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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment