whether they also include personality traits and cognitive structures.

Interpretive Social Science

Interpretive (or hermeneutical) metatheories assume that the social sciences, including communication studies, are essentially different from the physical and natural sciences because human social action is ontologically distinct from natural processes. The key difference is that humans, unlike other physical or biological entities, are self-interpreting beings—that is, humans typically behave with some degree of self- awareness and on the basis of some particular understanding of what they are doing. Explaining human social behavior is not like explaining a chemical reaction. To explain human action, one needs to understand what it means to the people involved—meanings that vary over time and among different social groups and individuals. Life in human society depends on our ability to interpret our own and other people's actions. Of course, this is what we do in everyday communication, but those everyday understandings are usually focused on immediate practical concerns. Interpretive social science contributes to society by extending the scope of our understanding in formal studies that interpret the specific meanings found in various cultural groups, social situations, texts, and artifacts of the past and present. Although it may be possible to some extent to theorize general causal mechanisms that influence human behavior regardless of cultural meanings, interpretive metatheories take as an epistemological assumption that the potential for this kind of empirical scientific theory is not very great. Hence, they tend to downplay the importance of theory in general and focus instead on understanding the particular meanings that are found in each situation. In the praxeology of interpretive social science, empirical studies are not conducted to prove or disprove general theories.

SAGE Reference

Page 3 of 7 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

Theories can only provide us with various general themes or frameworks of interpretation that may or may not be helpful for understanding what is going on in a particular situation.

An interpretive approach to theorizing leadership would begin with the assumption that the meaning of leadership changes over time and varies among people with different cultural backgrounds. A communication theorist might be interested in how leadership is communicated in particular groups, such as leadership styles in Mexican organizations or how understandings of female leadership are changing as more women continue to enter top positions in business and politics. Theories might play a helpful role in these interpretive studies. For example, theories of narrative might be used to interpret stories about leadership successes and failures collected from Mexican organizational members or female business leaders, or theories of leadership style might be compared to the experiences reported by participants in these settings. The goal in either case would not be to verify these theories empirically, but the studies might find that Mexican leadership stories have different themes than have been found previously or that female leaders are developing new styles that theories might be revised to include.

Interpretive praxeology divides into numerous distinct traditions such as various schools of ethnography and cultural theory, narrative inquiry, ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, rhetorical criticism, psychoanalysis, and historiography, all relating to theory in different ways. There are ontological debates about the reality of cultural patterns, rules, narratives, and social practices, and epistemological debates about the objectivity or subjectivity of interpretations. Interpretive axiology stresses the intrinsic value of cultural and historical understanding, but some theorists argue that interpretive understanding always has a practical motive. To the extent that practical motives for understanding are emphasized, interpretive metatheory may blend with critical or practical theory approaches.

Critical Approaches

Whereas the essential goal of empirical scientific theory is to explain the general mechanisms by which communication processes work and that of interpretive theory is to facilitate better understanding of particular meanings, the essential goal of critical theory is to emancipate society from material and ideological conditions that distort communication and perpetuate unjust power relations. Critical approaches embrace an overtly political praxeology and a value-based axiology. Critical approaches have varied across a wide range of ontological and epistemological positions from highly objectivist, deterministic theories of political economy at one extreme to postmodernist skepticism about the possibility of any stable meaning at the opposite extreme. However, most critical theory now blends with interpretive approaches while continuing to differ from purely interpretive approaches with regard to praxeology and axiology.

Critical theory broadly construed includes strands of critical cultural theory, feminism, queer theory, postcolonial, and critical race theory along with older strands of Marxism and Frankfurt School critical theory. Modern theories of political economy in the Marxist tradition critique hidden manifestations and consequences of the ideology of capitalism. The neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, which was formed in 1930 in Frankfurt, Germany, and relocated to the United States during Germany's Nazi period, contributed to critical theories of media and culture. Jürgen Habermas, the most prominent current theorist in the Frankfurt School tradition, has developed a different critical theory based on an ideal of free and open rational discourse (the ideal speech situation), an ideal that can be used to critique the ways in which actual communication processes are distorted by power and ideology. Other current strands of critical theory such as feminism and critical race theory critique the distorting effects of dominant ideologies of social class, race, gender, and sexuality with varying emphasis. However, most of these current strands of critical theory disagree with Habermas's ontology of rational discourse. Instead, they embrace postmodernist assumptions.

Dennis K. Mumby has distinguished postmodernism from critical theory, arguing that empirical-scientific, interpretive, and critical approaches are all forms of modernism from which postmodernism essentially differs. Postmodernism rejects modernist assumptions such as the ontology of the autonomous rational mind, the epistemological separation between truth and power, and ontological assumption that language can

SAGE Reference

Page 4 of 7 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

express stable meanings and personal identities. However, as Mumby implies, postmodernist ontological and epistemological assumptions can be integrated with a critical axiology and praxeology, as we have noted many strands of critical theory currently do. Postmodernist approaches that are not critically oriented can be regarded instead as forms of interpretive theory.

A critical theory of leadership would attempt to reveal ways that existing ideas and practices of leadership contribute to hidden ideological distortions of communication that perpetuate injustice. These could include assumptions about leadership that privilege particular gender or racial identities or physical body types. They could also include autocratic or latently strategic leadership practices that undermine the potential for democratic participation in decisions. For example, organizational communication theorist Stanley Deetz has theorized about group interaction patterns that create conditions of discursive closure, marginalizing certain members or precluding the possibility of certain topics from being discussed.

Practical Theory

Practical theory is the most recently developed of the four broad metatheoretical stances presented here and is still by far the least common. Like critical approaches, practical theory assumes that theories of communication can and should have a positive influence in changing the world, not only in explaining or understanding the world as it now exists. Also like critical theories, practical theory spans a wide range of ontological and epistemological assumptions shared with scientific or interpretive metatheories while differing in axiology and praxeology. In contrast to critical theories, however, practical theories are less focused on ideological issues and tend to include constructive proposals for new or reconstructed communication practices along with critiques of existing practices. Practical theory assumes that theories should address practical problems (praxeology) and that an essential purpose of theory is to open new possibilities for action contributing to the improvement of communication practices in society (axiology).

J. Kevin Barge has distinguished three main approaches to practical theory: mapping, engaged reflection, and transformative practice. Practical theory as mapping views practical theory as a high-quality description of practical problems, communicative strategies, and the consequences of performing particular communicative strategies. A practical theory of leadership in the mapping approach might describe the problems that leaders face when group conflict intensifies (such as loss of trust), leadership techniques that can be used to alleviate those problems, and the possible effects or unintended consequences of using those techniques. Practical theory as mapping can incorporate assumptions from scientific, interpretive, or critical metatheories. A scientific approach to mapping follows the ontological-epistemological assumptions of empirical scientific theory, such as the assumption that phenomena exist independently of our theories. Interpretive and critical approaches instead assume a social constructionist ontology and epistemology—that communication practices change depending on how they are interpreted in society—and that communication theories can actively contribute to that process of changing interpretations and practices. Whereas a scientific practical theory of leadership would map the empirically verified causes and consequences of specific leadership techniques, an interpretive or critical mapping approach would use a theory of leadership as an alternative framework or lens for reinterpreting situations, revealing hidden problems and envisioning different leadership practices.

Practical theory as engaged reflection approaches theorizing as a reflexive process in which practice and theory productively inform one another. Although generally sharing the social constructionist assumptions of critical and interpretive mapping, engaged reflection differs from them in the praxeology of theory construction and use. In engaged reflection, theories are created through systematic study and reflection on practical problems and are explicitly designed to reconstruct the communication practices they theorize. Two distinct approaches to practical theory as engaged reflection are currently under development: grounded practical theory and design theory. A grounded practical theory of leadership would be created by empirically observing and critically reflecting on the practice of leaders in action and then constructing a normative theoretical model of leadership problems, techniques, and philosophical ideals. Development of a design theory of leadership would begin with an ideal model of leadership, such as the ideal of rational deliberation, then would observe

SAGE Reference

Page 5 of 7 Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

leaders in action to see in what ways their practice fell short of the ideal model, and finally would design and test communication techniques that could be used to bring actual leadership practices closer to the ideal.

In practical theory as transformative practice, theorizing is seen as a process of elaborating the communication abilities of both practical theorists and research participants. Unlike engaged reflection, the praxeology of transformative practice develops theory not by observing and critically reflecting on practices of others, but through the practical theorist's own active participation in helping others to solve communication problems. This is a different social constructionist approach. For example, a practical theorist might work with community leaders to develop a public participation process to address controversial issues in the community. New theoretical ideas might emerge as the theorist worked to facilitate this collaboration—for example, ideas for better ways of talking about disagreements in community meetings. Practical theorists could then apply and further develop this theory in future collaborations with leaders in other communities.

• praxeology • practical theory • axiology • metatheory • critical theory • leadership theories • leadership practices

Robert T. Craig http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n244 See also

• Axiology • Critical Theory • Discourse Theory and Analysis • Empiricism • Epistemology • Ethnography of Communication • Ethnomethodology • Frankfurt School • Grounded Theory • Interpretive Theory • Marxist Theory • Narrative and Narratology • Ontology • Postpositivism • Practical Theory • Realism and the Received View • Scientific Approach • Traditions of Communication Theory