Clusters of Communication

Today as I was researching I came across the article "Theory in Communication" which discusses a viewpoint regarding the "tendency towards integrating various points of view [about communication studies] into a single, interlaced 'field' theory to account for all systems of [the discipline]." In other words, instead of identifying the various sub-divisions of study within communication (such as Information, Linguistic, and Behavioral theories among others), specific theories are categorized as one title: communication theory.

Even though there is no comparison to psychology throughout the article, "Theory in Communication" still reinforces my argument that communication takes a "second" seat compared to other disciplines. I believe this is because theories and research done throughout the field are relatively new (mid twentieth century) compared to other social science disciplines like psychology and sociology which originated in the mid to late nineteenth century. It takes time to develop a discipline to the point where legitimate studies and research can uncover new theories and viewpoints that further academic knowledge. Communication has definitely contributed valuable information to the social sciences, but needs more time to confirm and uncover more findings to make it as "credible" as psychology or sociology.

Because of this viewpoint toward communication, I can see the frustration with Gary P. Radford towards psychology. He has contributed numerous articles, books, and papers regarding communication studies and theories, and it seems that he does not receive the recognition that he deserves. Like Ken Sereno stated in his "Introduction to Communication" lecture, psychology uses communication as a second discipline only to prove its own theories and research.

In terms of interdisciplinary studies, communication and psychology need to be recognized as two independent disciplines with equal weight and acknowledgment. Competition and hostility, however, take a front-row seat in determining the attitudes of academic study between the two disciplines; it contributes to the disregard for communication only as a supportive discipline, communication scholars' anger and resentment because of such disrespect, and the overall notion that communication is less credible. The only situation where I have witnessed the incorporation of communication and psychology working together positively is the business venture, Psychology of Communication. I believe this business is likely using both disciplines because of a profit-motive, and not to further academic knowledge! Hopefully communication can be respected and valued as an equal subject so research can evolve.

Exciting News! Psychology and Communication Incorporated into Useful Company!

My previous post from earlier this morning describes the bitter hostility that exists between communication and psychology. As I was scanning Google News, however, I discovered a refreshing article that not only incorporates both of the disciplines, but announced a new business venture that equally uses communication and psychology!

Psychology of Communication, a new company based out of Washington D.C., has developed a training workshop program for positions in mid to upper level management that incorporates psychology and consciousness. The program "assists managers in getting to the root causes of their communication restraints," and "provid[es] core tools to advance [peoples'] communication skills."

Another component to the business is the desire to help employees keep their positions and find the problems if they leave their specific workplace. Surprisingly, employees typically "do not leave their positions because of the company; rather, they leave their managers due to the lack of constructive communication." Furthermore, "according to Randstad's 2007 survey, a positive employee-supervisor relationship is as important to retention as it is to productivity."

I find this article to not only be beneficial for my research about communication and psychology, but also because Psychology of Communication is a real world, applicable example of how these two disciplines are working together. Even more, the company stems beyond academic research and theory outside of the classroom. The components of skillfully communicating combined with the consciousness that determine our behavior are actively used together to achieve a higher goal: to effectively manage a company. Unlike previous communication researchers I have come across, Tara Hanley, president of the company, holds a Masters degree in psychology, but additionally has experience in counseling to educate clients about effective communication strategies; the bitterness that most researchers within both fields have does not exist, and her successful business is proof of the benefits of incorporating viewpoints of both subjects.

Psychology of Communication is a fantastic example of interdisciplinary studies applying to real-world scenarios. They attempt to address and fix a problem to make an individual in the professional world more competent to communicate effectively. The elements of one's personal psyche along with effective communication techniques are combined to only benefit the client; there is no competitive behavior or unnecessary hostility. This is one great step into the future and hopefully theoretic researchers can follow this strategy by seeing the advantages!


Link to the Psychology of Communication website:
http://www.psychologyofcommunication.com/index.html

Link to the Google News Article:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,209163.shtml

Why Does Hostility Exist Between Communication & Psychology Researchers?

After researching why such a competitive notion exists between researchers in communication and psychology studies, I was able to find legitimate reasoning in my own communication course through the Annenberg School For Communication at USC.

My COMM200 (Communication As a Social Science) professor, Ken Sereno, lectured that animosity exists between the two disciplines because "most scholars in other disciplines, most prominently psychology, claim to study communication as a secondary process." Furthermore, "[communication is studied] as a means of testing [psychologists’] theories; they do not study communication as a primary discipline." Because communication is sometimes not recognized as a legitimate independent discipline, a hostile opinion is formed against psychology. Communication researchers like Gary P. Radford take the time to publish works that demean psychological principles and research compared to communication studies. The fact that "psychologists’ purpose in studying communication lacks further research and development for communication theory" is irritating and bothersome to communication researchers.

Another important point about the negative viewpoints among researchers in communication and psychology is from sociologist Stan Kaplowitz. In his publication, "The State of Social Psychology: Issues, Themes, and Controversies," he describes an extremely important point stating that "[we often] inappropriately view alternative theories as competitive rather than complimentary."

All together, the attitude towards psychologists regarding the respect of communication as a single and independent discipline should be acknowledged. Instead of using communication as a secondary discipline to test their theories, both communication and psychology should incorporate their ideas to further research and academic knowledge. The fact that opposing theories are a form of competition is ridiculous, considering the fact that the purpose of research is to understand our world. When other factors interrupt this quest for knowledge, further research is stalled and halted.

The Benefits of Interdisciplinary Research

Despite Gary P. Radford's negative opinion regarding the overlap of psychology and communication, there are also positive reasons and benefits within interdisciplinary research.

In the article, "Bridging Disciplines in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences," Dr. Leon Eisenberg and Dr. Terry C. Pellmar believe that interdisciplinary research is mandatory in "order to understand the entire human organism." The doctors further their viewpoint by discussing the real-world benefits of applying interdisciplinary research.

The beginning of the work introduces the topic of interdisciplinary studies with an interesting example relating to the study of plate tectonics. Both doctors state that with the incorporation of "geologists, oceanographers, palemagnetists, seismologists, and geophysicists, the ability to forecast earthquakes advances greatly." By selectively choosing one group of study, we lose the academic richness that could lead to further research and knowledge. I agree with Dr. Eisenberg and Dr. Pellmar because having a variety of viewpoints can possibly provide a better understanding of the subject at hand.

In terms of psychology and communication, researchers and scientists within both fields should try the the "plate tectonics" method and incorporate all biological, trait, and personality factors. According to both doctors, "we will simply not have a complete understanding of behavior of biological processes by studying [biology and behavior] separately." Furthermore, it is unfortunate that hostility between the two disciplines exists like Radford stated in his paper. Instead of competing for evidence to prove certain theories, I believe it would be much more effective if psychology and communication actively collaborated to further research and ultimately try to achieve academic truth within human behavioral studies.

Despite the competition that exists, Eisenberg and Pallmar believe that interdisciplinary research has a real-world applicable aspect; "the increasing diversity in the population generates a need for interdisciplinary research to understand the multi-faced biological, psychological, and social issues that are generated." Even more, because both doctors specialize in neurobiological studies, they believe that "current advances in clinical and behavioral research, if better integrated with research in molecular biology, neurochemistry, and other neuroscience research, will have a substantial effect on numerous health-related problems."

Even though these doctors specialize in neuroscience, the key idea of interdisciplinary research is incredibly useful. I believe it is helpful to look at other examples within other disciplines to see how these effects can be positive, applicable, and lead to further academic knowledge. If researchers within communication and psychology are able to see firsthand how other disciplines overlap, their viewpoints and willingness for furthering academics might change.

Also, from the research that I have found, it is interesting to note that many communication scholars are mainly the scientists that hold hostility and resentment towards psychology; I have yet to find examples of psychologists who hold the same feelings towards communication studies. The question is, why? I will have to research and find out!

Controversies Between Communication and Psycholgoy Researchers

After researching many areas regarding the relationship between Communication and Psychology studies, I have found that controversies are dominantly between the researchers themselves. From basic research between the two disciplines, they both borrow popular theories to prove points, attempt to further research, and grasp knowledge as to why humans behave they way they do. However, instead of using one another's ideas to further academic ideas, the battle becomes a stubborn game in subjective viewpoints, biased criticisms, and the battle between biological and trait theories as to who is correct.

In the essay "Overcoming Dewey's False Psychology: Reclaiming Communication for Communication Studies," by communication Professor Gary P. Radford, he continually criticizes the overlap of psychology and communication and suggests that "communication must be reclaimed as the central mode of explanation in the field study it is named for." One of his primary arguments is the Information Processing Perspective that stems from World War II when technological advances prompted psychological studies to view humans in a "machine-like fashion." He believes that human beings can not be categorized as functioning machines because we are nothing like computer processors, machines, or anything else man-made. Our cognitive capacities can not be predicted or answered like an equation. We can not objectively analyze the consciousness of the human mind.

In terms of Gary's research, I think his work is a contribution to communication studies that will lead in a direction that will not benefit further academic knowledge and study. Instead of criticizing psychological viewpoints or theories, I believe it would be more beneficial to research psychological facts to support communication and incorporate new ideas. If more knowledge is used between disciplines, we can be exposed to multiple viewpoints and ultimately achieve as much informative knowledge as possible. Additionally, the primary purpose for interdisciplinary research is to fill in the gaps that certain disciplines might be missing. Having multiple perspectives gives insight to areas that lack in information and direction.