Research Study Analysis

Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

Inquiry Processes

Contributors: Stephen W. Littlejohn

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

Book Title: Encyclopedia of Communication Theory

Chapter Title: "Inquiry Processes"

Pub. Date: 2009

Access Date: January 22, 2016

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.

City: Thousand Oaks

Print ISBN: 9781412959377

Online ISBN: 9781412959384

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n195

Print pages: 518-520

©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.

Inquiry is a process of developing knowledge through research and theory building. A theory results from an ongoing process involving research and the refinement of theory. The general process of inquiry, branches of inquiry, the research and publication work that scholars undertake, communities of scholarship, and the process of theory development all contribute to an understanding of the nature of inquiry.

Nature of Inquiry

When scholars attempt to answer questions in a systematic way, they are engaged in inquiry. Many variations of inquiry exist, but all follow three sets of related activities— asking questions, making observations, and forming theories.

At base, all inquiry begins with interesting questions. What do we want to find out? Questions of definition seek clarification on concepts that delineate one thing from another—what something is and what it is not. Questions of fact ask about properties, connections, and characteristics. These questions form the basis for observations of how things appear in our experience. Questions of value look at the beauty, utility, or ethics of a set of ideas, experiences, or practices.

Questions determine what kind of observations to undertake, and there are many variations of observation. Some researchers look at behavior, some at self-reported feelings and thoughts, and some at records and discourse. Researchers may conduct observations firsthand, by doing experiments, by using instruments, by talking to people, or by careful reading and analysis.

The third part of inquiry is forming answers to questions, which is really the process of theorizing. Scholars carefully analyze their observations, interpret what they mean, and describe or explain what they saw in answer to their questions. Once patterns become apparent across situations, tentative theories can be created.

The three parts of inquiry—questions, observations, and theories—are intimately tied to one another in a circular way. Questions guide observations, observations form the basis of theories, theories help structure observations, and theories and observations suggest new questions.

Science, Humanities, Social Science

Three branches of scholarship primarily contribute to communication theory. These are science, humanities, and social science. Science is that branch of knowledge that relies mostly on objectivity, standardization, and quantification. Scientific research must be replicable, meaning that all observers using the same methods should come up with the same results. Scientists assume the world has a potentially observable structure and rely on methods of discovering this structure. Science is therefore mostly interested in nature.

Humanities is the branch of knowledge associated with subjectivity, or individual interpretation. Events may be understood in a number of ways, and scholars try to establish interpretations that make sense or are useful in answering certain kinds of questions. While science concentrates on what is “out there” in the world, humanities emphasizes what is “in here” within the interpreter. The humanities also are associated

with human experience and human products such as literature, history, and philosophy, in which art, experience, and values are at stake.

Although often considered science, in reality the social sciences blend aspects of science and humanities. Because human social life is the object of social science, both objectivity and subjectivity are included. Social scientists who believe that social behavior can be observed objectively emphasize the scientific aspects of this branch; those who believe that individual subjective response is key emphasize humanistic methods. In fact, much of social science combines both—objective observation of patterns, followed by subjective interpretation of these patterns.

Some scholars study natural, biological, and behavioral aspects of communication, and they use scientific methods to do so. These researchers would feel quite comfortable characterizing themselves as “scientists.” Other researchers are more interested in discourse and media and look at these much as literature scholars or art critics analyze written artifacts. This group would feel quite comfortable in the world of humanities. Recognizing that the discipline of communication benefits from a melange of approaches, most scholars in the field are most comfortable referring to communication as a social science.

Research and Publication

Inquiry follows a standard path across academic disciplines. Beginning from a point of curiosity, the scholar pursues inquiry into something significant in his or her own life, something previously studied in the literature, a topic of conversation within a group of scholars, or questions raised by students. Since most scholars have advanced degrees, they may begin a line of work with the dissertation or other work started in graduate school. Once established, a professional scholar must continue a research program in order to get pay raises, tenure, and promotion. As well, grant money, travel funds, and recognitions and awards are incentives for ongoing inquiry.

Inquiry is never a solitary process but relies heavily on interaction within the scholarly community. Often professors work on ideas with students in the classroom or with graduate students interested in similar subject matters. Scholars frequently refine their ideas in convention papers presented to groups of colleagues at meetings and later submitted for publication, usually in academic journals. Peer reviewers provide additional input that can help refine questions, observations, and theories. Indeed, the peer-review process is vital to the advancement of inquiry in all fields. Often papers are critiqued publicly by convention panel respondents and later by journal commentators who read and critique the manuscript for possible publication.

In the world of research and theory, two forms of publication are valued most—the journal article and the scholarly book. A journal article can appear in any of a number of peer-reviewed national and regional journals. Many journals publish articles relevant to communication inquiry, including the prestigious Communication Theory, published by the International Communication Association. Within the long list of highly regarded journals are, for example, Human Communication Research, Critical Studies in Media Communication, and Communication Monographs. Since only the best articles are published in journals of this stature, these outlets showcase leading research and theory at any given moment in the field. Scholars subscribe to paper or online versions of the journals most relevant to their own work and rely on these to

provide information about the latest advancements in their areas of interest.

No substitute for rigorous peer review exists. The evaluation of inquiry is subjective, and consensus is still the primary gauge of quality in a field of study. Scholars do disagree about whether a particular line of research and theory building is worthy, so, at least in the social sciences, the establishment of universal consensus is impossible. It is possible and appropriate, however, to ask whether a line of work has credibility within a particular community of scholars. Lines of inquiry and resulting theories judged generally interesting, useful, or valid over time become the standards for scholars engaged in those areas of work.

Much scholarly work is published in larger monograph form, usually in academic books published by university and academic presses. Indeed, many important theories of communication have come out in this form. Another common and helpful kind of book consists of edited volumes of several chapters related to a topic. The book editor invites various well-known scholars to write chapters on their own work, and these summaries can be helpful for students and researchers to get a sense of the state of the art in regard to the subjects covered by the book.

Communities of Scholarship

Although the processes outlined in the previous sections are nearly universal, they belie the complexity and variation of work within a field like communication. The details of inquiry vary significantly from one group of scholars to another. In this section, three lines of difference that distinguish among traditions of inquiry in communication are examined.

Differences of Focus

The first line of difference deals with objects on which the researcher-theorist chooses to focus. Typically, there are three—individuals, social relations, and texts. A scholar's focus determines in large measure what he or she observes, and this is primarily determined by the kinds of things the scholar finds most fascinating.

Some are intrigued by individual human behavior and focus on the individual communicator. These scholars are curious about why people behave as they do; how people think; and how thoughts, feelings, and emotions relate to actions. This kind of inquiry consists largely of research based on observation and measurement of behavior. Individually oriented communication scholars spend a lot of time classifying behavior into types and establishing causal links between various antecedents and behavioral outcomes. Trait theories that provide typologies of individual behavior provide a good example of this kind of work.

Some scholars are more interested in interpersonal patterns of interaction and relationships among individuals. Here the focus is on connections between individuals, not so much on individual behavior itself. Such work often observes dyads, groups, organizations, and communities. These scholars notice different types of relationships, observe patterns of mutual behavior, and look for system connections. Indeed, a body of work in relational theories illustrates this focus.

A third focus in communication inquiry is text or discourse. Although nonverbal forms can be a kind of text, this focus usually consists of language and messages. Such

scholars look at what people say and how messages are used in practical situations. Many theories of communication result from this focus. One example is conversation analysis, which explains how people organize their talk through a series of turns.

Differences of Method

Inquiry also differs in terms of how observations are made. For some, observation is a matter of objective measurement, and for others it is subjective interpretation. This difference reflects the distinction made earlier in this entry between science and humanities. This is a difference in how scholars work and what counts as data in their research. Should data be quantitative and objective, or should it be a qualitative reading or judgment of a situation or text? Does the scholar rely on an instrument that detects some quality, or is the scholar himself or herself the instrument? All researchers acknowledge that some interpretation is necessary, but they disagree on how primary the interpretation is to the inquiry process. Interviews are often used as a source of data in communication research. Here the researcher asks subjects questions about their experience and then interprets their qualitative (not quantitative) responses.

For example, much inquiry into interpersonal communication relies on experiments in which test conditions are set up in a laboratory and outcome measurements taken to identify causal patterns in various interpersonal situations. On the other hand, much media research relies on careful examination and interpretation of the media environment.

Differences of Value

Inquiry divides along a third line as well—the degree to which scholars express their values in their work. Two general schools capture this fracture point. The first is a generally descriptive approach, in which the scholar aims to describe and explain what is observed without evaluative comment; the second is critical in stating what is good and/or bad about what is observed. The descriptive approach sees itself as neutral in observation, while the critical approach projects an expressly political perspective. Most academics today would not claim that some work is objectively neutral and other work is value-laden, but instead acknowledge that not all scholars acknowledge their values explicitly. Notice the difference, for example, between ethnography, which aims to describe cultural patterns, and critical ethnography, which aims to cast light on the oppressive structures within certain cultural patterns.

Inquiry over Time

Inquiry is a process, meaning that it is dynamic. Scholars do not just conduct one inquiry or single study to discover the truth of a matter and then move to a new subject. Instead, they continually evolve their work through ongoing inquiry that refines questions, observations, and theoretical statements. You can see this clearly in the research/theory literature in any aspect of the field. Ideas change, which leads to fresh research and new ways of thinking about the subject. Thus, knowledge within a topical area grows and changes through ongoing inquiry. This change occurs in several ways.

The first is incremental growth. Here knowledge is added piece by piece. Over time, more questions are asked, more observations are made, and theories expand in number, each helping to explain a different aspect of the process. These theories are not really competitive, but each offers a different bit that adds to how we can understand

a topic. In incremental growth, knowledge expands piece by piece. Attitude theory is a good example of incremental growth. From the 1940s through the 1970s, understandings of attitude and attitude change grew incrementally as scholars understood more and more about attitudes.

The second way in which the knowledge base changes is through developmental growth. Here individual theories become increasingly refined and exacting. They improve over time in their power, validity, and utility. A theory that began as a simple idea expands and grows to explain more variables and provide a more complete picture of the topic. The theory of the coordinated management of meaning is a good example. Beginning with a relatively small set of concepts, the theory has developed over the years to include a wide variety of ideas that expand the theory's usefulness for explaining many communication phenomena.

The third means of change is canonical development. The canon consists of the predominant lines of work and resulting theories at a given time. The canon, or set of theories in vogue, expresses the state of knowledge during this period in the history of the field. But the canon changes as new theories are admitted and old ones decline. Thus knowledge changes as the canon changes. Media effects studies offer a perfect example of canonical development. Once restricted to theories of how media affect audiences, the canon has shifted a number of times over the years to (a) how audiences use and affect media, (b) how media create communities, and (c) how media become personal and social tools.

Of course, knowledge typically changes in all three ways simultaneously. These three processes taken together characterize the normal course of events, but sometimes a new discovery upsets this normal course of change by shifting the entire perspective on how we view the subject matter. This is change by revolution. After a period of stability in which knowledge grew incrementally, developmentally, and canonically, this entire course of events is called into question, perhaps by a new line of inquiry, that requires a complete transformation in thinking. This happened in critical theory. During much of the 20th century, critical theory was based on Marxist ideas, which posited preexisting oppressive social structures tied intimately to class and economics. However, toward the end of the century, cultural studies began to look more closely at how oppressive structures change and evolve in a dynamic power struggle among communities, which transformed the nature of social critique.

• inquiry • humanities • inquiry processes • communication theory • peer review • journal articles • journals

Stephen W. Littlejohn http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384.n195 See also

• Metatheory • Theory

• Traditions of Communication Theory

Further Readings Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Littlejohn, S. W. (2007). The nature and evaluation of theory. In B. B. Whaley, & W. Sampter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 1–14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication ( 9th ed. ; especially pp. 7–10). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Miller, G. R., & Nicholson, H. (1976). Communication inquiry. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Snow, C. P. (1964). The two cultures and a second look. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.