Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Model of Communication
There are many factors which influence the communication process, all
of which impact each other in a variety of ways. This model shows how
the most important factors function in what would be a snapshot of a
static instance of communication. Click on a part of the model for
specific information.
Message - The message is the symbols and signs which are actually
transmitted. All messages are carried by a channel (such as face-to-
face, over the phone, email, etc).
Receiver - The receiver is the listener. The receiver must decode the
symbols and signs of the message sent through the channel. Decoding
involves working through one's own perceptual filters to arrive at
thoughts which approximate the sender's original intent.
Organizations
• Founded in 1936 the Association of Business Communication (ABC)
[1], originally called the Association of College Teachers of Business
Writing, is “an international organization committed to fostering
excellence in business communication scholarship, research,
education, and practice.”
• The IEEE Professional Communication Society (PCS) [2] is dedicated
to understanding and promoting effective communication in
engineering, scientific, and other environments, including business
environments. PCS's academic journal, IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication [3], is one of the premier journals in
professional communication. The journal’s readers are
engineers,writers, information designers, managers, and others
working as scholars, educators, and practitioners who share an interest
in the effective communication of technical and business information.
• ϑα π α ν ε σ ε Τρα ν σ λ α τ ι ο ν
• Ιντ ρ ο δ υ χ τ ι ο ν
• Λεϖ ε λ σ οφ προ β λ ε µ σ ιν τη ε
ανα λ ψ σ ι σ οφ χοµ µ υ ν ι χ α τ ι ο ν
• Αδϖα ν τ α γ ε σ οφ Σηα ν ν ο ν αν δ
Ωεα ϖ ε ρ ∋ σ µο δ ε λ
• Ωεα κ ν ε σ σ ε σ οφ τη ε
τρα ν σ µ ι σ σ ι ο ν µοδ ε λ οφ
χοµ µ υ ν ι χ α τ ι ο ν
• Με τ α π η ο ρ σ
• Λιν ε α ρ ι τ ψ
• Χο ν τ ε ν τ αν δ µεα ν ι ν γ
• Ινστ ρ υ µ ε ν τ α λ ι σ µ
• Ρελα τ ι ο ν σ η ι π σ αν δ πυρ π ο σ ε σ
• Χο ν τ ε ξ τ
• Τιµ ε
• Με δ ι υ µ
• Χο ν χ λ υ σ ι ο ν
• Ρεφ ε ρ ε ν χ ε σ
Introduction
Here I will outline and critique a particular, very well-known model of
communication developed by Shannon and Weaver (1949), as the
prototypical example of a transmissive model of communication: a model
which reduces communication to a process of 'transmitting information'. The
underlying metaphor of communication as transmission underlies
'commonsense' everyday usage but is in many ways misleading and repays
critical attention.
Shannon and Weaver's model is one which is, in John Fiske's words, 'widely
accepted as one of the main seeds out of which Communication Studies has
grown' (Fiske 1982: 6). Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver were not social
scientists but engineers working for Bell Telephone Labs in the United
States. Their goal was to ensure the maximum efficiency of telephone cables
and radio waves. They developed a model of communication which was
intended to assist in developing a mathematical theory of communication.
Shannon and Weaver's work proved valuable for communication engineers
in dealing with such issues as the capacity of various communication
channels in 'bits per second'. It contributed to computer science. It led to
very useful work on redundancy in language. And in making 'information'
'measurable' it gave birth to the mathematical study of 'information theory'.
However, these directions are not our concern here. The problem is that
some commentators have claimed that Shannon and Weaver's model has a
much wider application to human communication than a purely technical
one.
Metaphors
Shannon and Weaver's highly mechanistic model of communication can be
seen as being based on a transport metaphor. James Carey (1989: 15) notes
that in the nineteenth century the movement of information was seen as
basically the same as the transport of goods or people, both being described
as 'communication'. Carey argues that 'it is a view of communication that
derives from one of the most ancient of human dreams: the desire to increase
the speed and effect of messages as they travel in space' (ibid.) Writing
always had to be transported to the reader, so in written communication the
transport of letters, books and newspapers supported the notion of the
transport of meaning from writer to readers. As Carey notes, 'The telegraph
ended the identity but did not destroy the metaphor' (ibid.).
Within the broad scope of transport I tend to see the model primarily as
employing a postal metaphor. It is as if communication consists of a sender
sending a packet of information to a receiver, whereas I would insist that
communication is about meaning rather than information. One appalling
consequence of the postal metaphor for communication is the current
reference to 'delivering the curriculum' in schools, as a consequence of
which teachers are treated as postal workers. But the influence of the
transmission model is widespread in our daily speech when we talk of
'conveying meaning', 'getting the idea across', 'transferring information', and
so on. We have to be very alert indeed to avoid falling into the clutches of
such transmissive metaphors.
Michael Reddy (1979) has noted our extensive use in English of 'the conduit
metaphor' in describing communicative acts. In this metaphor, 'The speaker
puts ideas (objects) into words (containers) and sends them (along a conduit)
to a hearer who takes the idea/objects out of the word/containers' (Lakoff &
Johnson 1980: 10). The assumptions the metaphor involves are that:
• Language functions like a conduit, transferring thoughts bodily from
one person to another;
• in writing and speaking, people insert their thoughts or feelings into
the words;
• words accomplish the transfer by containing the thoughts or feelings
and conveying them to others;
• in listening or reading, people extract the thoughts and feelings once
again from the words. (Reddy 1979: 290)
As Reddy notes, if this view of language were correct, learning would be
effortless and accurate. The problem with this view of language is that
learning is seen as passive, with the learner simply 'taking in' information
(Bowers 1988: 42). I prefer to suggest that there is no information in
language, in books or in any medium per se. If language and books do
'contain' something, this is only words rather than information. Information
and meaning arises only in the process of listeners, readers or viewers
actively making sense of what they hear or see. Meaning is not 'extracted',
but constructed.
In relation to mass communication rather than interpersonal communication,
key metaphors associated with a transmission model are those of the
hypodermic needle and of the bullet. In the context of mass communication
such metaphors are now largely used only as the targets of criticism by
researchers in the field.
Linearity
The transmission model fixes and separates the roles of 'sender' and
'receiver'. But communication between two people involves simultaneous
'sending' and 'receiving' (not only talking, but also 'body language' and so
on). In Shannon and Weaver's model the source is seen as the active
decision-maker who determines the meaning of the message; the destination
is the passive target.
It is a linear, one-way model, ascribing a secondary role to the 'receiver',
who is seen as absorbing information. However, communication is not a
one-way street. Even when we are simply listening to the radio, reading a
book or watching TV we are far more interpretively active than we normally
realize.
There was no provision in the original model for feedback (reaction from the
receiver). Feedback enables speakers to adjust their performance to the
needs and responses of their audience. A 'feedback loop' was added by later
theorists, but the model remains linear.
Instrumentalism
The transmission model is an instrumental model in that it treats
communication as a means to a predetermined end. Perhaps this is the way
in which some people experience communication. However, not all
communication is intentional: people unintentionally communicate a great
deal about their attitudes simply through body language. And, although this
idea will sound daft to those who've never experienced it, when some of us
write something, we sometimes find out what we want to say only after
we've finished writing about it.
Some critics argue that this model is geared towards improving a
communicator's ability to manipulate a receiver. Carey notes that 'the centre
of this idea of communication is the transmission of signals or messages
over distance for the purposes of control... of distance and people' (Carey
1989: 15).
In an instrumental framework the process involved is intended to be
'transparent' to the participants (nothing is intended to distract from the
sender's communicative goal). Such a conception is as fundamental to the
rhetoric of science as it is alien to that of art. 'Perfectly transparent
communication' is impossible.
Context
Nor is there any mention in the transmission model of the importance of
context: situational, social, institutional, political, cultural, historical.
Meaning cannot be independent of such contexts. Whilst recorded texts
(such as letters in relation to interpersonal communication and newspapers,
films, radio and television programmes in relation to mass communication)
allow texts to be physically separated from their contexts of production, this
is not to say that meaning can be 'context-free'. Whilst it is true that meaning
is not wholly 'determined' by contexts of 'production' or 'reception' (texts do
not mean simply what either their producers or their interpreters choose for
them to mean), meanings may nevertheless be radically inflected by
particular contexts of 'writing' and 'reading' in space and time. The 'same'
text can be interpreted quite differently within different contexts.
Social contexts have a key influence on what are perceived as appropriate
forms, styles and contents. Regarding situational context, it makes a lot of
difference if the sender is an opinionated taxi-driver who drives
aggressively, and the receiver is a passenger in the back seat whose primary
concern is to arrive at the destination in one piece.
Time
Furthermore, Shannon and Weaver's model makes no allowance for dynamic
change over time. People don't remain frozen in the same roles and
relationships, with the same purposes. Even within the course of a single
conversation, such relationships may continuously shift. Also, adopting a
more 'historical' perspective, however stable the text may seem to be, the
ways in which a recorded text may be interpreted depends also on
circumstances at that time of its interpretation.
Medium
Finally, the model is indifferent to the nature of the medium. And yet
whether you speak directly to, write to, or phone a lover, for instance, can
have major implications for the meaning of your communication. There are
widespread social conventions about the use of one medium rather than
another for specific purposes. People also differ in their personal attitudes to
the use of particular media (e.g. word processed Christmas circulars from
friends!).
Furthermore, each medium has technological features which make it easier
to use for some purposes than for others. Some media lend themselves to
direct feedback more than others. The medium can affect both the form and
the content of a message. The medium is therefore not simply 'neutral ' in
the process of communication.
Conclusion
In short, the transmissive model is of little direct value to social science
research into human communication, and its endurance in popular discussion
is a real liability. Its reductive influence has implications not only for the
commonsense understanding of communication in general, but also for
specific forms of communication such as speaking and listening, writing and
reading, watching television and so on. In education, it represents a similarly
transmissive model of teaching and learning. And in perception in general, it
reflects the naive 'realist' notion that meanings exist in the world awaiting
only decoding by the passive spectator. In all these contexts, such a model
underestimates the creativity of the act of interpretation.
Alternatives to transmissive models of communication are normally
described as constructivist: such perspectives acknowledge that meanings
are actively constructed by both initiators and interpreters rather than simply
'transmitted'. However, you will find no single, widely-accepted
constructivist model of communication in a form like that of Shannon and
Weaver's block diagram. This is partly because those who approach
communication from the constructivist perspective often reject the very idea
of attempting to produce a formal model of communication. Where such
models are offered, they stress the centrality of the act of making meaning
and the importance of the socio-cultural context.
Communication Models
Contents
What is a Model?
C. Limitations of Models
1. Can lead to oversimplifications.
“There is no denying that much of the work in designing communication models
illustrates the oft-repeated charge that anything in human affairs which can be
modeled is by definition too superficial to be given serious consideration.”
Some, like Duhem’s (1954), believe there is no value in models at all:
We can guard against the risks of oversimplification by recognizing the fundamental distinction
between simplification and oversimplification. By definition, and of necessity, models simplify. So do
all comparisons. As Kaplan (1964) noted, “Science always simplifies; its aim is not to reproduce the
reality in all its complexity, but only to formulate what is essential for understanding, prediction, or
control. That a model is simpler than the subject-matter being inquired into is as much a virtue as a
fault, and is, in any case, inevitable [p. 280].” So the real question is what gets simplified. Insofar as a
model ignores crucial variables and recurrent relationships, it is open to the charge of
oversimplification. If the essential attributes or particulars of the event are included, the model is to
be credited with the virtue of parsimony, which insists-where everything is equal-that the simplest of
two interpretations is superior. Simplification, after all, is inherent in the act of abstracting. For
example, an ordinary orange has a vast number of potential attributes; it is necessary to consider
only a few when one decides to eat an orange, but many more must be taken into account when one
wants to capture the essence of an orange in a prize-winning photograph. abstracting. For example,
an ordinary orange has a vast number of potential attributes; it is necessary to consider only a few
when one decides to eat an orange, but many more must be taken into account when one wants to
capture the essence of an orange in a prize-winning photograph.
Models can miss important points of comparison. Chapanis (1961), “A model can
tolerate a considerable amount of slop [p. 118].”
3. Premature Closure
The model designer may escape the risks of oversimplification and map reading and
still fall prey to dangers inherent in abstraction. To press for closure is to strive for
a sense of completion in a system.
Kaplan (1964):
The danger is that the model limits our awareness of unexplored possibilities of conceptualization.
We tinker with the model when we might be better occupied with the subject-matter itself. In many
areas of human behavior, our knowledge is on the level of folk wisdom ... incorporating it in a model
does not automatically give such knowledge scientific status. The majority of our ideas is usually a
matter of slow growth, which cannot be forced.... Closure is premature if it lays down the lines for
our thinking to follow when we do not know enough to say even whether one direction or another is
the more promising. Building a model, in short, may crystallize our thoughts at a stage when they are
better left in solution, to allow new compounds to precipitate [p. 279].
One can reduce the hazards only by recognizing that physical reality can be
represented in any number of ways.
b. Strengths
i. This model, or a variation on it, is the most common communication model used in low-level
communication texts.
ii. Significant development. “Within a decade a host of other disciplines—many in the behavioral
sciences—adapted it to countless interpersonal situations, often distorting it or making exaggerated
claims for its use.”
2.) Redundancy-the degree to which information is not unique in the system. “Those items in a message that add no new
information are redundant. Perfect redundancy is equal to total repetition and is found in pure form only in machines. In
human beings, the very act of repetition changes, in some minute way, the meaning or the message and the larger social
significance of the event. Zero redundancy creates sheer unpredictability, for there is no way of knowing what items in a
sequence will come next. As a rule, no message can reach maximum efficiency unless it contains a balance between the
unexpected and the predictable, between what the receiver must have underscored to acquire understanding and what can be
deleted as extraneous.”
3.) Noise-the measure of information not related to the message. “Any additional signal that interferes with the reception of
information is noise. In electrical apparatus noise comes only from within the system, whereas in human activity it may occur
quite apart from the act of transmission and reception. Interference may result, for example, from background noise in the
immediate surroundings, from noisy channels (a crackling microphone), from the organization and semantic aspects of the
message (syntactical and semantical noise), or from psychological interference with encoding and decoding. Noise need not be
considered a detriment unless it produces a significant interference with the reception of the message. Even when the
disturbance is substantial, the strength of the signal or the rate of redundancy may be increased to restore efficiency.”
4.) Channel Capacity-the measure of the maximum amount of information a channel can carry. “The battle against
uncertainty depends upon the number of alternative possibilities the message eliminates. Suppose you wanted to know where a
given checker was located on a checkerboard. If you start by asking if it is located in the first black square at the extreme left
of the second row from the top and find the answer to be no, sixty-three possibilities remain-a high level of uncertainty. On the
other hand, if you first ask whether it falls on any square at the top half of the board, the alternative will be reduced by half
regardless of the answer. By following the first strategy it could be necessary to ask up to sixty-three questions (inefficient
indeed!); but by consistently halving the remaining possibilities, you will obtain the right answer in no more than six tries.”
Information is a measure of uncertainty, or entropy, in a situation. The greater the uncertainty, the more the information. When
a situation is completely predictable, no information is present. Most people associate information with certainty or
knowledge; consequently, this definition from information theory can be confusing. As used by the information theorist, the
concept does not refer to a message, facts, or meaning. It is a concept bound only to the quantification of stimuli or signals in a
situation.
On closer examination, this idea of information is not as distant from common sense as it first appears. We have said that
information is the amount of uncertainty in the situation. Another way of thinking of it is to consider information as the
number of messages required to completely reduce the uncertainty in the situation. For example, your friend is about to flip a
coin. Will it land heads up or tails up? You are uncertain, you cannot predict. This uncertainty, which results from the
entropy in the situation, will be eliminated by seeing the result of the flip. Now let’s suppose that you have received a tip that
your friend’s coin is two headed. The flip is “fixed.” There is no uncertainty and therefore no information. In other words, you
could not receive any message that would make you predict any better than you already have. In short, a situation with which
you are completely familiar has no information for you [emphasis added].
vii. See Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1949). For a number of excellent brief secondary sources, see the
bibliography. Two sources were particularly helpful in the preparation of this chapter: Allan R.
Broadhurst and Donald K. Darnell, “An Introduction to Cybernetics and Information Theory,”
Quarterly Journal of Speech 51 (1965): 442-53; Klaus Krippendorf, “Information Theory,” in
Communication and Behavior, ed. G. Hanneman and W. McEwen (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1975), 351-89.
c. Weaknesses
i. Not analogous to much of human communication.
1.) “Only a fraction of the information conveyed in interpersonal encounters can be taken as remotely corresponding to the
teletype action of statistically rare or redundant signals.”
2.) “Though Shannon’s technical concept of information is fascinating in many respects, it ranks among the least important
ways of conceiving of what we recognize as “information.” “
2.) Theodore Roszak provides a thoughtful critique of Shannon’s model in The Cult of Information. Roszak notes the unique
way in which Shannon defined information:
Once, when he was explaining his work to a group of prominent scientists who
challenged his eccentric definition, he replied, “I think perhaps the word ‘information’ is
causing more trouble . . . than it is worth, except that it is difficult to find another word
that is anywhere near right. It should be kept solidly in mind that [information] is only a
measure of the difficulty in transmitting the sequences produced by some information
source” [emphasis added]
3.) As Roszak points out, Shannon’s model has no mechanism for distinguishing important ideas from pure non-sense:
In much the same way, in its new technical sense, information has come to denote
whatever can be coded for transmission through a channel that connects a source with a
receiver, regardless of semantic content. For Shannon’s purposes, all the following are
“information”:
E = mc2
Jesus saves.
Thou shalt not kill.
I think, therefore I am.
Phillies 8, Dodgers 5
‘Twas brillig and the slithy roves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
And indeed, these are no more or less meaningful than any string of haphazard bits (x!
9#44jGH?566MRK) I might be willing to pay to have telexed across the continent.
As the mathematician Warren Weaver once put it, explaining “the strange way in which,
in this theory, the word ‘information’ is used .... It is surprising but true that, from the
present viewpoint, two messages, one heavily loaded with meaning and the other pure
nonsense, can be equivalent as regards information” [emphasis added].
iii. Static and Linear
1.) Mortensen: “Finally, the most serious shortcoming of the Shannon-Weaver communication system is that it is relatively
static and linear. It conceives of a linear and literal transmission of information from one location to another. The notion of
linearity leads to misleading ideas when transferred to human conduct; some of the problems can best be underscored by
studying several alternative models of communication.”
ii. “Message” was made the central element, stressing the transmission of ideas.
iii. The model recognized that receivers were important to communication, for they were the targets.
iv. The notions of “encoding” and “decoding” emphasized the problems we all have (psycho-
linguistically) in translating our own thoughts into words or other symbols and in deciphering the
words or symbols of others into terms we ourselves can understand.
c. Weaknesses:
i. Tends to stress the manipulation of the message—the encoding and decoding processes
ii. it implies that human communication is like machine communication, like signal-sending in
telephone, television, computer, and radar systems.
iii. It even seems to stress that most problems in human communication can be solved by technical
accuracy-by choosing the “right” symbols, preventing interference, and sending efficient messages.
iv. But even with the “right” symbols, people misunderstand each other. “Problems in “meaning” or
“meaningfulness” often aren’t a matter of comprehension, but of reaction, of agreement, of shared
concepts, beliefs, attitudes, values. To put the com- back into communication, we need a meaning-
centered theory of communication.”
(From Wilbur Schramm, “How Communication Works,” in The Process and Effects of
Communication, ed. Wilbur Schramm (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1954), pp. 3-26):
b. Strengths
i. Schramm provided the additional notion of a “field of experience,” or the psychological frame of
reference; this refers to the type of orientation or attitudes which interactants maintain toward each
other.
a.) Some of these methods of communication are very direct, as when you talk in direct
response to someone.
b.) Others are only moderately direct; you might squirm when a speaker drones on and
on, wrinkle your nose and scratch your head when a message is too abstract, or shift your
body position when you think it’s your turn to talk.
c.) Still other kinds of feedback are completely indirect.
2.) For example,
a.) politicians discover if they’re getting their message across by the number of votes cast
on the first Tuesday in November;
b.) commercial sponsors examine sales figures to gauge their communicative
effectiveness in ads;
c.) teachers measure their abilities to get the material across in a particular course by
seeing how many students sign up for it the next term.
iii. Included Context
1.) A message may have different meanings, depending upon the specific context or setting.
2.) Shouting “Fire!” on a rifle range produces one set of reactions-reactions quite different from those produced in a crowded
theater.
v. Other model designers abstracted the dualistic aspects of communication as a series of “loops,”
(Mysak, 1970), “speech cycles” (Johnson, 1953), “co-orientation” (Newcomb, 1953), and overlapping
“psychological fields” (Fearing, 1953).
c. Weaknesses
i. Schramm’s model, while less linear, still accounts for only bilateral communication between two
parties. The complex, multiple levels of communication between several sources is beyond this model.
F. Non-linear Models
1. Dance’s Helical Spiral, 1967
a. Background
i. Depicts communication as a dynamic process. Mortensen: “The helix represents the way
communication evolves in an individual from his birth to the existing moment.”
ii. Dance: “At any and all times, the helix gives geometrical testimony to the concept that
communication while moving forward is at the same moment coming back upon itself and being
affected by its past behavior, for the coming curve of the helix is fundamentally affected by the curve
from which it emerges. Yet, even though slowly, the helix can gradually free itself from its lower-level
distortions. The communication process, like the helix, is constantly moving forward and yet is
always to some degree dependent upon the past, which informs the present and the future. The
helical communication model offers a flexible communication process” [p. 296].
b. Strengths
i. Mortensen: “As a heuristic device, the helix is interesting not so much for what it says as for what it
permits to be said. Hence, it exemplifies a point made earlier: It is important to approach models in a
spirit of speculation and intellectual play.”
c. Weaknesses
i. May not be a model at all: too few variables.
Mortensen: “If judged against conventional scientific standards, the helix does not fare well as a model. Indeed, some would
claim that it does not meet the requirements of a model at all. More specifically, it is not a systematic or formalized mode of
representation. Neither does it formalize relationships or isolate key variables. It describes in the abstract but does not
explicitly explain or make particular hypotheses testable.”
What is communication?
What is communication? It's an interesting exercise to ask members of a group to write,
in a short paragraph, their meanings for the term. Two things become apparent: most
individuals have difficulty writing out their actual meaning for the term communication,
and there is a great variation in meanings.
We can look up the origin of the word. Communication comes from the Latin communis,
"common." When we communicate, we are trying to establish a "commonness" with
someone. That is, we are trying to share information, an idea or an attitude.
Looking further, you can find this type of definition: "Communications is the mechanism
through which human relations exist and develop." This broad definition, found in a book
written by a sociologist, takes in about everything.
In contrast, some people limit their definitions of communication rather narrowly, saying
"communication is the process whereby one person tells another something through the
written or spoken word." This definition, from a book written by a journalist, seems
reasonable for those in that field.
Some definitions fall in between these two extremes. Carl Hovland, a well-known
psychologist of a few years ago, said communication is "the process by which an
individual (the communicator) transmits stimuli (usually verbal symbols) to modify the
behavior of the other individuals (communicates)."
This definition describes what many extension workers hope to achieve. You'll be trying
to change behavior.
Some object to this definition. Their objections center on the phrase "modify the
behavior." They say there are numerous occasions when they communicate, in their
family and social lives for example, with no intention of attempting to modify behavior.
But, we most likely do modify others' behavior even though that may not be our
intention.
We could find many other definitions of communication. However, "meanings are in
people and not words" and it's not likely that we could get a group of any size to agree
exactly on one meaning. Besides, an exact definition of the word isn't necessary. My goal
is to illustrate that it's difficult for many to formulate their own definition and that there is
a wide range in meanings.
Aristotle's model
Aristotle, writing 300 years before the birth of Christ, provided an explanation of oral
communication that is still worthy of attention. He called the study of communication
"rhetoric" and spoke of three elements within the process. He provided us with this
insight:
Rhetoric falls into three divisions, determined by the three classes of listeners to
speeches. For of the three elements in speech-making — speaker, subject, and person
addressed — it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech's end and object.1
Here, Aristotle speaks of a communication process composed of a speaker, a message
and a listener. Note, he points out that the person at the end of the communication process
holds the key to whether or not communication takes place.
Our failure to recognize what Aristotle grasped thousands of years ago is a primary
cause, if not the primary one, for communication failure. We fail to recognize the
importance of the audience at the end of the communication chain.
We tend to be more concerned about ourselves as the communications source, about our
message, and even the channel we are going to use. Too often, the listener, viewer, reader
fails to get any consideration at all.
Aristotle's words underscore the long interest in communication. They also indicate that
man has had a good grasp of what is involved in communication for a long while. So we
might even wonder: If we know so much about the communication process, and if we've
known it for so long, why do we still have communications problems?
It's unlikely we will ever achieve perfect communication. The best we can hope for is to
provide improved communication. Hopefully, we'll be more aware of the process and
work harder to minimize problems with communications.
Lasswell's model
Harold Lasswell, a political scientist, developed a much quoted formulation of the main
elements of communication: "Who says what in which channel to whom with what
effect."2 This summation of the communications process has been widely quoted since
the 1940s.
The point in Lasswell's comment is that there must be an "effect" if communication
takes place. If we have communicated, we've "motivated" or produced an effect.
It's also interesting to note that Lasswell's version of the communication process
mentions four parts — who, what, channel, whom. Three of the four parallel parts
mentioned by Aristotle — speaker (who), subject (what), person addressed (whom). Only
channel has been added. Most modern-day theorists discuss the four parts of the
communication process, but use different terms to designate them.
Figure 2
Schramm's model.
Wilbur Schramm, a well-known communications theorist, developed a straightforward
communications model (Figure 2) in his book The Process and Effects of Mass
Communications4.
In Schramm's model he notes, as did Aristotle, that communication always requires three
elements — the source, the message and the destination. Ideally, the source encodes a
message and transmits it to its destination via some channel, where the message is
received and decoded.
However, taking the sociological aspects involved in communication into consideration,
Schramm points out that for understanding to take place between the source and the
destination, they must have something in common.
If the source's and destination's fields of experience overlap, communication can
take place
If there is no overlap, or only a small area in common, communication is difficult. if not
impossible.
For many years cooperative extension service agents developed considerable skill in
communicating with the large American middle class. That success is understandable. A
large number of extension workers came from this middle class, and there was a large
overlap between the extension communicator and the middle-class audience.
However, in the 1960s, a period of growing social awareness, many extension workers
were challenged — even mandated — to work with a "disadvantaged" audience. Many of
the middle-class extension workers found it difficult to communicate with a
disadvantaged audience. In many cases, there was only a small overlap in the fields of
experience of the source and the disadvantaged receiver.
Extension met this communications challenge to a degree by employing individuals from
the target disadvantaged audience, training them, and in turn allowing them to provide
the important communications linkage. Those employees are given such titles as leader
aides, nutrition assistants, paraprofessionals and other like names.
Figure 3
The Riley's model,
John W. and Matilda White Riley, a husband and wife team of sociologists, point out the
importance of the sociological view in communication in another way. The two
sociologists say such a view would fit together the many messages and individual
reactions to them within an integrated social structure and process. The Rileys developed
a model (Figure 3) to illustrate these sociological implications in communication.5
The model indicates the communicator (C) emerges as part of a larger pattern, sending
messages in accordance with the expectations and actions of other persons and groups
within the same social structure. This also is true of the receiver (R) in the
communications process.
In addition, both the communicator and receiver are part of an overall social system.
Within such an all-embracing system, the communication process is seen as a part of a
larger social process, both affecting it and being in turn affected by it. The model clearly
illustrates that communication is a two-way proposition.
The important point the Rileys' model makes for us is that we send messages as members
of certain primary groups and that our receivers receive our messages as members of
primary groups. As you likely can visualize, group references may be a positive
reinforcement of our messages; at other times they may create a negative force.
Berlo's model
The final communications model that we will consider is the SMCR model, developed by
David K. Berlo, a communications theorist and consultant. In his book The Process of
Communication,6 Berlo points out the importance of the psychological view in his
communications model. The four parts of Berlo's SMCR model are — no surprises here
— source, message, channel, receiver.
The first part of this communication model is the source. All communication must come
from some source. The source might be one person, a group of people, or a company,
organization, or institution such as the University of Missouri.
Several things determine how a source will operate in the communication process. They
include the source's communication skills — abilities to think, write, draw, speak. They
also include attitudes toward audience, the subject matter, yourself, or toward any other
factor pertinent to the situation. Knowledge of the subject, the audience, the situation and
other background also influences the way the source operates. So will social background,
education, friends, salary, culture — all sometimes called the sociocultural context in
which the source lives.
Message has to do with the package to be sent by the source. The code or language must
be chosen. In general, we think of code in terms of the natural languages — English,
Spanish, German, Chinese and others. Sometimes we use other languages — music, art,
gestures. In all cases, look at the code in terms of ease or difficulty for audience
understanding.
Within the message, select content and organize it to meet acceptable treatment for the
given audience or specific channel. If the source makes a poor choice, the message will
likely fail.
Channel can be thought of as a sense — smelling, tasting, feeling, hearing, seeing.
Sometimes it is preferable to think of the channel as the method over which the message
will be transmitted: telegraph, newspaper, radio, letter, poster or other media.
Kind and number of channels to use may depend largely on purpose. In general, the more
you can use and the more you tailor your message to the people "receiving" each channel,
the more effective your message.
Receiver becomes the final link in the communication process. The receiver is the person
or persons who make up the audience of your message. All of the factors that determine
how a source will operate apply to the receiver. Think of communication skills in terms
of how well a receiver can hear, read, or use his or her other senses. Attitudes relate to
how a receiver thinks of the source, of himself or herself, of the message, and so on. The
receiver may have more or less knowledge than the source. Sociocultural context could
be different in many ways from that of the source, but social background, education,
friends, salary, culture would still be involved. Each will affect the receiver's
understanding of the message.
Messages sometimes fail to accomplish their purpose for many reasons. Frequently the
source is unaware of receivers and how they view things. Certain channels may not be as
effective under certain circumstances. Treatment of a message may not fit a certain
channel. Or some receivers simply may not be aware of, interested in, or capable of using
certain available messages.
Summary
Here is a summary of the important thoughts illustrated by each model:
Aristotle: The receiver holds the key to success.
Lasswell: An effect must be achieved if communication takes place.
Shannon and Weaver: Semantic noise can be a major communication barrier.
Schramm: Overlapping experiences makes it easier to communicate successfully.
The Rileys: Membership in primary groups affects how messages are sent and received.
Berlo: Several important factors must be considered relating to source, message, channel,
receiver.
These are just a few of the many views of the communication process that have been
developed. There are many other communication theorists — McLuhan, MacLean,
Westley, Stephenson, Gerbner, Rothstein, Osgood, Johnson, Cherry and others. Those
briefly described here are pertinent to many everyday communication situations.
For an ending thought, let's return again to the idea that successful communication
depends upon the receiver. As a communications source, we can spend a lot of time
preparing messages and in selecting channels, but if the receiver doesn't get the message,
we haven't communicated.
It's as Aristotle said 300 years before the birth of Christ: "For of the three elements in
speech-making — speaker, subject, and person addressed — it is the last one, the hearer,
that determines the speech's end and object."
References
W. Rhys Roberts, "Rhetorica," The Works of Aristotle, volume XI, editor, W. D. Ross
(London: Oxford University Press, 1924) p. 1358.
Harold D. Lasswell., "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society," The
Communication of Ideas, editor, Lyman Bryson (New York: Institute for
Religious and Social Studies, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948) p.
37.
Claude F. Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of
Communication, (Urbana, Ill.: The University of Illinois Press, 1964) p. 7.
Wilbur Schramm, "How Communication Works," The Process and Effects of Mass
Communication, editor, Wilbur Schramm (Urbana, Ill.: The University of Illinois
Press, 1961) pp. 5-6.
John W. Riley. Jr., and Matilda White Riley, "Mass Communication and the Social
System." Sociology Today, Volume II, Robert K. Merton, Leonard Brown and
Leonard D. Cottrell, Jr., editors. (New York: Harper and Row, 1965) pp. 537-578.
David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1960).
Material in this paper is drawn primarily from a chapter in the author's doctoral dissertation: Lee,
Richard L. "The Flow of Information to Disadvantaged Farmers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Iowa, 1967. However, the author has drawn from several sources. Contents also are
used in an expanded oral presentation prepared primarily for extension workers and adapted for
other groups.
• of the right • •
quality
• in the right
quantity
• at the right
time
• from the
right
source
• at the right
time
From the
management point
of view , the key
objectives of MM
are :
• To buy at • • •
the lowest
price ,
consistent
with desired
quality and
service
• To maintain
a high
inventory
turnover ,
by reducing
excess
storage ,
carrying
costs and
inventory
losses
occurring
due to
deterioratio
ns ,
obsolescen
ce and
pilferage
• To maintain
continuity of
supply ,
preventing
interruption
of the flow
of materials
and
services to
users
• To maintain
the
specified
material
quality level
and a
consistency
of quality
which
permits
efficient and
effective
operation
• To develop
reliable
alternate
sources of
supply to
promote a
competitive
atmosphere
in
performanc
e and
pricing
• To minimize
the overall
cost of
acquisition
by
improving
the
efficiency of
operations
and
procedures
• To hire,
develop,
motivate
and train
personnel
and to
provide a
reservoir of
talent
• To develop
and
maintain
good
supplier
relationship
s in order to
create a
supplier
attitude and
desire
furnish the
organisatio
n with new
ideas ,
products,
and better
prices and
service
• To achieve
a high
degree of
cooperation
and
coordinatio
n with user
department
s
• To maintain
good
records and
controls
that provide
an audit
trail and
ensure
efficiency
and
honesty
• To
participate
in Make or
Buy
decisions
Materials
Management thus
can be defined as
that function of
business that is
responsible for the
coordination of
planning, sourcing,
purchasing, moving,
storing and
controlling materials
in an optimum
manner so as to
provide service to
the customer, at a
pre-decided level at
a minimum cost.
Learn Scope of a
Materials Manager
Materials planning
and control:
Materials required
for any operation
are based on the
sales forecasts and
production plans.
Planning and
control is done for
the materials taking
into account the
materials not
available for the
operation and those
in hand or in pipe
line. This involves
estimating the
individual
requirements of
parts, preparing
materials budget,
forecasting the
levels of
inventories,
scheduling the
orders and
monitoring the
performance in
relation to
production and
sales.
Purchasing:
Basically, the job of
a materials
manager is to
provide , to the user
departments right
material at the right
time in right quantity
of right quality at
right price from the
right source.
To meet these
objectives the
activities
undertaken include
selection of sources
of supply,
finalisation of terms
of purchase,
placement of
purchase orders,
follow up,
maintenance of
relations with
vendors, approval
of payments to
vendors, evaluating,
rating and
developing vendors.
Stores : Once the
material is delivered
, its physical
control ,
preservation ,
minimisation of
obsolescence and
damage through
timely disposal and
efficient handling,
maintenance of
records, proper
locations and
stocking is done in
Stores.
Inventory control :
One of the powerful
ways of controlling
the materials is
through Inventory
control. It
covers aspects
such as setting
inventory levels,
doing various
analyses such as
ABC , XYZ etc
,fixing economic
order quantities
(EOQ), setting
safety stock levels,
lead time analysis
and reporting.
Materials
Management's
scope is vast. Its
sub functions
include Materials
planning and
control, Purchasing,
Stores and
Inventory
Management
besides others.
Materials
management can
thus also be
defined as a joint
action of various
materials activities
directed towards a
common goal and
that is to achieve an
integrated
management
approach to
planning, acquiring,
processing and
distributing
production materials
from the raw
material state to the
finished product
state.
• Planning •
and
control
• Purchasin
g
• Value
analysis
and
• Physical
distributio
n
In its process of
managing ,
materials
management has
such sub fields as
inventory
management ,
value analysis,
receiving, stores
and management of
obsolete , slow
moving and non
moving items. The
various activities
represent these four
functions: