Communication Theory by Robert T. Craig: discursive practices and interaction trends in subject control

Author: Andriyanova T.V.

Communicology. 2019. Vol.7. No.2
ndriyanova Tatyana Vladimirovna, Cand. Sc. (Soc.), associate professor at the depatment of sociology, Kursk State University.

Abstract. In 1999, American researcher Robert T. Craig wrote his conceptual article “Communication Theory as a Field,” which expanded the context of the discussion of disciplinary identity in the field of communication. In textbooks on communication theory at that time there was practically no agreement on what constituted her discussion field or what theories should be included in textbooks. This article, representing the field of communication, became the basis for four different textbooks on the theory of communication. Craig offers his vision of the theory of communication, which takes a huge step towards combining this rather heterogeneous field and solving its main problems. Towards this unifying vision, Craig focused on the theory of communication as a practical discipline and showed how different traditions of the theory of communication can be involved in a dialogue about the practice of communication and management. In this discourse, various scholars (S. Dietz, T. Taylor, P. Lazarsfeld, K. Arnold, N. Luhmann) enter into a dialogue on the practical refractions of communication theories. Following Craig, the author considers seven different traditions of the theory of communication in general terms and in more detail dwells on the sociopsychological and sociocultural approaches as the most promising in terms of management impact on the subject.

Keywords: communication, communication theory, disciplinary matrix, research field, control, communication subject

Text: PDF

For citation: Andriyanova T.V. Communication Theory by Robert T. Craig: discursive practices and interaction trends in subject control. Communicology (Russia). 2019. Vol. 7. No.2. Р. 15–24. DOI 10.21453/2311-3065-2019-7-2-15-24.

Arnold C.C. (1989). Rhetoric. In: E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T.L. Worth, L. Gross (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communications New York: Oxford University Press.
Berelson B.R., Lazarsfeld P.F., McPhee W.N. (1954). Voting: a study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. University of Chicago Press.
Bowers J., Iwi K. (1993). The discursive construction of society. Discourse & Society. No. 4, Р. 357-393.
Carey J.W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Craig R.T. (1999). Communication Theory as a Field. Communication Theory. Vol.9. Iss. 2. Р.119-161.
Cronen V.E., Pearce W.B., Changsheng X. (1989).The Meaning of «Meaning» in the CMM Analysis of Communication: A Comparison of Two Traditions. Research on Language and Social Interaction.
23 (1-4): 1-40.
Deetz S.A. (1994). Future of the discipline: The challenges, the research, and the social contribution. Annals of the International Communication Association. Vol.17. Iss.1 P. 565-600.
Ehninger D. (1968). On systems of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric. No. 1. Р. 131-144. Heritage J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Luhmann N. (1992). What is communication? Communication Theory. Vol.2. Iss.3. Р. 251-259. Schoening G.T., Anderson J.A. (1995). Social action media studies: Foundational Arguments and
Common Premises. Communication Theory. Vol.5, Iss. 2. P. 93-116.
Sharkov F.I. (2005). Social communication: origins and paradigms: Lecture. Moscow (In Rus.). Taylor T.J. (1992). Mutual misunderstanding: Scepticism and the theorizing of language and
interpretation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.