Week 1, Chaffee & Berger
Week 2, Mares & Cantor
Week 3, Schoen; Reddy
Week 4, Grice; Sperber & Wilson
Week 5, Tracy; Clair
Week 6, Price et al
Week 7, Billig
Week 8, McManus
Week 9, Craig
 

Study Guide:  Readings for Week 1

Chaffee & Berger give a good synopsis of criteria used to evaluate social scientific theories; Farrell gives a good synopsis of criteria used to evaluate humanistic theories.  We will be applying these all through the quarter; it would be a good idea to understand both the similarities and the differences between the two approaches.

I don’t necessarily agree with the definitions of “theory” given by either Chaffee & Berger or Farrell – but again, they provide an excellent starting place for building your own understanding of what is meant by a theory, how theories are constructed and tested or evaluated.

Pay especial attention to the ideas of “construct” and “concept,” to how they are related to “variables,” and to how constructs are organized into theories.

In this class we will focus more on social science theories than on humanistic theories – mainly because of time limits.  Chaffee & Berger do an excellent job of summarizing some social science theories by way of illustration:  pay careful attention to their examples.  Unfortunately, Farrell’s summaries of humanistic theories are not as clear.  Devote most of your attention to Farrell’s first five pages; just review the remainder to get an idea of the scope of humanistic scholarship.

I would like for you to be able to explain in your own words what a social scientific theory is, how humanistic theories differ from social scientific theories, and especially how both the assumptions and the objectives of the two forms of research differ.
 

Study Guide for Week 2:  Mares & Cantor

I have assigned Mares & Cantor for several reasons.  They provide an excellent example of how to organize and write a clear, lucid literature review.  I want you to pay careful attention to their writing at every level, especially

•  how they use material from other writers
•  how they cite other authors, and how their list of references is organized
•  the structure of their sentences, and the structure of their paragraphs
•  how they organize their overall argument, including the form of their introductory paragraph and of their abstract.

Mares & Cantor also give a good clear synopsis of two theories that have been quite influential in the study of both interpersonal and mass communication.  I want you to grasp the essentials of these two theories, including the kinds of predictions they make, the underlying assumptions, the major concepts and how the concepts are related in each theory.  As you read, think about how these theories might be applied to other questions or problems.

You will be asked to look up two of the studies cited by Mares & Cantor:  Be sure to pick two studies that are central to their argument.  When you read those studies, look for differences in the way the theories are presented.  Although the general form of a theory, and the definition of concepts, will be fairly constant from one study to another, each researcher must shape the way the theory is expressed to fit her own particular needs.  By comparing the way Mares & Cantor have summarized each theory to the way the theory is explained in some of their sources, you will be able to see the process of theoretical thinking in action.

This is also a good time to begin to apply the “criteria for good theories” laid out in Chaffee & Berger.
 

Study Guide for Week 3:  Metaphor

I chose to assign these two chapters for several reasons.  Reddy’s article draws your attention to some taken-for-granted ideas about communication, to how these ideas are imbedded in our very language, and to how they can actually interfere with clear thinking about the topic.  This kind of awareness is very important if you are to step outside everyday communicative experiences and think critically about the process of communication.

Both articles also provide an introduction to thinking about language itself, and how the structure of language affects the way we communicate.  Especially in Schoen’s chapter, notice how the metaphors we use affect communication at several levels, from the individual level of how individuals think, clear up to the societal level of how political discourse is conducted.  Reddy extends this critique to the process of theorizing itself.

Finally, both articles provide good examples of theoretical thinking.  Notice how each author uses real-life examples both to illustrate and to advance their analyses.  As you read, think about how their ideas might be applied to other topics.  When you have finished each chapter, refer back to Chaffee & Berger and Farrell, and assess the theory presented in the chapter by their criteria.

We are of course not as interested in the policy issue presented by Schoen as we are in the process it illustrates.  Reddy shows you how to extend Schoen’s ideas to other topics.
 
 

Study Guide for Week 4:  Interpretation, Language

Grice:  You will notice that Grice’s short article fits into the context of a debate within the philosophy of language.  Since we are not concerned with the details of that debate, a cursory reading of the first 2.5 pages, up to the heading, “Implicature,” will suffice.

Be sure you understand what Grice means by the “Cooperative Principle,” by the four categories and their maxims, and by the idea of conversational implicature.  Be able to describe implicatures based on deliberate flouting of at least two of the maxims, and give examples from your own experience (some of Grice’s examples are dated and somewhat obscure).  In particular, be able to give examples related to the term project, communication in the classroom, workplace, or community.

Be sure you understand the distinction between inadvertent violations of the cooperative principle, simply opting out, and deliberately flouting a maxim with communicative intent.  Also be sure to understand some of the reasons why a person might find it preferable to use implicature rather than a direct, literal statement in some cases.

Sperber & Wilson:  I have included the complete exchange between Sperber & Wilson and a series of other language scientists, as well as a recent review of the subsequent literature by Ramos.  The core of Sperber & Wilson’s theory is laid out in pages 697-710 of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences exerpt.  I recommend that you read a few of the “Open Peer Commentaries,” to get a sense of how other scientists react to their work, as well as at least part of Ramos, to get a sense of what has been done during the intervening decade.  These will also help you to evaluate Sperber & Wilson’s work.  For most of you, the 14 pages of Sperber & Wilson’s precis will suffice.  (However – you may well find that your understanding of the material is facilitated by looking at some of the supplementary materials.)  I fully expect that students with a strong interest in language will read most of this material and that students with less of an interest in language will focus on the core 14 pages.

Be sure you understand:

•  the concept of relevance, including how the relevance of a gesture or utterance is assessed,
•  what is meant by an “ostensive” act,
•  the relationship between code and inference models of communication,
•  the concept of “context” and its relationship to relevance
•  the relationship of Sperber & Wilson’s work to Grice’s work.

I have chosen these two articles for several reasons.  First, these articles introduce a different approach to theorizing, grounded theory.  Be sure you understand what grounded theory is, how it differs from social science approaches, and the uses for which it is particularly well-suited.

Second, they also introduce an extremely useful concept, framing.  Be sure you understand this concept, and how it illuminates each study.

Note that both "grounded theory" and "framing" are metaphors.  Spend a little time thinking about the root metaphors.  What does it mean to "ground" a theory?  What does a "frame" imply about communication?

Finally, look at the substance of each study.  Tracy is interested in different ideas of "what is going on" and how these differences affect a communication transaction.  Notice how Tracy's idea of framing and the effect of framing on understanding relates to Sperber & Wilson's ideas about context.  Also consider how Grice's ideas about the assumption of cooperation apply.  As you read some of the stories in Tracy's article, do you think that the participants always believe the other person is trying to cooperate?  How might Tracy's findings illuminate Grice's ideas?

Clair, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with social reality and with issues of power and dominance - but the cognitive level processes are implicit in her work as well.  Think about the way the various levels of analysis - individual, social, and cultural - interplay in each article.  Also think about the different ways they use the concept of "frame."

You should find this material a bit easier to read than the assignments last week, but don’t let them fool you:  There is a lot here.

Week 6 Study Guide:  Framing

Like Mares & Cantor, Price et al. was chosen in part because it provides an excellent model of a literature review.  I recommend that you pay close attention to the way Price and his colleagues structure sentences, paragraphs, and their overall argument.  Pay especial attention to the way they use material from their sources, and how they handle citations.

Be attentive to the way each of these authors use the concept of framing.  You will notice that Price is primarily concerned with the cognitive processing of messages, but implicit in his work is a theory of media effects – how journalists frame issues and thereby influence people’s ideas about the issues and, consequently, public opinion.  Also notice the subtle relationship between framing and priming.  Think of these as concepts that interact, but work at different levels of analysis.
 

Clair incorporates critical and feminist theories.  Notice the difference in method and in underlying assumptions.  Pay especial attention to the differences between Clair's and Price's concept of "theory."  Which one do you think would be the most compatible with Sperber & Wilson?

Notice also how far a really strong theory - or even a powerful concept like "framing" - can carry you.  Each of these three authors does a lot with it.  Think about the various ways you might apply it to other questions in other contexts.

Study Guide for Week 7:  Billig.

Here we look at the cognition – communication relationship from the other way around.  In Chapter 2, Billig proposes a rhetorical approach to the psychology of thinking.  In Chapters 7 and 8, he moves back toward public discourse and argumentation with a rhetorical approach to attitudes.

In Chapter 2, be sure that you understand the nature and limits of Billig’s criticism of contemporary experimental social psychology and what he means by an argument-based approach to the psychology of thinking.  Be sure to understand what he means by “ideology,” which is further elaborated in Chapter 7.

In Chapter 7, be sure to understand what he means by concepts like context, attitudes, “taking the side of the other.”  How is Billig’s concept of context related to the concept as it appears in Sperber & Wilson, Price, or Tracy?  How is Billig’s concept of argumentation related to Price’s work?

In Chapter 8, Billig provides a very nice extended example of the contextual complexity of attitudes.  Be sure to understand what he means by “holding strong attitudes.”  He uses an example that may seem rather quaint to Americans.  Think of one or more issues that are of equivalent importance in the U.S. and work out how his argument might in our own culture.

What is important about these three chapters is the interplay among interpersonal communication, public opinion, and individual level thinking.
 

Week 8 Study Guide:  McManus, Market-based Model

McManus’s inspiration is to apply micro-economic theories of markets (supply and demand) to explaining the behavior of various participants in news production and consumption.

Be sure you understand the models of news production described on pages 302- 304.  Obviously, McManus’s description of these models is simplified, but they form an important backdrop to his own model.

Figure 2 on page 305 is important primarily as a summary of the exchanges that take place between various participants:  Each double arrow shows an exchange.  However, some of the single arrows should actually be double:  For example, news workers exchange loyalty to the media firm and to journalistic norms – and their labor in reporting the news – for salary and prestige.
Those of you who don’t read diagrams well will find approximately the same information in the long paragraph above the diagram on page 305.  As you read through the rest of the article, be sure that you understand each of these exchanges.

The next several pages describe the various participants in and factors influencing the news gathering process; again, b sure you understand each of these before you go on.

Beginning on page 310, McManus describes the actual exchanges among participants, and how they influence the nature and quality of information gathered and provided.  You will probably need to refer back to this material as you read the last half of the article, pages 316-332, in which McManus actually draws conclusions about how the system works and why it produces the observed quality of news.
 

Week 9 Study Guide:  Craig

Craig provides an excellent scheme for organizing and comparing different theories.  The first part of his article gives a historical context.  This material is useful.

Pay close attention to the two tables, pages 133 & 134.  Spend some time thinking about how the theories you have studied in this class – and in other classes you have taken – fit into the scheme laid out in these tables.  Then pay careful attention to the summary of the seven “traditions,” which makes up most of the last part of the article.  If you’re going to memorize anything in this course, the two tables and the summary of the seven traditions would be worthwhile.  I don’t think you necessarily need to memorize them, however, if you spend some time thinking carefully about how the material we’ve studied so far fits into them.

This chapter is probably a bit difficult, but it will help you pull together everything we’ve done so far, and it will (perhaps even more importantly) help you fit what you’ve learned in other classes together into an overall coherent picture of the discipline.  It is well worth close study and discussion.