Advanced Communication Science
Lecture 1 – Introduction to communication theories, models and research pardigms
Article ‘Rethinking Communication in Innovation’ (Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011)
- Changes in thinking about innovation:
o Innovations were first thought of as new technical devices, but now we see that new
social and organizational arrangements are also innovations. Therefore, many
stakeholders are involved, and adoption is not only on individual level.
o Innovation processes are conflictive (overthrowing previous innovations) and
dependent on dynamics in networks.
- Changes in thinking about communication:
o The idea that messages have a fixed meaning was abandoned when it became apparent
that senders and receivers can interpret messages differently.
o Communication is not something that necessarily brings people closer together in
problem-solving, but can also add to incomprehension and reproduction of problems.
o Focusing on the role of communication experts and deliberate communication would
be a far too limited approach, since everyday communicative exchanges among
societal agents are of critical significance regarding the re-ordering of social
relationships.
- Due to the complex nature of innovation, change agents and communication professionals
should look at their role as facilitating that ‘the potential for change’ increases in a complex
dynamical setting, rather than achieving a desired system state. This means using more than
just communication as an intermediary function between networks, but also strategies like
network building, social learning, and conflict management. Such intermediary processes
focus not just on technologies, but on human aspects and attributes (interests, visions, fears,
etc.).
Paradigm = ontology (worldview; is the world mostly objective or subjective?) + epistemology (the
way of knowing / doing research). There are three research paradigms:
• Positivist / objective: effective transfer of knowledge
o Ontology:
▪ Individuals are independent beings and rational optimizers
▪ If people have the knowledge, they will improve their behaviour
▪ Technology will solve societal and ecological problems
o Epistemology:
▪ Hypothesis testing, experiments, surveys, quantitative statistical analysis
o Parties involved:
▪ Individual senders and receivers, researcher and research subject → low level
of collaboration
o Meaning of message:
▪ Fixed/determined by sender
o Limitations:
▪ Miscommunication due to different backgrounds of people
▪ Knowledge is important but insufficient
▪ Motivation, skills, and environment are important too
o Main cause of different interpretation:
, ▪ Interference of noise in communication channels
• Postmodern / subjective: dialogue to arrive at mutual understanding and shared meaning
o Ontology:
▪ Individuals are members of communities with different identities and values
▪ Communication is about interpretation and joint meaning making
▪ Innovation should come from dialogue, mutual understanding and trust
between stakeholders
o Epistemology:
▪ Qualitative research, narrative analysis, inductively develop patterns of
meaning
o Parties involved:
▪ Senders and receivers, researcher and research subject with interaction for
understanding → higher level of collaboration
o Meaning of message:
▪ Sender and receiver(s) have different interpretations
o Limitations:
▪ Models do not explain the influence of structure and power relations on the
situation and behaviour
▪ Complex system perspective needed (complex interdependencies between
networks constrains space for meaningful innovation)
▪ Innovation does not just require technical change and mind set change, but
also organizational and Institutional change
o Main cause of different interpretation:
▪ Different past experiences and life worlds
• Transformative / constructive: network building, facilitating learning, dealing with power
dynamics and conflict to attain a fair and sustainable society
o Ontology:
▪ Structure (biophysical and socio-institutional) define different livelihoods of
actors, power relations, and political dynamics
▪ Issues of power, social injustice, discrimination and oppression need to be
addressed
▪ Political and social action is needed to ensure transformation to a desired
niche situation
o Epistemology:
▪ Mix of quantitative and qualitative research
o Parties involved:
▪ Socially situated actors in a relational and historical setting → make
relationship and involvement/expectations clear
o Meaning of message:
▪ Actors strategically mobilize resources and meanings to achieve social ends
o Limitations:
o Main cause of different interpretation:
▪ Different values, interests, and struggle for power
Lecture 1 – Introduction to communication theories, models and research pardigms
Article ‘Rethinking Communication in Innovation’ (Leeuwis & Aarts, 2011)
- Changes in thinking about innovation:
o Innovations were first thought of as new technical devices, but now we see that new
social and organizational arrangements are also innovations. Therefore, many
stakeholders are involved, and adoption is not only on individual level.
o Innovation processes are conflictive (overthrowing previous innovations) and
dependent on dynamics in networks.
- Changes in thinking about communication:
o The idea that messages have a fixed meaning was abandoned when it became apparent
that senders and receivers can interpret messages differently.
o Communication is not something that necessarily brings people closer together in
problem-solving, but can also add to incomprehension and reproduction of problems.
o Focusing on the role of communication experts and deliberate communication would
be a far too limited approach, since everyday communicative exchanges among
societal agents are of critical significance regarding the re-ordering of social
relationships.
- Due to the complex nature of innovation, change agents and communication professionals
should look at their role as facilitating that ‘the potential for change’ increases in a complex
dynamical setting, rather than achieving a desired system state. This means using more than
just communication as an intermediary function between networks, but also strategies like
network building, social learning, and conflict management. Such intermediary processes
focus not just on technologies, but on human aspects and attributes (interests, visions, fears,
etc.).
Paradigm = ontology (worldview; is the world mostly objective or subjective?) + epistemology (the
way of knowing / doing research). There are three research paradigms:
• Positivist / objective: effective transfer of knowledge
o Ontology:
▪ Individuals are independent beings and rational optimizers
▪ If people have the knowledge, they will improve their behaviour
▪ Technology will solve societal and ecological problems
o Epistemology:
▪ Hypothesis testing, experiments, surveys, quantitative statistical analysis
o Parties involved:
▪ Individual senders and receivers, researcher and research subject → low level
of collaboration
o Meaning of message:
▪ Fixed/determined by sender
o Limitations:
▪ Miscommunication due to different backgrounds of people
▪ Knowledge is important but insufficient
▪ Motivation, skills, and environment are important too
o Main cause of different interpretation:
, ▪ Interference of noise in communication channels
• Postmodern / subjective: dialogue to arrive at mutual understanding and shared meaning
o Ontology:
▪ Individuals are members of communities with different identities and values
▪ Communication is about interpretation and joint meaning making
▪ Innovation should come from dialogue, mutual understanding and trust
between stakeholders
o Epistemology:
▪ Qualitative research, narrative analysis, inductively develop patterns of
meaning
o Parties involved:
▪ Senders and receivers, researcher and research subject with interaction for
understanding → higher level of collaboration
o Meaning of message:
▪ Sender and receiver(s) have different interpretations
o Limitations:
▪ Models do not explain the influence of structure and power relations on the
situation and behaviour
▪ Complex system perspective needed (complex interdependencies between
networks constrains space for meaningful innovation)
▪ Innovation does not just require technical change and mind set change, but
also organizational and Institutional change
o Main cause of different interpretation:
▪ Different past experiences and life worlds
• Transformative / constructive: network building, facilitating learning, dealing with power
dynamics and conflict to attain a fair and sustainable society
o Ontology:
▪ Structure (biophysical and socio-institutional) define different livelihoods of
actors, power relations, and political dynamics
▪ Issues of power, social injustice, discrimination and oppression need to be
addressed
▪ Political and social action is needed to ensure transformation to a desired
niche situation
o Epistemology:
▪ Mix of quantitative and qualitative research
o Parties involved:
▪ Socially situated actors in a relational and historical setting → make
relationship and involvement/expectations clear
o Meaning of message:
▪ Actors strategically mobilize resources and meanings to achieve social ends
o Limitations:
o Main cause of different interpretation:
▪ Different values, interests, and struggle for power
