What are the functions of theory?

Firstly, the functions of theory is components from my knowledge components parts that make up theories. Theories are
composed of several key parts, the two most important of which are called concepts and relationships. Concepts are words
or terms that label the most important elements in a theory. Concepts in some of the theories we will discuss include
cohesiveness (Groupthink), dissonance (Cognitive Dissonance Theory), self (Symbolic Interaction Theory), and scene
(Dramatics). As we can see, sometimes theories are named using one of their key concepts, although this is not always the
case.
A concept often often has a specific definition that is unique to its use in a theory, which differs from how we would
define the word in everyday conversation. For example, the concept cultivation used in Cultivation Analysis, especially
television, create a picture of social reality in the minds of media consumers. This use of the term differs from using it to
mean hoeing your garden or developing an interest, skill, or concepts used in the theory.
Concepts may be nominal or real. Nominal concepts are not observable, such as democracy or love. Real concepts are
observable, such as text messages or spatial distance. It is much easier to do this for real concepts than for real concepts
than for nominal ones.
Relationship s specify the ways in which the concepts in the theory are combined. In the first models, the relationship
is a linear one where one concept relates to the second, which then relates to the next, and so forth. In the second model,
the posited relationship is attractive, or two-way. The third model illustrates mutual influence (transaction), where all the
concepts are seen as affecting one another simultaneously.
Secondly, we can also clarify the definition of theory by understanding its purposes. In a broad sense, the goals of theory
can include explanation, understanding, prediction, and social change: we are able to explain something (why Rolanda and
Antons marriage ended, for example) because of the concepts and their relationships specified in a theory. We are able to
understand something (Rolanda s distrust of men) because of theoretical thinking. In addition, we are able to predict
something (how Rolando will respond to other men she meets) based on the patterns suggested by a theory. Finally, we are
able to effect social change or empowerment (altering the institution of marriage so that it more completely empowers both
partners, for example) through theoretical inquiry.
Although some theories try to reach all these goals, most feature one goal over the others. Rhetorical theories, some
media theories, and many interpersonal communication theories seek primarily to provide explanation or understanding.
Others (e.g., traditional persuasion and organizational theories) focus on prediction. Still others (e.g., some feminist and
other critical theories) have as their central goal to change the structures of society. This means effecting social change, not
simply improving individual lives. To understand the difference, think about a theory of conflict management that may help
people understand how to engage in conflict more productively, thus enriching their lives. Yet, it may do nothing no change
the underlying structures that promoted the conflict in the first place.

How do you go about theory building?

Their general approach to knowing things (empirical, interpretive, or critical) and the answers to questions about truth or
reality, gathering information, and values (ontology, epistemology, and axiology). In addition, they have some guidelines
about how to create theory (Craig, 1999). They have tree traditional guidelines: covering law, rules, and system the covering
law approach and the rules approach represent two extremes, whereas the systems approach provides an intermediate
position between the extremes. Again, we caution that few scholars take the extreme positions sketched out here. Rather,
these positions form benchmarks from which researchers anchor their own stances on questions of communication.
The covering law approach seeks to explain an event in the real world by referring to a general law. Researchers
applying covering law approach believe that communication behavior is governed by forces that are predictable and
generalizable. The rules approach, at the other end of the ontological continuum, holds that communication behavior is rule
governed, not lawlike. The rules approach differs from the covering law approach in that researchers holding the rules
approach admit the possibility that people are free to change their minds, to behave irrationally, to have idiosyncratic
meanings for behaviors, and to change the rules. Ultimately, their differences focus on the concept of choice. The covering
law model explains human choices by seeking a prior condition (usually a cause) that determines the choices that is made
(usually an effect). From the rules model, rule following results from a choice made by the follower, but does not necessarily
involve antecedent conditions or any aspect of the cause-effect logic of the covering law approach.
A third view, the systems approach, subscribers somewhat to the beliefs of the rules approach while also suggesting
that peoples free will may be constrained by the system in which they operate. Further, this approach acknowledge the
impossibility of achieving what the covering law approach requires: laws about human communication that are invariant and
general. The systems approach proposes assumptions that are more easily met than those of the covering law approach
(Monge,1973).

Evaluating communication theory

The following criteria are generally accepted as useful measures for evaluating communication theory: scope, logical
consistency, parsimony, utility, testability, heurism, and the test of time.
Scope refers to the breadth of communication behaviors covered by a theory. It is somewhat similar to the level of
generally notion we discussed earlier. Boundaries are the limits of a theorys scope. Although theories should explain enough
of communication to be meaningful, they should also have clear boundaries specifying their limits. The scope of some
theories may change over time. Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT), for example, originally was bound by initial encounters
between strangers. In some ways this suggest a rather limited scope for the theory. However, although the duration of initial
encounters is short, It is true that people spend a great deal of time throughout their lives meeting and conversing with new
people. Thus, the scope of the theory may seem a bit broader upon reflection. In addition, since URT was the first proposed
in 1975, other researches have expanded the theory to include developed relationship such as dating and friendship (Deyo,
Walt, & Davis, 2011; Planalp & Rivers, 1998), marriage (Turner, 1992), and online romantic relationships (Anderson &
Emmers-Sommer, 2006; Gibbs Ellison & Lai, 2011). The more the theory has been utilized by researchers, the more its
scope and boundaries have expanded.
Simply put, theories should make sense and have an internal logical consistency so they are clear and not
contradictory. The claims made by the theory should be consistent with the assumptions of the theory. Logical consistency
means that the theory hangs together and doesnt contradict itself, either by advancing two prepositions that are in conflict
with each other or by failing to operate within the parameters of its assumptions.
Parsimony refers to the simplicity of the explanation provided the theory. Theories should contain only the number of
concepts necessary to explain the phenomenon under consideration. If a theory can explain a persons communication
behavior satisfactorily using a one concept (such as expectancy violations), that is more useful than having to use many
concepts. However, because theories of communication and social behavior are dealing with complex phenomena, they may
have to be complex themselves. Parsimony requires simplicity without sacrificing completeness.
Utility refers to the theorys usefulness, or practical value. A good theory has utility when it tells us a great deal about
communication and human behavior. It allows us to understand some element of communication that was previously
unclear. It weaves together pieces of information in such a way that we are able to see a pattern that was previously unseen.
Testability refers to our ability to investigate a theorys accuracy. One of the biggest issues involved in testability
concerns the specificity of the theorys central concepts. For example, as we discuss in Chapter 9, Social Exchange Theory
is predicated on the concepts of costs and rewards. The theory predicts that people will engage in behaviors that they find
rewarding and avoid behaviors that are costly. However, the theory defines costs and rewards in a circular fashion:
Behaviors that people engage in repeatedly are rewarding, and those that they avoid are costly. You can see how difficult it
is to rest the central prediction of Social Exchange. Theory given this circular definition.
Heurism refers to the amount of research and new thinking that is stimulated by the theory. Theories are judged to be
good to the extent that they generate insights and new research. Although nor all theories produce a great deal of research,
an effective theory prompts some research activity. For example, the theory we discuss in Chapter 25, Cultural Studies,
came from many diverse disciplines and has stimulated research programs in English, anthropology, social psychology, and
communication.

The final criterion, the test of time, can be used only after some time has passed since the theorys creation. Is the
theory still generating research or has it been discarded as outmoded? Deciding whether a theory has withstood the test of
time is often arbitrary. For instance, if a theory was conceptualized and tested in the 1970s, but has remained dormant in the
literature for over a decade and is now being reintegrated into research, has this theory satisfied the test of time? Judging
this criterion is often a subjective process. Furthermore, it is not a criterion that can be used to assess a new theory.
These criteria have been general standards for evaluating theories for some time, but our changing communication
environment may require us to add to or revise this list. With reference to the changes that new media have made in
communication theory, Eric Rothenbuhler (Baym, Campbell, Horst, Kalyanaraman, Oliver, Rothenbuhler, Weber, & Miller,
2012) observed in an online forum published in Communication Monographs that perhaps we should add to our evaluations
whether a theory contributes to making the world a better place.