Introduction
Communication, as a fundamental aspect of human interaction, has been conceptualised in diverse ways by scholars across disciplines. This essay discusses the observation that communication is viewed differently by various authors, drawing from the field of communication skills. It explores key theoretical models and perspectives, highlighting how these differences reflect evolving understandings of the process. The discussion will cover linear, transactional, and cultural approaches to communication, supported by academic sources. By examining these variations, the essay aims to illustrate the complexity of communication and its implications for everyday practice, particularly for students studying communication skills. This analysis reveals that no single view dominates, but each contributes to a broader comprehension of the subject.
Linear Models of Communication
One prominent way scholars have viewed communication is through linear models, which emphasise a straightforward transmission of messages. For instance, Shannon and Weaver (1949) proposed a mathematical theory where communication is seen as a process involving a sender, message, channel, receiver, and potential noise. This model, originally developed for technical systems like telephony, portrays communication as a one-way flow, akin to sending a signal without feedback. It is particularly useful in understanding mass media, where information is broadcast to audiences without immediate response. However, this perspective has limitations; it arguably oversimplifies human interaction by ignoring the active role of the receiver (McQuail, 2010). In the context of communication skills, such a view might apply to public speaking, where the speaker transmits ideas to a passive audience, but it fails to account for dynamic exchanges in conversations.
Furthermore, Berlo (1960) expanded on this linear approach with his SMCR model (Source, Message, Channel, Receiver), incorporating elements like encoding and decoding. Berlo’s framework views communication as influenced by factors such as the source’s skills and attitudes, thus adding a human dimension to the technical model. Yet, critics note that it still treats communication as largely unidirectional, which may not fully capture interpersonal nuances (Fiske, 1990). These linear perspectives demonstrate how early scholars focused on efficiency and clarity, often drawing from engineering principles, but they reveal a somewhat mechanistic view that prioritises transmission over mutual understanding.
Transactional and Interactive Models
In contrast, transactional models offer a more dynamic view, portraying communication as a reciprocal process. Barnlund (1970), for example, described it as a transactional exchange where participants simultaneously send and receive messages, influenced by their shared environment and personal fields of experience. This perspective shifts the focus from mere transmission to co-creation of meaning, highlighting feedback and context. Indeed, such a model is more applicable to everyday communication skills, like negotiations or team discussions, where meanings are negotiated rather than imposed.
Scholars like Dance (1967) further complicate this by proposing a helical model, which sees communication as an evolving spiral that builds over time, incorporating past experiences. This differs markedly from linear views by emphasising progression and change, suggesting that communication is not static but developmental. These interactive approaches underscore the relational aspect, evaluating communication as a collaborative act rather than a solitary one. However, they can sometimes overlook power dynamics or cultural barriers, which other authors address more directly.
Cultural and Critical Perspectives
Beyond models, some authors view communication through cultural and critical lenses, emphasising societal influences. Hall (1973), for instance, explored how cultural contexts shape encoding and decoding, arguing that meanings are not fixed but interpreted based on cultural codes. This perspective reveals communication as inherently subjective and power-laden, differing from the neutrality assumed in linear models. Similarly, Habermas (1984) distinguished between strategic and communicative action, viewing genuine communication as aimed at mutual understanding rather than manipulation. These views highlight limitations in earlier models, such as their failure to address ideological factors.
In communication skills studies, these cultural perspectives encourage awareness of diversity, for example, in cross-cultural interactions. They demonstrate how scholars’ differing emphases—on structure, interaction, or context—reflect broader disciplinary shifts, from positivist to interpretive paradigms.
Conclusion
In summary, the observation that communication is viewed differently by scholars is evident in the contrast between linear models (Shannon and Weaver, 1949; Berlo, 1960), transactional approaches (Barnlund, 1970; Dance, 1967), and cultural critiques (Hall, 1973; Habermas, 1984). These variations arise from differing focuses on transmission, reciprocity, and context, each offering valuable insights while revealing limitations. For students of communication skills, understanding these perspectives fosters adaptability in real-world applications, such as improving interpersonal effectiveness or navigating cultural differences. Ultimately, this diversity enriches the field, suggesting that effective communication requires integrating multiple viewpoints rather than adhering to one. Further research could explore how digital media influences these evolving conceptions, potentially bridging gaps between theories.
References
- Barnlund, D.C. (1970) A transactional model of communication. In: Sereno, K.K. and Mortensen, C.D. (eds.) Foundations of communication theory. Harper & Row.
- Berlo, D.K. (1960) The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Dance, F.E.X. (1967) Toward a theory of human communication. In: Dance, F.E.X. (ed.) Human communication theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Fiske, J. (1990) Introduction to communication studies. 2nd edn. Routledge.
- Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon Press.
- Hall, S. (1973) Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham.
- McQuail, D. (2010) McQuail’s mass communication theory. 6th edn. Sage Publications.
- Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
(Word count: 812)
