Diversity and order in communication theory: The uses of philosophical analysis

Intercultural communication in Asia: current state and future prospects

“…It is whether or not one perspective, believed to be the only correct one by the majority, dominates, and whether or not researchers are aware of and self-critical of their own biases and respectful of and curious about other legitimate perspectives. According to Jia (2002), the truth seems to be that it is most beneficial for us to keep multiple perspectives alive, to retain 'skeptical pluralism' (Smith, 1988, p. 38) or, to use Penman's words (1992, to recognize 'diversity' (p. 245) and 'incompleteness' (p. 246) in every perspective.…”

What Is Theory? Puzzles and Maps as Metaphors in Communication Theory

“…13-16). This notion, although re-evaluated and critiqued later (for reevaluations of theoretical concepts as laws, see Kochen, 1979;Berger, 1989; for different critiques of theoretical concepts as laws, see Delia, 1977;Smith, 1988), has left a powerful mark of the field. The denomination of theory as science in the field of communication has been linked with universality, with the characterization of theory in terms of simplicity, testability, and intersubjectivity (also named "heurism"), and with causality, with the attribution of explanatory and predictive roles to theory.…”

Framing the Game: An Architectonic Analogue for Meta-Theorizing Academic Activities

“…In an effort to reveal the heuristic potential of the theoretical analogy, these threads are traced across a broad array of humanistic and scientific theories and scholarship, including connections among Wittgenstein, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Goffman, Foucault, Bourdieu and Lyotard. The field of Communication, and its many affiliated and cognate disciplines have been charted by a wide variety of paradigm maps (e.g., Altman & Rogoff, 1987;Anderson & Baym, 2004;Craig, 1999;Smith, 1988). There is little doubt that the communication discipline is fragmented, multi-faceted and complex (Barnett, Huh, Kim, & Park, 2011, p. 467).…”

“…Disciplines generally provide an institutional structure within and across which other collective practices are enacted. These practices and collectives are referred to by a variety of terms, including those referring primarily to people (e.g., ‗school' or ‗field'), or to coherent systems of belief, value, or practices (e.g., ‗paradigm,' ‗tradition,' ‗style,' ‗perspective,' ‗disciplinary matrix,' ‗world hypotheses,' and ‗world views'; see: Altman & Rogoff, 1987;Pepper, 1957;Ritzer, Zhao, & Murphy, 2001;Smith, 1988). All of these terms can be synopsized similarly to Kuhn's (1970) uses of the term paradigm (Hyun, 2015).…”