Courtney Gale

Com 491

DP1

9/10/18

Communication is something that becomes apparent in everyone’s lives, whether they live through
communicating to others, or through analyzing types of communication. The most difficult part is
identifying communication and understanding what it means. Communication is both extremely fluid,
and structured in its meaning.

As a Bryant University student, it’s easy to look at communication as a transaction, something is

presented, interpreted then received, and focus on the model of sending messages through a channel.
Communication can be so much more than that. Dance’s definition of communication is intriguing
because it presents variations of the definition and it was continuously updated with current research. It
started as a structured definition that limited it to “eliciting a response through verbal symbols” (Dance
& Larson, 1976 Appendix A), and ended with a much more fluid definition by saying that all behavior can
be analyzed as a form of communication.

Continuing on the theme of the fluidity vs structured aura of communication, the textbook provides
insight on another variable in the analysis, the situational context. Communication becomes fluid based
on the situation, whether its interpersonal interaction with two people, group context, mediated
context and our impact from media outlets, or cognitive context with our thoughts as the main aspect,
the structured basis of these interactions can solely change based on the situation and communication
competence. As an example, my appropriateness may be altered from an interpersonal interaction
when I am speaking with a close friend, to then going into intercultural context and shifting the level of
appropriateness. The social expectations from those interactions shifted based on who was being
communicated to, and what the differences were. The effectiveness with setting goals is similar. With
cognitive context we may slack more on setting goals and have a shifted plan for ourselves, however in
persuasive context, we may have a more structured plan or desired outcome from the interaction.

This continues on in the aspect of theory and analyzing the types of theories. It’s identified that the
three types of theories are common sense theory, working theory and scholarly theory. Common sense
theory is an extremely personal and fluid, and generally is a variable in choosing how each individual
wants to communicate in each situation based on previous encounters, prior experiences, or any advice
given. Working theory becomes slightly more structured in the sense that it’s generalizations, but at a
societal level. Working theory can also be based on previous experiences, but it’s more commonly at the
mass media level, and encompasses stereotypes around different professions. It’s more difficult to
influence or change the thinking around working theory than it is to change our beliefs about common
sense theory. The final theory is scholarly theory, which is the most structured type of theory. It is
analyzed and backed up with research and has a more complex. No amount of mass communication,
societal influence or personal bias could affect the basis of these theories. Due to the fluctuation in the
structure and fluidity of the types of theories, the textbook provides 5 terms that should be used when
evaluating the theories. The main overall basis of how to judge these theories is, not based on their
factual abilities, but based on their usefulness. The remainder of the evaluation criteria is the accuracy,
the practicality, the succinctness, the consistency and the acuity of the theories.

As a senior in college, and an upcoming employed member of society, focusing on how I use
communication in my life is crucial. From job interviews, to maintaining relationships with previous
classmates, and focusing on a career, the basis of my focus is communication competence. The most
important thing I can do is to analyze to what level of fluidity or structure I want when it comes to
communication in my everyday life. Should I focus my basis on the common sense theory and utilize the
effectiveness aspect of setting goals for each interaction? Or should I shift towards scholarly theory,
appropriateness and persuasive context, in which all of my communicating will have a specific purpose
and be thorough? There is a lot to analyze when it comes to the individual being and communication,
and this chapter raises significant points about focusing on the balance of structure and fluidity.

Discussion Questions;

1) What would happen if as a society we provided complete independence to what communication

is, how we “perform it”, and how we interpret it? Would providing more fluidity be destructive?
2) Are the criteria for evaluating theories enough to provide insight? Is it too much? Is it not
enough?
3) Should we eliminate one definition of communication and create several based on context,
situation and theory? Have several different versions of what could be? What would that do to
our ability to understand & communicate effectively?