Weighing the Words: Evaluating Objective and Interpretive Communication Theories (week 2, l. 2)

Foundations of Communication Theory Evaluation

  • Fundamental Question: A central puzzle in communication studies is how different scholars can investigate the exact same phenomenon and conclude with wildly divergent interpretations and understandings.

  • Scholarship Disconnect: Social scientists (objective scholars) and interpretive scholars operate under vastly different paradigms, often leading to mutual difficulty in understanding and valuing each other's research and scholarly contributions.

  • Necessity of Evaluation: Not all objective or interpretive theories are inherently good. Systematic criteria and standards are required to critically evaluate the merit, utility, and quality of any given communication theory.

Standards for Good Objective (Scientific) Theories

  • Core Objectives:

    • Predicting a future outcome.

    • Explaining the reasons for that outcome.

  • Six Standard Evaluation Criteria:

    • 1. Prediction of Future Events:

      • Definition: The capacity to forecast what will happen within a given communication context to a reasonable standard of acceptability (absolute perfection is not required).

      • Scope & Domain: Prediction is only feasible with observable phenomena—things that can be experienced through the physical senses (touch, taste, hear, smell, see).

      • Individual vs. General: Even the most robust scientific theory generally predicts human behavior on a broad, aggregate level rather than determining the specific actions of single individuals.

    • 2. Explanation of the Data:

      • Definition: The capacity to explain human behavior to an acceptable standard, bringing order out of chaos and raw observational data.

      • Focus on Causality: A strong objective theory moves beyond merely describing what happens; it addresses why it happens. The underlying reason for a behavior is as important as the factual occurrence of the behavior itself.

      • Explanatory Value: Theories that lack explanatory power hold little scholarly value.

    • 3. Relative Simplicity:

      • Rule of Parsimony: An objective theory should be as simple as possible. According to the principle of parsimony, when presented with two plausible explanations for the exact same event, the simpler version should always be accepted.

      • Avoidance of Over-Complication: Theories should avoid unnecessary complexity or overly convoluted mechanisms.

    • 4. Testable Hypotheses:

      • Falsifiability: A scientific theory must be framed in a manner that allows it to be empirically tested and potentially disproved if it is incorrect.

      • Requirement for Disproof: Scholars must be able to test the theory in ways that expose it to the possibility of being proven wrong.

    • 5. Practical Utility:

      • Long-Term Application: Over time, a quality objective theory provides real-world utility and practical benefit to both academic scholars and the general public.

      • Scope of Utility: The broader the practical application and scope of a theory, the greater its overall value.

    • 6. Quantitative Research:

      • Reliance on Numerical Comparison: Objective scientific research relies heavily on measuring and comparing differences using numerical data.

      • Experimentation: A formal research method in which a researcher manipulates one specific variable within a tightly controlled environment to determine whether it produces the predicted outcome.

      • Survey Method: A research method employing structured questionnaires and interviews to gather self-reported data reflecting respondents' thoughts, feelings, or intended behaviors.

Standards for Good Interpretive Theories

  • Evaluation Framework: While interpretive scholarship lacks a universally agreed-upon six-point checklist, a sound interpretive theory should account for several key standards:

    • 1. Clarification of Values / Identifying Values:

      • Explicit Commitments: Interpretive theories should bring underlying individual and cultural values into the open, requiring theorists to explicitly declare their own ethical commitments.

      • Equilibrium of Values: Interpretive research places equal value on equality and freedom.

      • Power Dynamics: Allows for critical examination and active reconstruction of power relationships between researchers and research participants.

    • 2. Understanding of People / Creating Understanding:

      • Insight into the Human Condition: Offers fresh, explanatory insights into human experiences, particularly when examining unique, one-of-a-kind communities with specific defining characteristics.

      • Interactive Influence: Scholars must acknowledge that the process of studying and seeking understanding inherently influences the subject being studied.

      • Self-Referential Imperative: The requirement that researchers explicitly include themselves as an active constituent of their own theoretical constructions.

    • 3. Aesthetic Appeal:

      • Creative Imagination: A good interpretive theory captures the reader's imagination through creative, artistic, and clear presentation.

      • Multifaceted Roles: Allows researchers to simultaneously act as artists, analysts, audience members, and advocates.

      • Structural Requirement: Both clarity and artistic craftsmanship must be present to achieve true aesthetic appeal.

    • 4. Community of Agreement:

      • Peer Evaluation: An interpretive theory's validity is judged by the degree of support and consensus it generates within a community of knowledgeable scholars in the field.

      • Acceptance Process: Acceptance or rejection relies upon rigorous peer evaluation and scholarly dialogue.

    • 5. Reform of Society:

      • Social Change: Good interpretive theories—especially critical interpretive theories—aim to generate positive social change and expose unjust, oppressive communication practices.

      • Social Construction: Rejects the premise of absolute, immutable truths or permanent fixed meanings, asserting instead that reality and meaning are continually socially constructed.

    • 6. Qualitative Research:

      • Textual & Narrative Focus: Interpretive scholars rely on words, language, and qualitative descriptions rather than mathematical statistical data.

      • Textual Analysis: Research methodologies designed to describe, analyze, and interpret the specific characteristics, meanings, and structures of any text.

      • Ethnography: A qualitative observational methodology designed to immerse researchers in an environment to decipher and explain complex webs of cultural meaning.

Contested Turf: Divergence Between Approaches

  • Inherent Divergence: Objective (scientific) and interpretive theories represent fundamentally different ontological and epistemological paradigms.

  • Scholarly Tension: Because social scientists rely on empirical observations and quantitative metrics while interpretive scholars focus on textual meaning, human experience, and social construction, the two camps often contest scholarship standards and struggle to validate each other's methodologies.

Common Ground: Parallels Between Objective and Interpretive Standards

  • Despite their fundamental differences, clear bridges and parallels exist between the six standards of scientific theories and the six standards of interpretive theories:

    • Prediction vs. Clarification of Values: Both standards focus on the future—predicting what will happen versus clarifying what ought to happen.

    • Explanation of Data vs. Understanding of People: Explaining communication behavior logically feeds into and leads to a deeper, more profound understanding of human motivation.

    • Relative Simplicity vs. Aesthetic Appeal: The elegant simplicity of a parsimonious objective theory possesses its own intrinsic aesthetic appeal.

    • Testable Hypotheses vs. Community of Agreement: Subjecting hypotheses to empirical testing serves as an objective pathway toward achieving a community of agreement among scholars.

    • Practical Utility vs. Reform of Society: Objective theories with practical utility can be applied practically to reform unjust practices and improve societal operations.

    • Quantitative Research vs. Qualitative Research: Both research modes stem from a shared core commitment to expanding knowledge and learning more about human communication.

Comparative Overview: Scientific vs. Interpretive Theory Criteria


Comparison of criteria for scientific and interpretive theories

  • Scientific Criteria vs. Interpretive Criteria Alignment:

    • Prediction of Future aligns as a parallel to Clarification of Values.

    • Explanation of Data aligns as a parallel to Understanding of People.

    • Relative Simplicity aligns as a parallel to Aesthetic Appeal.

    • Testable Hypotheses aligns as a parallel to Community of Agreement.

    • Practical Utility aligns as a parallel to Reform of Society.

    • Quantitative Research aligns as a parallel to Qualitative Research.

Discussion Questions & Analytical Evaluation

  • Evaluative Priority: When weighing the six criteria of objective theories (Prediction of Future, Explanation of Data, Relative Simplicity, Testability, Practical Utility, Quantitative Research), scholars debate which criterion serves as the most critical indicator of theoretical strength and which is the least essential.

  • Interpretive Priority: Similarly, among the six criteria for interpretive theories (Clarifying Values, Understanding People, Aesthetic Appeal, Community of Agreement, Reforming Society, Qualitative Research), scholars consider which standard holds the greatest utility and which holds the least.