What This Document Is
This document provides notes summarizing R.T. Craig’s 1999 article, “Communication Theory as a Field.” The notes focus on Craig’s argument that communication theory, despite its presence across numerous disciplines, hasn’t fully established itself as a coherent field of study. It details his proposal for reconstructing the field through a dialogical-dialectical approach, emphasizing ongoing debate and the interplay of diverse theoretical perspectives.
Why This Document Matters
These notes are valuable for students in advanced communication courses – specifically, Theory of Mass Communication (JMC 60001) at Kent State University – who are grappling with the complexities of communication theory. It’s useful when initially encountering Craig’s influential work, providing a condensed overview of its core arguments and proposed framework. Understanding Craig’s perspective is foundational for navigating the broader landscape of communication scholarship and appreciating the challenges of interdisciplinary research.
Common Limitations or Challenges
This document is a *summary* of Craig’s article, not a replacement for reading the original. It provides an overview of his key ideas but doesn’t offer the full depth of his argumentation or the nuances of his theoretical framework. It won’t provide a complete understanding of the “constitutive model” or the seven alternative vocabularies for theorizing communication. Further research and engagement with the source material are essential for a comprehensive grasp of the topic.
What This Document Provides
This preview includes:
* A concise statement of the article’s central purpose: to reconstruct communication theory as a dialogical-dialectical field.
* Key arguments regarding the current state of communication theory – its lack of coherence and the reasons for this.
* An outline of Craig’s proposed solution: a theoretical matrix based on two principles (the constitutive model and metadiscursive practice).
* Highlights of the “Roots of Incoherence” as identified by Craig, including the impact of disciplinary borrowing and “sterile eclecticism.”
* An overview of the goal of “Dialogical-Dialectical Coherence.”
This preview *does not* include: a detailed explanation of the constitutive model, the seven alternative vocabularies, or a full analysis of the implications of Craig’s framework. It also does not include the full text of the article itself.