Theory in Communication Studies
A theory is a presumption or system of ideas that are intended to explain certain phenomenon, but they can do more than explain. Theories are abstract systems of concepts with indications of the relationship among these concepts that help us better understand a phenomenon. Theories are also just as much about the product, a set of interconnected ideas that emerge from that process. (West, Turner 47). Although a universal definition for theory is hard to come by, they have similar components and goals. Theories have several key parts, two important being concepts and relationships.
Concepts are words used to label important elements of a theory and can be nominal (non-observable), or real (observable). Relationships provide explanation in which the concepts in a theory are combined, giving explanation if things are happening in steps or all at the same time. The goals of a theory can help clarify them as well, they can range from explanation, understanding, prediction, and can effect social change. As a Communication Studies major, I have used my understanding of theory in other classes, as well as seen use for them in both everyday, and professional life. A theory is a way to gain perspective for different types of interaction and react accordingly. Gaining a full concept of theory was central to the Communication Studies Major at San Francisco State University because it provided an archetype of understanding for each class. Once you can grasp a full understanding of one theory, you can also see how they relate and contrast with others that you come across.
Understanding human communication processes are useful with theories because we are able to gain perspective through interaction pulling from the influence from theories and seeing if it actually plays out that way in real world scenarios. Being able to dissect an interaction with knowledge of background or with an understanding of setting can be a useful advantage in your professional career and personal life. Human interaction can inevitably lead to conflict, and understanding theories of communication and interaction are useful to problem solve or compromise. Not only can we confidently hold a conversation, but also can confidently know how to identify types of discussion and start a dialogue, opposed to an argument. Another important thing theory is helpful with is to understand what message people are trying to convey. Whether it be personal interaction, or forming a public opinion, communication processes can be hard to decode. Theories provide a way to navigate through phenomenon and help better each type of interaction. A theory is a way for us to view certain interactions through a different lens, allowing us to set aside our own views and have proper judgments for situations to have a positive outcome, and can provide a reason to decipher trust in what is being communicated.
One assignment in my Communication Studies major that clearly and strongly reflects me articulating and using theory to analyze human communication is my paper on the Family Systems Theory, in my Family Communication class. This is a theory that is attempting to determine if you have a open, closed, or random family type. The main concepts in this theory are wholeness, interdependence, hierarchy/sub-systems, boundaries, calibration/feedback, and equifinality. I had to apply this six-part theory to my own family and determine what category I saw for my individual family. I thought that it was important to have an assignment that would make me reflect back on my own family because I like to see if what I am learning is applicable in my day-to-day life.
The Family Systems Theory examines human behavior that views the family as an emotional unit, and uses systems thinking to describe the complex interactions in the unit. Families have a profound affect in their members’ thoughts, feelings and actions operating under an emotional bond held in high regard. People are seeking each other’s attention, approval, and support and react to one another’s needs, expectations, and upsets. The way each member of the family interconnects and reacts to each other makes them interdependent from one another. If a change is to occur in one members functioning within the family system is predictably followed by reciprocal changes in the functioning of others. Families may differ on the scale of interdependence, but it is always present to some degree (Kerr). The theory can be explained in six main concepts to categorize what family type you may fall on. The wholeness is a families theme, or how they see themselves as a group and how others view them. Interdependence is if something happens to one person within the family, it has an effect on the rest of the group. The hierarchy/sub-system is the flow of communication and power between members within the group and how each interacts with one another accordingly. Boundaries are rule-based refer to how easy or difficult it is for people and information to enter the system. Calibration/feedback is how the family adjusts to change of those who break the rules. The final concept being equifinality, referring to the multiple ways to deal with problems the family is faced with, none of which are better than one another, but different families can produce different outcomes for stability.
In my analysis of communication within this assignment I had to look at each concept individually and see where I thought my family was within the theory. First, I had to identify my family’s wholeness. This can be a tricky thing to place because you first think of your family as a group of individuals rather than how much you all identify with one label. I then thought back to what we did that was a social norm within our family that may differ from others. This led me back to family dinners. I had a father with a demanding work schedule as a fire fighter, so the days he was home were important for us all to have dinner as a family. This also was a place I noticed that the family unit checked in with one another and kept the system functioning smoothly.
The next thing I had to consider was the degree of interdependence in my family. As the youngest of three siblings I could see this pretty clearly because when certain key roles within the family were to change, we had to fulfill them or make changes to deal with that absence. This could have been something like me missing the bus for school and having a system of knowing to ask an older sibling for a ride to make sure I still got to school. Other ways roles were filled within my family would be with cooking. Everyone had a busy schedule, so we would all have days to cook and do other key things around the house to keep the family system going.
Hierarchy/sub-systems are systems within systems in the family unit. When I was taking this into consideration I noticed that my approach to getting certain things done in the family unit went through different channels of communication. I had a very authoritative father, so in times I wanted to ask for more leniency on the rules, I would adjust accordingly. In contrast, when I wanted to gain more freedom, like a change in curfew, I found more leniencies when I asked my father.
Next, I had to consider boundaries. This was something that I was familiar with right away because I came from a strict home so a clear line of boundaries was always set. There were compromises to let people within the family system, but it was rare that I was allowed to leave it independently. This was something that I appreciated though because I felt that although the system I was in was harsh, it allowed other avenues of openness in communication to form though an emotional bond in closeness.
My family’s calibration, or how we dealt with change for those who broke the rules was noticeably different to me as the youngest of three siblings. The oldest was my sister, who had it very strict in many ways compared to my older brother. This trend remained noticeable, as we got older with it being harder for her to bend or break rules in the family system compared to my brother, due to a social construct of how the family believed each of them should behave.
Finally, I had to think of my family’s equifinality and how it applied to us personally. There are obviously many ways to solve any particular problem, but only some will seem suitable in certain family systems. This led my back to viewing each member within the unit being an individual with their own personal opinion of how to problem solve, but there are compromises that are being made constantly, whether members are conscious of it or not. Another key thing to take into consideration is what works for your particular unit, meaning that a level of what may be considered normal can vary between systems.
Getting to know this theory has been helpful to me as a Communication Studies major at San Francisco State University. What intrigues me the most about this theory is that although it deals with interpersonal relationships within a family unit, you can see correlations of behavior by how people identify to other cohorts they identify with. The relationship between communication theories is that they all fall back on how people are interacting with one another.
Works Cited
Kerr, Michael E. “One Family’s Story: A Primer on Bowen Theory.” The Bowen Center for the Study of the Family. 2000. http://www.thebowencenter.org.
West. R., & Turner, L. H. (2014). Introducing communication theory (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Image Source:
https://www.pexels.com/photo/art-design-gallery-group-460736/
Concepts are words used to label important elements of a theory and can be nominal (non-observable), or real (observable). Relationships provide explanation in which the concepts in a theory are combined, giving explanation if things are happening in steps or all at the same time. The goals of a theory can help clarify them as well, they can range from explanation, understanding, prediction, and can effect social change. As a Communication Studies major, I have used my understanding of theory in other classes, as well as seen use for them in both everyday, and professional life. A theory is a way to gain perspective for different types of interaction and react accordingly. Gaining a full concept of theory was central to the Communication Studies Major at San Francisco State University because it provided an archetype of understanding for each class. Once you can grasp a full understanding of one theory, you can also see how they relate and contrast with others that you come across.
Understanding human communication processes are useful with theories because we are able to gain perspective through interaction pulling from the influence from theories and seeing if it actually plays out that way in real world scenarios. Being able to dissect an interaction with knowledge of background or with an understanding of setting can be a useful advantage in your professional career and personal life. Human interaction can inevitably lead to conflict, and understanding theories of communication and interaction are useful to problem solve or compromise. Not only can we confidently hold a conversation, but also can confidently know how to identify types of discussion and start a dialogue, opposed to an argument. Another important thing theory is helpful with is to understand what message people are trying to convey. Whether it be personal interaction, or forming a public opinion, communication processes can be hard to decode. Theories provide a way to navigate through phenomenon and help better each type of interaction. A theory is a way for us to view certain interactions through a different lens, allowing us to set aside our own views and have proper judgments for situations to have a positive outcome, and can provide a reason to decipher trust in what is being communicated.
One assignment in my Communication Studies major that clearly and strongly reflects me articulating and using theory to analyze human communication is my paper on the Family Systems Theory, in my Family Communication class. This is a theory that is attempting to determine if you have a open, closed, or random family type. The main concepts in this theory are wholeness, interdependence, hierarchy/sub-systems, boundaries, calibration/feedback, and equifinality. I had to apply this six-part theory to my own family and determine what category I saw for my individual family. I thought that it was important to have an assignment that would make me reflect back on my own family because I like to see if what I am learning is applicable in my day-to-day life.
The Family Systems Theory examines human behavior that views the family as an emotional unit, and uses systems thinking to describe the complex interactions in the unit. Families have a profound affect in their members’ thoughts, feelings and actions operating under an emotional bond held in high regard. People are seeking each other’s attention, approval, and support and react to one another’s needs, expectations, and upsets. The way each member of the family interconnects and reacts to each other makes them interdependent from one another. If a change is to occur in one members functioning within the family system is predictably followed by reciprocal changes in the functioning of others. Families may differ on the scale of interdependence, but it is always present to some degree (Kerr). The theory can be explained in six main concepts to categorize what family type you may fall on. The wholeness is a families theme, or how they see themselves as a group and how others view them. Interdependence is if something happens to one person within the family, it has an effect on the rest of the group. The hierarchy/sub-system is the flow of communication and power between members within the group and how each interacts with one another accordingly. Boundaries are rule-based refer to how easy or difficult it is for people and information to enter the system. Calibration/feedback is how the family adjusts to change of those who break the rules. The final concept being equifinality, referring to the multiple ways to deal with problems the family is faced with, none of which are better than one another, but different families can produce different outcomes for stability.
In my analysis of communication within this assignment I had to look at each concept individually and see where I thought my family was within the theory. First, I had to identify my family’s wholeness. This can be a tricky thing to place because you first think of your family as a group of individuals rather than how much you all identify with one label. I then thought back to what we did that was a social norm within our family that may differ from others. This led me back to family dinners. I had a father with a demanding work schedule as a fire fighter, so the days he was home were important for us all to have dinner as a family. This also was a place I noticed that the family unit checked in with one another and kept the system functioning smoothly.
The next thing I had to consider was the degree of interdependence in my family. As the youngest of three siblings I could see this pretty clearly because when certain key roles within the family were to change, we had to fulfill them or make changes to deal with that absence. This could have been something like me missing the bus for school and having a system of knowing to ask an older sibling for a ride to make sure I still got to school. Other ways roles were filled within my family would be with cooking. Everyone had a busy schedule, so we would all have days to cook and do other key things around the house to keep the family system going.
Hierarchy/sub-systems are systems within systems in the family unit. When I was taking this into consideration I noticed that my approach to getting certain things done in the family unit went through different channels of communication. I had a very authoritative father, so in times I wanted to ask for more leniency on the rules, I would adjust accordingly. In contrast, when I wanted to gain more freedom, like a change in curfew, I found more leniencies when I asked my father.
Next, I had to consider boundaries. This was something that I was familiar with right away because I came from a strict home so a clear line of boundaries was always set. There were compromises to let people within the family system, but it was rare that I was allowed to leave it independently. This was something that I appreciated though because I felt that although the system I was in was harsh, it allowed other avenues of openness in communication to form though an emotional bond in closeness.
My family’s calibration, or how we dealt with change for those who broke the rules was noticeably different to me as the youngest of three siblings. The oldest was my sister, who had it very strict in many ways compared to my older brother. This trend remained noticeable, as we got older with it being harder for her to bend or break rules in the family system compared to my brother, due to a social construct of how the family believed each of them should behave.
Finally, I had to think of my family’s equifinality and how it applied to us personally. There are obviously many ways to solve any particular problem, but only some will seem suitable in certain family systems. This led my back to viewing each member within the unit being an individual with their own personal opinion of how to problem solve, but there are compromises that are being made constantly, whether members are conscious of it or not. Another key thing to take into consideration is what works for your particular unit, meaning that a level of what may be considered normal can vary between systems.
Getting to know this theory has been helpful to me as a Communication Studies major at San Francisco State University. What intrigues me the most about this theory is that although it deals with interpersonal relationships within a family unit, you can see correlations of behavior by how people identify to other cohorts they identify with. The relationship between communication theories is that they all fall back on how people are interacting with one another.
Works Cited
Kerr, Michael E. “One Family’s Story: A Primer on Bowen Theory.” The Bowen Center for the Study of the Family. 2000. http://www.thebowencenter.org.
West. R., & Turner, L. H. (2014). Introducing communication theory (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Image Source:
https://www.pexels.com/photo/art-design-gallery-group-460736/
Comments