- Email: [email protected]
cultural approach
Public Relations Review
The immediate reaction of this teacher is to encourage programs in journalism and mass communication education to initiate a class, either on the impact of t.v., film and video images on contemporary society, or exploring how society should learn to “consume” mass media representations, using this work as a cornerstone. If the program already has such an offering, this intelligent collection is readymade. In short, it’s knowledge and retrospective every educator and every individual needs. Further, those responsible for public policy should be encouraged to incorporate this research into their thinking when debating the future of mass communication. The book is a compendium of the presentations of scholars, scientists, practitioners and clinicians brought together in late 1990 by the National Family Foundation. The published collection is an extension of that effort, divided into six sections ranging from Effects of Violence and Horror, Sexual Content and Family Context, to Social Awareness and Public Policy. Each of the 21 chapters, well-documented findings by credentialed experts, explores a facet of the overall inquiry, but most propose solutions to the dilemmas as well. However, only in the analyses of future public policy issues does the work parallel the direction of most PR education programs, which are moving from mass media and to asymmetric communication. Read it anyway. In the broader context of envisioning the future of all communications, it’s information we should know. E. Zoe McCathrin Assistant of Public Relations School of Journalism & Mass Communication Kent State University Fred L. Casmir Building Communication Theories: A Socio/CulturaL Approach Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 321 pp., $59.95, 1994
Inc.
Uncritical acceptance of results, summaries and conclusions may represent “thought processes that are based on shortcuts, oversimplification, and intellectual laziness.” This seems to be the warning conveyed in Building Communication Theories: A Socio/CuLturaL Approach. In this collection of essays, editor Fred L. Casmir of Pepperdine University contends that we can “become dependent upon incomplete interpretations and second-hand analyses or summaries. . . ” And, he cautions that it is dangerous to assume that “scientific process or methodology inevitably leads to significant This is especially true if “we do not understand the original data conclusions.” fed into that process, or the assumptions on which it was based.” In an attempt to explain what has often been “shrouded in mystery,” Casmir discusses elements of theory building and provides insights that are helpful in
260
Vol.21,No. 3
Book Reviews
critically analyzing existing theories. This provides us with an opportunity to understand the process of theory development-rather than to accept-without question-the theory as the final product. Casmir believes that “theories are not merely based on vague impressions.. . . ” For those who need to know more about theory development, he suggests S. W. Littlejohn’s Theories of Human Communication and presents criteria that can be used to assess a “good theory.” These include: l
l
l
l
l
Appropriateness (The correct theory investigated.)
must be selected
to explain what is being
Validity (The “theory must explain what it sets out to explain.“) Scope (The theorist should specify a theory’s limitations in general or specific situations.) Heuristic Value (The theory should stimulate or insights.)
additional
regarding its use
thoughts,
developments
Parsimony (When possible explanations exist, “the most appropriate simplest, the most direct. . . “)
is the
Although the latter part of the book focuses on theory building in interpersonal communication, mediated communication, group communication and human communication, Casmir makes it very clear that no attempt was made to provide a comprehensive review of existing communication theories in these or other communication areas. (This may explain the absence of specific references to public relations.) Casmir also makes it quite clear that he did not intend “to address in great detail serious scholarly criticisms that have resulted from inadequate research methods or insufficiently developed theoretical foundations.” Casmir suggests that “how well theories do ‘their job’ depends on those who construct them, what presuppositions they bring to their tasks, and how adequately they have prepared themselves to do their work.” And, he insists that “we need to challenge some of the basic assumptions which represented the very roots of our work. . . ” The need to question and challenge results, summaries, conclusions and the theories on which they are based is a basic responsibility of public relations professionals, professors and their students. To do less would encourage “intellectual laziness.” Nancy M. Somerick The University of Akron
Fall 1995
261
The immediate reaction of this teacher is to encourage programs in journalism and mass communication education to initiate a class, either on the impact of t.v., film and video images on contemporary society, or exploring how society should learn to “consume” mass media representations, using this work as a cornerstone. If the program already has such an offering, this intelligent collection is readymade. In short, it’s knowledge and retrospective every educator and every individual needs. Further, those responsible for public policy should be encouraged to incorporate this research into their thinking when debating the future of mass communication. The book is a compendium of the presentations of scholars, scientists, practitioners and clinicians brought together in late 1990 by the National Family Foundation. The published collection is an extension of that effort, divided into six sections ranging from Effects of Violence and Horror, Sexual Content and Family Context, to Social Awareness and Public Policy. Each of the 21 chapters, well-documented findings by credentialed experts, explores a facet of the overall inquiry, but most propose solutions to the dilemmas as well. However, only in the analyses of future public policy issues does the work parallel the direction of most PR education programs, which are moving from mass media and to asymmetric communication. Read it anyway. In the broader context of envisioning the future of all communications, it’s information we should know. E. Zoe McCathrin Assistant of Public Relations School of Journalism & Mass Communication Kent State University Fred L. Casmir Building Communication Theories: A Socio/CulturaL Approach Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 321 pp., $59.95, 1994
Inc.
Uncritical acceptance of results, summaries and conclusions may represent “thought processes that are based on shortcuts, oversimplification, and intellectual laziness.” This seems to be the warning conveyed in Building Communication Theories: A Socio/CuLturaL Approach. In this collection of essays, editor Fred L. Casmir of Pepperdine University contends that we can “become dependent upon incomplete interpretations and second-hand analyses or summaries. . . ” And, he cautions that it is dangerous to assume that “scientific process or methodology inevitably leads to significant This is especially true if “we do not understand the original data conclusions.” fed into that process, or the assumptions on which it was based.” In an attempt to explain what has often been “shrouded in mystery,” Casmir discusses elements of theory building and provides insights that are helpful in
260
Vol.21,No. 3
Book Reviews
critically analyzing existing theories. This provides us with an opportunity to understand the process of theory development-rather than to accept-without question-the theory as the final product. Casmir believes that “theories are not merely based on vague impressions.. . . ” For those who need to know more about theory development, he suggests S. W. Littlejohn’s Theories of Human Communication and presents criteria that can be used to assess a “good theory.” These include: l
l
l
l
l
Appropriateness (The correct theory investigated.)
must be selected
to explain what is being
Validity (The “theory must explain what it sets out to explain.“) Scope (The theorist should specify a theory’s limitations in general or specific situations.) Heuristic Value (The theory should stimulate or insights.)
additional
regarding its use
thoughts,
developments
Parsimony (When possible explanations exist, “the most appropriate simplest, the most direct. . . “)
is the
Although the latter part of the book focuses on theory building in interpersonal communication, mediated communication, group communication and human communication, Casmir makes it very clear that no attempt was made to provide a comprehensive review of existing communication theories in these or other communication areas. (This may explain the absence of specific references to public relations.) Casmir also makes it quite clear that he did not intend “to address in great detail serious scholarly criticisms that have resulted from inadequate research methods or insufficiently developed theoretical foundations.” Casmir suggests that “how well theories do ‘their job’ depends on those who construct them, what presuppositions they bring to their tasks, and how adequately they have prepared themselves to do their work.” And, he insists that “we need to challenge some of the basic assumptions which represented the very roots of our work. . . ” The need to question and challenge results, summaries, conclusions and the theories on which they are based is a basic responsibility of public relations professionals, professors and their students. To do less would encourage “intellectual laziness.” Nancy M. Somerick The University of Akron
Fall 1995
261