Theoretical Traditions

Tradition in Context

Sometimes the many theoretical traditions in the communication field are simplified by being placed into two overarching types: objective and interpretive theories. Objective theories usually are supported by statistical methods. These theories tend to predict and explain communication. Those doing objectivist-oriented research strive to make unbiased observations through methods including carefully worded closed-end surveys or controlled experiments. The ultimate goal of many objective theorists is to provide cause-and-effect behavioral understandings. Interpretive scholars, on the other hand, use both empirical and humanistic research methods to come to deeper understandings of how meaning is made through interaction. Interpretive scholars often use qualitative methods and analysis or critique (e.g., rhetorical criticism, cultural criticism) to understand communication. Interpretivist theory is usually not tested, but rather considered reflexively with open-ended data (for social scientific approaches) or a text (for humanistic approaches).

Even though the vast majority of the theories developed or used in the field of communication fit into objective or interpretive paradigms, many scholars—especially throughout the 1990s—continued to critique the two overarching labels. That is not to suggest that other labels for the different kinds of objective or interpretive theories did not exist. To the contrary, some scholars were complaining that too many theoretical approaches were developing in the field. Rather, theory was often—as it still commonly is—simply divided by method, being considered quantitative or qualitative.[Page 1761] In 1999 communication theorist Robert T. Craig helped to both pull various strands of theory together in meaningful units while simultaneously avoiding the oversimplification of the objectivist/interpretivist divide. His essay “Communication Theory as a Field,” published in the journal Communication Theory, provided a map of the discipline that included seven distinct theoretical traditions. These seven traditions were represented in what he coined the constitutive model of communication as metamodel.

The purpose of the model was not to divide the field into distinct silos but rather to recognize that communication scholarship is informed by several theoretical traditions, each with a capacity for practical application. As Craig explained, scholars should look across the different traditions to create a dialogical-dialectical conversation within the field.

...