A First Look at Communication Theory (6th edition)

Principal Changes
The material in this chapter has been edited for clarity and precision and Griffin has
added the depiction of the objective-interpretive scale (19).
Suggestions for Discussion
Theory, what’s it good for?
For many students, this may be their first foray into the world of theory and as such, you
will need to lay some groundwork. In the past, we have found it productive to ask students
what they know about “theory” in general. What connotations does the word, “theory” have for
them? Many times, theory is seen as impotent (i.e. “only in theory”) or derogatory (“well, it’s a
nice theory but…”). You might want to spend a few minutes discussing the purpose of a theory,
a topic that will re-emerge in Chapter 3. Theories can focus attention, clarify observations,
provide a framework, predict outcomes, trigger social change, and spark research. During your
discussion, ask students the capacities of a good theory. Starting with a conversation about
why develop and study theory may prove fruitful in future class sessions when discussing the
virtues of any given theory.
The dichotomy on a continuum
The principal challenge in presenting this material is to communicate the important
characteristics of the objective-interpretive dichotomy without oversimplifying, exaggerating, or
polarizing the discipline in absolute terms. Students need to understand that fundamental
differences exist between the two theoretical positions, but if they are seen as entirely
separate and mutually exclusive, then the nuances of the theories discussed throughout A
First Look at Communication Theory will be compromised. The theoretical continuum
presented in the final chapter (Chapter 36) will bewilder students who have learned to stick
too rigidly to this initial dichotomy. In discussion, therefore, remind students that the camps
are themselves theoretical constructs designed to approximate, but not to straightjacket,
reality. Make sure that students don’t characterize humanists as raving relativists or solipsists
utterly uninterested in shared truths, common understanding, and the world “out there.” Nor
should scientists be pictured as cold, impersonal beings that entirely forsake their values
when they step into the lab. Remind your class that even the seemingly objective choices
involved in pursuing a particular line of scientific inquiry or conducting one experiment and not
another are inherently value laden. Stan Deetz’s terms “effectiveness” and “participation,”
which Griffin presents on page 14, may be usefully considered the primary emphases of
objective and interpretive theorists, respectively, but it would be simplistic to consider such a
dichotomy as anything other than a general trend. It is no accident that when Griffin discusses
the level of commitment present in the communication theorists he has met, he uses the word
“passionate” (10) to describe both interpretive and objective scholars. As we suggest in our
treatment of the elaboration likelihood model below, the attempt to separate reason and
emotion in argument and in scholarship may be illusory.
When discussing this chapter, be sure students understand that although Griffin uses
the terms scientific and objective interchangeably, he notes that not all interpretive scholars
are humanists and/or rhetoricians. You may want to explain and discuss why some
6