Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India Lecture 2: How do we communicate? The previous lecture focused on the meaning of communication and how it has been studied and used as a concept over time. The following lecture will focus on how researchers have explained the process of communication in different situations. Models of Communication Various models have been proposed by theorists over centuries to describe the process of communication. Aristotle (330 B.C. ) One of the earliest models that explains how we design what we say, was proposed by Aristotle in 330 B.C. with reference to public speaking. To put it very simply, Aristotle proposed a somewhat linear explanation for the process of communication. He said that the Speaker designed a Speech for an Audience according to an Occasion with the intention of Effecting a change in the thought and/ or behavior of the audience (Sosnoski, undated). i.e. Occasion Speaker -- Speech ----------------Audience Effect on the audience Aristotle emphasized that a balance between ethos, pathos, and logos resulted in the desired effect on the audience. Ethos according to Aristotle, referred to the character or basic value system of the speaker, which became evident in what the speaker said and how he said it. Pathos, according to Aristotle, referred to the audience, and what they felt and experienced during the speech, and what the speaker understood about what the audience felt and experienced during the speech. Logos, according to Aristotle, referred to the content of the speech, and highlighted the impact the words used by the speaker had on the situation or occasion. A perfect example demonstrating the Aristotelian model of communication is Mark Antony’s speech in the Shakespearean epic, Julius Caesar. “ANTONY Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest-For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men-Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. ….” Source: http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/julius_caesar/10/. Retrieved September 26, 2012. And the speech goes on with repetitions of “Brutus is an honorable man” timed to perfection! A videographic representation of this speech can be found in the following clips from the movie, Julius Caesar. The clips have been downloaded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aO89Elkcx4&feature=relmfu, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNWvgEaMJ9g&feature=relmfu. from and In this speech, Mark Antony (Shakespeare through Mark Antony’s character) builds ethos, and uses logos to play on pathos in the audience. And the result is that, in a matter of minutes, the very audience that was convinced that Brutus killed Caesar because Caesar put his own ambition before the safety and stability of the Roman empire, turn around, and become convinced that Brutus was a traitor, and that Caesar died a noble death as a martyr for Rome! Such is the power of a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos in public communication. In 1927, Harold Dwight Lasswell proposed another model of communication that was very similar to the Aristotelian model of communication. Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India Lasswell’s model of communication Lasswell proposed a simplified linear model of the process of communication. Lasswell suggested that especially in the case of political propaganda, "Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?" (Lasswell, 1958) is what determines the impact of a propaganda event. The primary reason why this model was not considered complete was because it did not take into account the role of noise on the impact of the message or the role of feedback on future messages.1 In 1948, Shannon and Weaver proposed a mathematical theory of communication. Source: Shannon, C.E. (July, October 1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27. 379-423, 623-656. This model addressed one of the main limitations of the model proposed by Lasswell. Shannon and Weaver’s model included the impact of noise in the manner in which the final message was received and acted upon. According to this model, The Information Source designs a message and transmits it through a transmitter (or channel), after which the message is acted upon by the noise in the environment. This combination of the message and the noise affecting it is received by the receiver who further acts as a channel to transmit the message to its destination. It is quite likely that the transmitter of the message lies within the information source (vocal cords in the case of oral communication), and the receiver of the message lies within the ultimate destination (auditory apparatus in the case of oral communication). All this model highlights is the impact of external noise or environmental interference or disturbance on the signal that is being transmitted. Shannon and Weaver’s model, like Aristotle’s and Lasswell’s model, assumes communication to be a linear process and does not take into account the role of feedback in the design or transmission or interpretation of the message. Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India Another model of communication that is relevant to the modern day study of communication in management settings was proposed by Katz and Lazarsfeld in 1955. Katz and Lazarsfeld Two-Step model of public influence According to this model, the process of public communication had two stages. The first stage dealt with the drafting of a message and transmission of the message to the mass media. The second stage dealt with the reception of the message through the hubs in these mass media, i.e., the opinion leaders. Katz and Lazarsfeld proposed that since the opinion leaders formed the interface between the mass media and the common public, the interpersonal relationship between the opinion leaders and the mass of common people they represented and spoke to determined what effect a message had and how much that message affected the people it was meant for. So, according to this model, the interpersonal relationship between the opinion leader and the mass of common people became a channel of communication instead of the medium that was used to transmit the message (Katz, 1957). So, according to this model, the common public will listen to whatever is being said, as long as someone they respect says it, irrespective of the channel that is used to say it. They will believe a particular piece of information only because a particular person is saying it, whether the person addressed them over the radio, or in person, or (applying the model to modern day communication channels) via the internet. e.g. well known media personalities are invited to serve as experts in specialized forums they may not have had very much formal training in. Lasswell’s model of communication H.D. Lasswell proposed a rather simplistic model of communication. Like Aristotle’s and Katz and Lazarsfeld’s model, Lasswell’s model of communication too was linear. According to this model, the impact communication has depends on Who says? (Sender of the message) What? (Content of the message) Through which channel? To whom? (Receiver) With what effect? This model attempts to map the path of communication. According to Lasswell, communication effects the following: 1. “Surveillance of the environment 2. Correlation of the different components of society 3. Cultural transmission between generations” Westley and Maclean’s model of communication Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India Westley and Maclean addressed one of the major limitations in all the above mentioned theories and proposed a conceptual model of communication. According to them, the messages sent by the sender only serve to add to the environment the receiver of the message is in. The receiver then decides what to respond to and what not to respond to. Similarly, when the receiver of the message responds, this response sent by the receiver of the initial message serves to add to environment of the sender of the initial message. The sender decides what in the environment is worthy of being responded to and how. So, in effect, the model proposed by Westley and Maclean builds exclusively on the role of feedback from the environment (Westley & Maclean, 1955). Berlo’s SMCR Model of Communication In 1960, Berlo proposed a model of communication that focused on the importance of context in the framing, transmission, and interpretation of messages. Berlo proposed that the context surrounding the Source, Message, Channel, and Receiver determined how a message was framed, what accompanied it, what it lost and what it gained during transmission, and how it was received and finally interpreted at the receiver’s end (Stead, 1972). According to this model, the communication skills, knowledge, attitudes, social system and culture of the Source influence the way the message is encoded, i.e. the tone of the message, the directness or indirectness of the message, the desired goal of the message and so on. The Message thus encoded, acquires a unique shape with respect to its content, elements, treatment of its elements, structure and code, i.e. the language that is used, the words that are selected, the placement of the different parts of the message, the buffers used between difficult parts of the message and so on. This message, then travels through a Channel or medium of communication, i.e. auditory, tactile, visual, olfactory or gustatory, and in recent times, digital. The channel through which the message passes also adds some flavor to it in terms of the sender’s perception of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the channel, and the receiver’s interpretation of the same channel. The original content by now is loaded with all this context it has passed through, and is now received, complete with the sender’s attributes, the unique attributes acquired by the message during its treatment, and the attributes of the channel it has passed through. The Receiver now receives the message and interprets in within his/ her own context which involves, the receiver’s communication skills, knowledge, attitudes, social system, and culture which determine how the receiver perceives and interprets the attributes the original words that the message has come with and the meaning the receiver attributes to the content that is received. The following example illustrates how context can affect the interpretation of a message. A had just returned to India after spending several years in the United States. The administrative staff at her workplace in India had many years of experience in their respective areas of expertise. Their only limitation was that they had just started using computers for communication after having worked exclusively with paper and handwritten documents for decades. Within a few days of joining, A completed all the Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India formalities including approving the proof for her business cards. A month later, during the visit of some guests to the Institute, A realized that she had still not received her business cards. She attributed the delay to the festival season, and the workload towards the end of the academic semester. She thought that calling up the person responsible for getting her cards made, a Mr. V, would indicate a sense of great urgency, which really was not the case. So, she decided to use email to send her message. She drafted a very polite email to Mr. V, in which she included all the details including the date on which she had approved the proof of the business cards and requested that the status of the business cards be checked on. An hour later, she received a phone call from Mr. V asking her if he could come over to her office. Mr. V sounded very upset as a result of which A was confused. Five minutes later, Mr. V was in A’s office, and quite visibly quite upset. When A asked him the reason, he said that he had felt very uncomfortable because A had filed a complaint against him for such a small thing. When A probed further, she discovered that Mr. V had perceived the email as a form of written communication, which in turn was a permanent record against him. He would have felt a lot more comfortable with something less threatening like a personal visit or a phone call of which there would be no record. Now A realized that drafting the message with all the details (to ensure that Mr. V would find it easier to locate the paperwork associated with her request) and sending it through a channel that she perceived as a means to give him a chance to respond at his own convenience ended up being interpreted very very differently by Mr. V. Dance’s Helical model of communication In 1967, Dr. Frank E.X. Dance proposed a model of communication that added another dimension to the models already being used to explain the process of communication. Dance (1967) proposed that communication is an interactive, dynamic process. He explained that the exchange of messages starts as a simple one on one transaction and in and through the process of this exchange it grows and evolves into something much larger than it was originally intended to be. The process of communication according to Dance (1967) is continuous and dynamic, and in and through this continuity, the scope of the message and its interpretation increases and covers a lot more ground than the sender or receiver of the message originally intended (Dance, 1967). Dance’s theory has been used extensively to explain the interactions between customers and service providers where the impact of advertising and persuading customers to buy products rests exclusively on the shape this helix takes and the ground it covers both on the consumer’s and seller’s side (Anderson & Wanninger, 1996). Conclusion: The above mentioned theories illustrate how the study of the process of communication has evolved over the years. The explanations provided above are neither exhaustive nor absolute. They are only reflective of the diversity of research that has shaped Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India modern day study of communication, and are intended to serve as food for thought for those who are interested in probing more. Questions: 1. Compare and contrast the different ways in which theorists have explained the process of communication. 2. How do these theories relate to real life experiences in the field of management? ---------------------References Anderson, C. & Wanninger, L. A. (1996). Computer mediated advertising: Consumers and brands. Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullPapers/1996/9603_080197.pdf. Dance, F. E. X. (1967), Human Communication Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: Up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Anneberg School for Communication Departmental Papers (ASC). Retrieved September 26, 2012, from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/271/ . Katz, E. (1987). Communications research since Lazarsfeld. Anneberg School for Communication Departmental Papers (ASC). Retrieved September 26, 2012, from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/246/. Lasswell, H. D. (1958). Communications as an emerging discipline. Audio Visual Communication Review, 6(4). 245-254. Lasswell, H.D. (1948) in E. Katz (1987). Communications research since Lazarsfeld. Anneberg School for Communication Departmental Papers (ASC). Retrieved September 26, 2012, from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/246/ Lasswell’s model. Retrieved September http://communicationtheory.org/lasswells-model/. 26, 2012, from Sosnoski, J. J. (undated). The evolution of communication theory. Retrieved 30th September, 2012 from http://c-cs.us/comm_cog/evol_model_comm.html#fn1 Stead, B.A. (1972). Berlo’s communication process model as applied to the behavioural theories of Maslow, Herzberg, and McGregor. Academy of Management Journal, 15(3). 389-394. Westley, B.H. & MacLean, M.S., Jr. (1955). A conceptual model for communications research. Audio Visual Communication Review, 3(1). 3-12. Winston, Inc. Aradhna Malik (PhD) International Business Communication Assistant Professor National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II) Vinod Gupta School of Management Ministry of Human Resource Development Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Government of India 1 Lasswell’s model. Retrieved September 26, 2012, from http://communicationtheory.org/lasswells-model/.