In Alternative approaches to theorizing in communication science, Pavitt (2010) characterizes the essence of scientific theory by outlining the difference between an everyday explanation, which follows Grice’s (1975) four maxims of cooperative interaction, and the additional standards of science. More than simple logical descriptions of isolated physical events, scientific theory abstracts these phenomena into patterns that demonstrate regularity and repeatability. These abstractions should then be based on fundamental principles to meet the scientific standard.

Communication theory, for it to be aligned more with science than philosophy, has to meet further standards. It must contain both a model and explanation, it is rooted in an underlying principle that is psychological, sociological or biological, and it must work as a necessary conduit in causal processes – meaning that it is an essential function of the causality being explained.

It is critical to ask the question, could this theory be explained without the element of communication? Personality psychology, for instance, does not always need interaction or communication for an explanation to work.

There is a lot to agree with Pavitt’s perspective of what constitutes scientific communication theory. The standards are high for something to be remotely considered science. A model that predicts certain interactions, and an explanation as to why events happen in specific conditions, are the absolute minimum. Knowing that things occur regularly and in a certain sequence is only half the equation. The scholarly pursuit of scientific knowledge must also include why. 

Measuring communication effectively

In itself, communication has no material existence, and we can only see it based on its impact on the parties involved. Measuring something that is not directly perceptible is often done by observing its effects on systemic components. In astrophysics, for example, we seldom directly see exoplanets, but we infer their existence based on how much or how little stars dim as the planets pass in front of them. Similarly, we theorize communication by measuring the effects of interactions between and among participants of the action, and then creating models that predict the outcomes of comparable future interactions.

Communication within psychology, sociology, and biology

There is also something to be said about communication being rooted in one of three separate human processes. Many of the theories we know today help explain phenomena in psychology, sociology, and biology. Because the human experience is often explained by one of these three fields, so is communication that allows for processes to materialize. It is difficult to separate communication from any of these fields, but it is important to be mindful of the boundaries that separate them, knowing where communication plays an integral role in the phenomenon and where it does not. It is critical to ask the question, could this theory be explained without the element of communication? Personality psychology, for instance, while accepting of external influences as key to molding one’s identity, does not always need either interaction or communication for an explanation to work. Those influences can lie well outside the domain of communication.

References

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Pavitt, C.  2010.  Chapter 3: Alternative approaches to theorizing in communication science. n Berger, C.R., Roloff, M.E. & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. (Eds) The Handbook of Communication Science (2nd ed.).  California,USA: Sage Publications Inc., pp. 37-54.