To take a constitutive view of communication means to presume that communication, or interaction, is a process of meaning creation or social construction. The fundamental idea of constitution has had enormous influence on the field of communication, especially in the areas of interpersonal communication and organizational communication. An important implication of a constitutive view is that communication is assumed to be the basic building block for social entities, such as personal relationships and organizations. This entry provides a brief history of the origins of the constitutive view, explains its basic assumptions, and examines examples of applications in interpersonal and organizational communication.
A Constitutive Approach to Interpersonal Communication Studies.
The future of interpersonal communication research and theory is no doubt constitutive. Scholars have made this argument (e.g., Baxter, [ 2]; Manning, ), focusing on how communication is not a mere tool for expressing social reality but is also a means of creating it. As such, interpersonal communication scholars should continue to expand inquiry into how relationships, identities, and tasks are in the communication (“constituted by it”) rather than simply continuing our current dominant focus on the communication in the relationships or between two or more people (“containing it”). To not do so limits a full range of interpersonal communication scholarship and minimizes the very aspect that makes communication a unique discipline of inquiry. Although such a constitutive view of communication studies ostensibly appears to favor a social constructionist perspective (Myers, ), Craig () points out that a constitutive approach to communication studies is not a totalizing, explanatory theory or model that makes a singular attempt to explain how communication occurs. Rather, it engages metatheoretical aspects of communication to consider how different theories and models across communication’s many different contexts and research traditions—as disparate as they might seem—can productively work together to allow larger understandings about communication that one theoretical tradition alone might not allow.
This view is compelling because it takes what is perceived as a limitation by some—that communication as a discipline is fragmented and plagued by too many theoretical camps—and transforms it into a productive dialectical-dialogic tension. Pointing to a Constitutive Model of Communication as Metamodel, Craig (, ) notes eight dominant theoretical traditions at play in the field of communication: rhetorical, semiotic, phenomenological, cybernetic, sociopsychological, sociocultural, critical, and pragmatic. He points out that, although metatheoretical discourse was happening within each particular tradition as theories were being developed, compared, and contrasted, similar discussions were not happening across those traditions, allowing the discipline to operate in independent, tradition-oriented silos. As such, he called for scholars to embrace metadiscourse about communication theory that reached beyond a single tradition. Unfortunately, despite Craig’s arguments being well cited (an August 2013 Google Scholar search shows 529 citations) and a staple in many graduate-level communication theory courses (Ta et al., ), his plea has been widely ignored (Cooren, [ 9]).
Embracing Craig’s challenge as a contextual area of the discipline would be a worthwhile endeavor to ensure a prosperous future for interpersonal communication studies. Picking up the threads of interpersonal communication research across the field’s eight dominant traditions and weaving them into a tapestry of understanding will allow for nuanced theorizing, richer practical findings, and more opportunities to engage intercontextual research across the communication discipline as well as interdisciplinary research across the academy. For example, a constitutive approachdisrupts a common fallacy often passed along to interpersonal communication researchers: that theories are locked in a singular paradigm or tradition. If this were true, one of our most generative theories, Communication Privacy Management (CPM; Petronio, ), would lose much of its value. From a cybernetic point of view, CPM considers how information is shared or co-owned; from a sociocultural view, CPM considers how notions of privacy are socially constructed; and yet still the theory is often measured sociopsychologically. I suspect CPM could be translated or enacted in other theoretical traditions as well, as could countless other interpersonal communication theories. Unfortunately, CPM is currently the exception to metatheoretical plurality and not the rule. Most theories remain embedded in one theoretical tradition.
Methodology is also often limited within traditions. Given interpersonal communication’s ongoing tensions regarding methodological plurality (see Levine, ; Manning, ; Tracy & Muñoz, , among others) that are often related to theoretical assumptions (Baxter & Braithwaite, [ 4]; Manning & Kunkel, ), it would make sense that working across traditions might open interpersonalscholars to new possibilities and might help us to see limitations in a preferred theoretical tradition. As Condit ([ 8]) points out, the “understandable status anxieties and dispersions of a small, relatively new, vulnerable discipline have hindered our willingness to take the necessary steps outside of the existing academic paradigms” and, relatedly, “most prominent theorists are usually those who best introduce or imitate the work of other disciplines” (p. 4). Although not all interpersonal communication research imitates the work of other disciplines—one need look no farther than Baxter’s ([ 3]) contrapuntal analysis or Tracy’s ([ 4]) action implicative discourse analysis to see that—it is hard to dismiss feelings that interpersonal communication studies, because of their reliance on methods from other disciplines, have not reached methodological maturity. This is true not only in the inabilities of some to understand the methods others are using in their work (see Levine, , or Manning & Kunkel, , for critiques) but also in the sense that our methods lack conceptual understanding (Foster, ), are enamored with statistical sophistication over solid design (Levine, ), value familiarity over creativity (Manning & Kunkel, ) and cite the same limitations time and again without repair (Duck, ; Levine, ). It also raises questions as to why, if we are appropriating so much of our theory and methods from other disciplines, they are not citing our work in kind.
The future of interpersonal communication studies depends on researchers, theorists, and pedagogues advocating for the full body of our scholarship. That includes learning—and on some level respecting—the knowledge generated across theoretical traditions. Moreover, scholars should consider how theory and method that was developed in other traditions can be heuristically transformed for use in the tradition or traditions they favor. Only then can the strengths of a constitutive approach to interpersonal communication studies be achieved.
Interpersonal Communication Research Across the Traditions
To encourage cross-tradition exploration and a constitutive approach to interpersonal communication, I offer a model that looks at interpersonal communication studies as a metamodelinclusive of diverse topical, conceptual, and theoretical manifestations. This model illustrates interpersonal communication’s multitradition reach. Due to space limitations, it highlights only a few notable topical, conceptual, and theoretical advancements (see Table 1) used to provide an understanding of what kinds of topoi can be found within a given tradition. Although the format places each of the topoi in a distinct tradition, it must be noted that if they were extended to include more topoi then it would help to illustrate how some of our research areas have already crossed traditions. For example, family communication could be listed in the sociocultural tradition given it is one of the most fruitful topics of interpretive inquiry in interpersonal communication studies, but a great deal of family communication research and theorizing happens in other traditions, especially the sociopsychological and critical, as well. Similarly, Martinez’s () communicology of sexual experience could be listed in both the phenomenological and semiotic traditions, as much of her work blends those theoretical approaches in innovative ways. These two examples of topical and conceptual fluidity alone help to demonstrate some of the many possibilities for cross-tradition metadiscourse and theorizing. It is my hope that this Model of Interpersonal Communication Studies as Metamodel encourages even more.
Table 1 Constitutive Model of Interpersonal Communication as Metamodel
|Tradition||Communication as …||Interpersonal metadiscursive vocabulary||Intellectual interests||Sample of recent topical, conceptual, or theoretical manifestations|
|Rhetorical||Art of discourse||Logic, emotion, values, personal and social orders, art, theory as method, presentation, articulation, construction||Words and their power; improvement of practice; values associated with informed judgment; words and action; matters of style, substance, appearance, reality, opinion, and truth||• Presentational and articulated rhetorics (Manning, 2014)• Rhetorical vision (Duck, 2011)|
|Semiotic||Intersubjective mediation via signs||Medium, sign, signifier and signified, nonverbal cues, icons, memes, meaning, indexicality, referent, language, medium||Understanding from common language; enduring possibilities for miscommunication; correctness and appropriateness of words and meaning; codes and media as neutral channels||• Multimodal meaning (Hood, 2010)• Network, mass, and interpersonal convergence (Jensen, 2010)|
|Phenomenological||Experiencing otherness||Dialectics, discourse, dialogue, contrapuntal analysis, supportiveness, description, reduction, interpretation, openness, tensions||Needs for human contact; mutuality; differences; dialogue; communication as skill; “the word is not the thing;” objective facts and subjective values||• Interaction theory (IT; Froese & Gallagher, 2012)• Relational Dialectical Theory 2.0 (Baxter, 2011)|
|Cybernetic||Information processing||Information, networks, boundaries, co-ownership, source, receiver, function, feedback, noise, redundancy, management||Information and logic; mind, brain, identity; complex, often unpredictable systems; differences and similarities in humans and machines; linearity, cause, and effect; differences between emotion and logic||• Personal and social networks (Parks, 2011)• Uncertainty and information management (Afifi & Afifi, 2009)|
|Sociopsychological||Influence, interaction, and expression||Variable, effect, behavior, emotion, personality, perception, attitude, cognition, interaction||Communication indicating or reflecting personality; beliefs, feelings, bias, and judgments; interpersonal effects in groups; humans as rational; mindfulness and mind; perception||• Emotions (Metts & Planalp, 2011)• Supportive communication (MacGeorge, Feng, & Burleson, 2011)|
|Sociocultural||Production and reproduction of social order||Culture, performance, identity, negotiation, practice, stories, rules and rituals, socialization, sensitization, co-construction||Individuals negotiating identities with society; society and its culture or cultures; social actions; agency and responsibility; social order||• Narrative and autoethnography (Bochner & Ellis, 2006)• Workplace relationships (Sias, 2009)|
|Critical||Discursive reflection||Oppression, resistance, individualism, ideology, dialectic, paradoxes, historicism, consciousness, emancipation||Circulation of power; freedom, equality, reason, and other similar values; awareness and insight; social order; questioning of objectivity; sites of knowledge||• Heteronormativity (Chevrette, 2013)• Race and whiteness (Herakova, Jelača, Sibii, & Cooks, 2011)|
|Pragmatist||Community pluralism; coordinating practical activities through reflexive inquiry and discourse||Community, interdependence, discourse, consequences, participation, cooperation, support and control, social capital||Incommensurability; participation; reflexivity and nonreflexivity; unsound discourse practices; applied pedagogy||• Action-implicative discourse analysis (Tracy, 2008)• Social capital and community organizing (St. John & Shepherd, 2004)|
Reflecting on the Model: Toward a Constitutive Approach
Reviewing this model, even in its abbreviated form, might be intimidating. It is likely few interpersonal communication scholars will be able to identify each of the areas of study listed in the last column; and even for those that can it is likely that their understanding of each is limited. Still, a constitutive approach is not so much a matter of knowing everything that interpersonalcommunication studies has to offer but more about respecting, acknowledging, and celebrating our diversity. Too often scholars run away from different aspects of interpersonal communication when we should be running toward concepts, theories, or philosophies that challenge what we know. It is most likely that competing perspectives will not eradicate or even diminish existing theories, concepts, or research claims, but that the seemingly incongruent ideas can be generatively combined to strengthen them.
To understand and contribute to this or other metatheoretical dialogues, however, scholars must educate themselves or be trained to understand communication theory across different traditions. As such, one much-needed resource for interpersonal communication scholars is state-of-the-art reviews and theorizing that reaches across traditions to allow constitutive insights for readers. A strong example of this is Caughlin, Koerner, Schrodt, and Fitzpatrick’s ([ 6]) review of family communication. Their handbook chapter weaves a compelling and inclusive overview of family communication studies that includes sociocultural, critical, cybernetic, and sociopsychological traditions. In doing so, they honor each tradition’s unique contributions while maintaining a generative tone that highlights how the diverse approaches to family communication studies come together into an intelligible body of knowledge. The chapter stands as a shining example of how a constitutive approach to interpersonal communication studies does not have to be muddled or lost in metatheoretical jargon.
Another way to move a constitutive approach to interpersonal communication studies forward is to expand the abbreviated Model of Interpersonal Communication Studies as Metamodelpresented here. Even if one does not wish to take on this expansive and theoretically demanding endeavor wholesale, with the generation of a fuller and more inclusive model, it does not mean that scholars are limited from challenging theoretical hegemony or contraction in their own ways. For example, it would be a worthwhile endeavor to begin borrowing theories from one tradition and seeing how they hold up in another. The insights provided by Baxter and Braithwaite ([ 4]) and Manning and Kunkel () can be helpful for enacting cross-tradition translation of theories. Teachers and mentors might also consider how they can step out of their comfort zones to engage new theories or perspectives. Some of the most engaging and exciting classroom discussions on my end have been when I introduced an article or book chapter into a graduate classroom that challenged my own assumptions. The ensuing discussions helped me to be mindful of how I was framing the research or theory to my students and also of how my students’ different takes on the readings were enabling a reciprocal process where roles of student and teacher were somewhat diminished. To be certain, embracing new ideas often means making oneself vulnerable and open to challenge.
I embrace that challenge here. As Cooren ([ 9]) notes, any entry into a dialogue of constitutive metatheory is but a point of view that awaits both affirmation and dispute. In other words, the second-order theoretical model offered here, like other models and theories, serves as a form of dialogue that can instigate agreement, disagreement, and—ideally—productive tensions that allow for more fully realized theories and theoretical perspectives than a singular, monolithic theoretical view. Expanding our interpersonal communication worldview requires a serious commitment from us as interpersonal communication scholars, but that commitment will strengthen our studies and this context of the discipline as a whole. A constitutive approach to interpersonal communication studies will allow us to dialogue with other disciplines from where many of our traditions were appropriated, dialogue with others in our own discipline who are sitting amongst those various traditions, and—most importantly—encourage solid theoretical contributions that benefit from being explored and examined from multiple perspectives.
5 Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. S. (2006). Communication as autoethnography. In G. J.Shepherd, J.St. John, & T.Striphas (Eds.), Communication as … Perspectives on theory (pp. 110–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6 Caughlin, J. P., Koerner, A. F., Schrodt, P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2011). Interpersonal communication in family relationships. In M. L.Knapp & J. A.Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (, 4th ed., pp. 679–714). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7 Chevrette, R. (2013). Outing heteronormativity in interpersonal and family communication: Feminist applications of queer theory “beyond the sexy streets.”Communication Theory, 23, 170–190. doi:10.1111/comt.12009
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.
Craig, R. T. (2007). Pragmatism in the field of communication theory. Communication Theory, 17, 125–145.
Duck, S. W. (1990). Relationships as unfinished business: Out of the frying pan and into the 1990s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5–29.
Duck, S. W. (2011). Rethinking relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foster, E. (2008). Commitment, communication, and contending with heteronormativity: An invitation to greater reflexivity in interpersonal research. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 84–101.
Froese, T., & Gallagher, S. (2012). Getting interaction theory (IT) together: Integrating developmental, phenomenological, enactive, and dynamical approaches to social interaction. Interaction Studies, 13, 436–468. doi:10.1075/is.13.3.06.fro
Herakova, L. L., Jelača, D., Sibii, R., & Cooks, L. (2011). Voicing silence and imagining citizenship: Dialogues about race and whiteness in a ‘postracial’ era. Communication Studies, 62, 372–388. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.588072
Hood, S. (2010). Body language in face-to-face teaching: A focus on textual and interpersonal meaning. In S.Dreyfus, S.Hood, & M.Stenglin (Eds.), Semiotic margins: Meaning in multimodalities (pp. 31–52). New York, NY: Continuum International.
Jensen, K. B. (2010). Media convergence: The three degrees of network, mass, and interpersonal communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
Levine, T. R. (2011). Quantitative social science methods of inquiry. In M. L.Knapp & J. A.Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (, 4th ed., pp. 679–714). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Burleson, B. R. (2011). Supportive communication. In M. L.Knapp & J. A.Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (, 4th ed., pp. 317–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manning, J. (2013). Interpretive theorizing in the seductive world of sexuality and interpersonal communication: Getting guerilla with studies of sexting and purity rings. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2507–2520.
Manning, J. (2014). Construction of values in online and offline dating discourses: Comparing presentational and articulated rhetorics of relationship seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 309–324. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12037
Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014). Researching interpersonal relationships: Qualitative methods, studies, and analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martinez, J. M. (2011). Communicative sexualities: A communicology of sexual experience. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Metts, S., & Planalp, S. (2011). Emotion experience and expression: Current trends and future directions in interpersonal relationship research. In M. L.Knapp & J. A.Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (, 4th ed., pp. 283–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Myers, D. (2001). A pox on all compromises: Reply to Craig (1999). Communication Theory, 11, 218–230.
Parks, M. R. (2011). Social networks and the life of relationships. In M. L.Knapp & J. A.Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (, 4th ed., pp. 355–388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on Communication Privacy Management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 6–14.
St. John, J., & Shepherd, G. J. (2004). Transcending tolerance: Pragmatism, social capital, and community in communication. Communication Yearbook, 28, 167–187.
Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging perspectives on workplace relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ta, D. N., Prigge, J., Rechtin, L., Rodamer, J., Rodamer, K., Smith, R., & Manning, J. (2009, April). Connecting the building blocks of the discipline: The ten most important theories, theorists, articles, and full-length books in the communication discipline. Panel presented at the meeting of the Central States Communication Association, St. Louis, MO.
Tracy, K. (2008). Action-implicative discourse analysis theory: Theorizing communicative practices. In L. A.Baxter & D. O.Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 149–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tracy, K., & Muñoz, K. (2011). Qualitative methods in interpersonal communication. In M. L.Knapp & J. A.Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (, 4th ed., pp. 59–86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
By Jimmie Manning