This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]On: 27 October 2014, At: 05:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

Reflections on the past, directions for the future: Atemplate for the study and instruction of interpersonalcommunicationElizabeth E. Graham a & Carolyn K. Shue ba Professor in the School of Interpersonal Communication , Ohio University , Athens, OH,45701b Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication , Washburn University , Topeka,KS, 66621Published online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Elizabeth E. Graham & Carolyn K. Shue (2001) Reflections on the past, directions for the future: Atemplate for the study and instruction of interpersonal communication, Communication Research Reports, 18:4, 337-348, DOI:10.1080/08824090109384824

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090109384824

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reflections on the Past, Directions for the Future: A Templatefor the Study and Instruction of Interpersonal Communication

Elizabeth E. GrahamOhio University

Carolyn K. ShueWashburn University

The purpose of this investigation was to validate a template forthe instruction of interpersonal communication. Two dimensionsemerged that characterize the study of communication: a theory—ap-plication dimension and a communication—relationships dimension.These anchors serve as the foundation for the Interpersonal Commu-nication Template. Juxtaposing these two dimensions yields a four-quadrant template featuring: theory—communication; theory—rela-tionships; application—communication; application—relationships.Journal articles were categorized within the four quadrants. Five hun-dred and seventy two articles were reviewed, resulting in the identifi-cation of 998 interpersonal communication theories, constructs, andcontexts. The theories, constructs, and contexts were then collapsedinto 120 interpersonal communication topics. To derive the interper-sonal communication topics, the co-coders utilized the constant com-parative method (i.e., analytic induction) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).The organization of the 120 topics within the communication—rela-tionships and theory—application dimensions provides an illustrationof the field utilizing the Interpersonal Communication Template as anorganizing mechanism. Implications of the template for research andinstruction of interpersonal communication are discussed.

Elizabeth E. Graham (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1987) is Professor in the School of InterpersonalCommunication, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701. Carolyn K. Shue (Ph.D. Ohio University,1997), is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication, Washburn University, Topeka,KS 66621. A previous version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the NationalCommunication Association, Chicago, IL November, 1997. The authors wish to thank the journalreviewers as well as Judith Yaross Lee of Ohio University for their insightful comments and recom-mendations.COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 17, Number 4, pages 337-348

Portions of this article were omitted in the original prin ting. We have chosen to reprin t the en tirearticle here.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 338 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 2000

The study of interpersonal communication has experienced tremendous growth sinceits inception in the 1960s. While areas of research have evolved over the years, an organiza-tional structure capable of encompassing the constructs, contexts, and theories pertinent tothe study and definition of interpersonal communication remains elusive (Knapp, Miller, &Fudge, 1994). The intent of this paper is to propose a template or model for the study andinstruction of interpersonal communication. A template serves multiple purposes. First, atemplate organizes and illustrates research trends, thereby encouraging academic growthand idea generation. Second, a template aids in defining and articulating the core cannonsof the field. Third, a template provides a mechanism for scholars to employ as they conductresearch and instruct students in the traditions, assumptions, and orientations of the field.

The practice of research is often perceived as a mysterious endeavor. This might be dueto what Wilson (1994) calls "our tendency to [not] be very forthcoming about what we do" (p.30). Indeed, the end result of a research effort, often truncated to conform to journal specifi-cations, belies the numerous decisions that were made along the way (Berger, 1994). Theo-ries were probably discussed, some employed, others disposed; certain groups or researchsites were considered but might have been regarded as inappropriate or untenable; andpossible methodologies were offered but later deemed insufficient. Although these and otherexcursions are often not shared with readers, they are instructive. This is the process compo-nent of research that is difficult to articulate and even more difficult to teach. Beyond choos-ing which theory, method, and technique to employ, instruction in idea generation anddevelopment is left largely unattended (Daft, 1983). Significant research then is the result ofa way of thinking about a phenomenon that fosters an understanding of the process and theproduct of one's efforts.

So how do we think about interpersonal communication? A perusal of undergraduateinterpersonal communication textbooks (i.e., DeVito, 1998; Stewart, 1999; Trenholm & Jensen,2000) reveals a consistent organization and treatment of topics.1 Typically, a discussion ofcommunication concepts such as perception, listening, verbal communication, and nonver-bal communication is initially presented. Also featured in most interpersonal textbooks is anextensive treatment of interpersonal relationships including romantic relationships, friend-ships, and families. To a lesser extent, communication and relationship theories are alsoincluded, sometimes sprinkled throughout the text or discussed in independent chapters.The degree to which the application of communication practices are featured is contingenton the purpose and focus of the textbook.

From this broad but consistent treatment of interpersonal communication topics twodimensions emerge to anchor the study of interpersonal communication: a communication—relationships dimension and a theory—application dimension (DeVito, 1991; Graham &Pearson, 1993). These anchors serve as the foundation for the Interpersonal CommunicationTemplate (IPCT) (see figure 1).

Theory and application are sometimes cast as polar opposites with competing philoso-phies. This positioning has been further institutionalized in professional journals and com-munication associations. For example we have the Communication Theory and AppliedCommunication Divisions in our national associations and our journals carry similar titles(e.g., Journal of Applied Communication Research and Communication Theory). The dis-tinction between theory and application serves as a convenient means of identifying thecentral focus of research. A theoretical focus concerns the development, modification, and/or clarification of a theory. An applied focus directs our attention to the application of theoryin specific contexts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Interpersonal Communication Template - Page 339

FIGURE 1Interpersonal Communication Template

Communication

Theory Application

Relationships

The dichotomy between communication and relationships is less clear. During the 1920sand 1930s topics of interest to communication scholars included feedback, interaction se-quences, and social networks (Knapp, et al., 1994). The focus was on information fidelityand flow. While research continued to emphasize the study of information, there was agrowing interest in the effects of information on communication. Thus in the post-war era ofthe 1950s and 1960s the predominant research focus was attitude change, influence, andpersuasion. This transition coincided with the research shift from intrapersonal to interper-sonal communication.

The emergence of relational communication in the 1970s was strongly influenced bysocietal changes (e.g., Vietnam War and campus unrest) that prompted introspection, self-analysis, and personal development. The prevailing theme was "We do not relate and thentalk, but we relate in talk" (Duncan, 1967, p. 249). As inextricably linked as communicationand relationships appear, other interpretations exist. Indeed for some "the term relationshipwas a synonym for... interpersonal communication; for others, a relationship was one con-text for studying interpersonal communication" (Knapp, et al., 1994). Thus there appears tobe a warrant to cast communication and relationships as dichotomous anchors.

Crossing the two dimensions (theory—application and communication—relationships)yields a four-quadrant template: theory—communication; theory—relationships; applica-tion—communication; application—relationships. To further explain the structure of theIPCT, it is necessary to describe the composition of each quadrant.

The theory—communication quadrant contains core processes common to all commu-nication and focuses on channels, messages, symbols, meanings, coding, and effects. Thecommunication theories in this quadrant explain the development, structure, transmission,and function of messages, perceptual processes necessary for interpretation and under-standing, and the transactional nature of communication (Jacobs, 1994).

The theory—relationships quadrant is characterized by relationship theories. Primarilypsychological and sociological in origin, the focus is on cognitive processes necessary forgoal attainment (Nicotera, 1995). The theoretical contributions from communication schol-ars prompt consideration of the role communication serves in initiating, sustaining, anddissolving social interactions (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). Acentral characteristic of this dimension is the reciprocal nature of communication and rela-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 340 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 2000

tionships: without communication there are no relationships and without relationshipsthere is no need for communication.

The application—communication quadrant is comprised of communicator characteris-tics and behaviors. Emphasis is placed on strategies, typologies, and individual differencesthat are evidenced in daily communication (Berger, Knowlton, & Abrahams, 1996; Kellermann& Cole, 1994). Communicator variables are generally identified as dispositional tendenciesthat influence behaviors. Rooted in the tradition of communication skill development andevidenced in the philosophy that instruction makes a difference, this quadrant is topic andissue oriented.

The application—relationships quadrant highlights the situations that serve tocontexrualize the study of social relationships. Indeed, as Duck and Pittman (1994) remindus it is context that gives meaning to communication. This quadrant is context-based andproblem-oriented. A key characteristic of this quadrant is the situation or setting in whichcommunication interactions occur (Andersen, 1987). Often what defines the setting is thenumber of individuals involved in the interaction (e.g., dyadic, group, public), the character-istics specific to the participants (e.g., children, elders, people with disabilities), or the physi-cal environment in which the interaction occurs (e.g., hospital, classroom, home).

As a result of this conceptualization, an interpersonal communication template is pro-posed that is grounded in theory and content, is sensitive to utility, and reflects the implica-tions communication has for relationships. The goal of the present research is to examine theutility of the Interpersonal Communication Template as an organizing framework for thestudy and instruction of interpersonal communication. To accomplish this goal, we revieweda sample of the literature to identify topics pertinent to interpersonal communication schol-arship and tabulated the frequency of the topics. Next, topics were categorized within thefour quadrants: theory—communication, theory—relationships; application—communica-tion, and application—relationships. The analysis illustrates how the Interpersonal Com-munication Template can inform communication scholars about the status of the field, aid inthe instruction of interpersonal communication, and assist students in the development oftheir own research ideas.

METHODFirst, journals published between 1991-1995 focusing on interpersonal communication

concepts, constructs, and theories were selected for review. These journals included: Com-munication Theory, Communication Monographs, Communication Quarterly, Communication Re-search Reports, Communication Reports, Communication Studies, Human Communication Research,Journal of Applied Communication Research, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, SouthernStates Communication Journal, and Western Journal of Communication.2 Next, from these jour-nals, articles dealing with interpersonal communication (IPC) topics were identified. IPCarticles were operationally defined as any article that demonstrated a focus on interpersonalcommunication concepts, constructs, issues, and/or theories in the title, abstract, or article.

ProceduresTwo coders (the co-authors) identified and categorized the theories, contexts, and con-

structs discussed and investigated in the interpersonal communication articles. Some ar-ticles focused solely on one construct while others addressed multiple constructs, theories,and contexts. Therefore, one article could be placed in more than one quadrant, (e.g., theory—

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE 1Interpersonal Communcation Template

COMMUNICATIONFocus: Message and Meaning TheoriesAxioms/Postulates

Cognitive Complexity

Grounded Practical Theory

Information Manipulation Theory

Innovation Theory

Persuasion Theories

Self Perception I V o r y

Semiotio

Social Construction Theory

Speech Accommodation Theory

Symbolic Convergence Theory

Systems Theory

Transactional Approach

36122423122112

THEORY-

Attachment Style« 7Attitude Similarity 6Attraction 9Attribution Theory 17Balance Theory ICognitive Rules Model IDialectics 8Discrepancy Arousal Theory IEquity Theory 2Family Communication Patterns IMarriage Theories 1Memory Organiation Packets 2NonveifcaVExpeclancy Violation Theory 3Norm of Reciprocity 1Predicted Outcome Value IRelational Communication 3Uncertainty Reduction 5

Focus: Relationship Theories

Focus: Concepts and ConstructsAccounts

Affinity-Seeking

Argumentativeness

Assertiveness

Comforting

Commitment

3419131

Communication Apprehension 32Competence 47Competence/Incompetence 4Compliance Gaining/Resisting 27Conflict 27Conversations 26Credibility 5Deception 27Defensiveness IDisclosure/Privacy 11Embarrassment 4Emotion 13

Pace Saving/Threatening 5Fear Appeals 6Goal Attainment and Motives 14Immediacy 5Influence 9Information 8Intimacy 10Involvement 1Jealousy SLanguage Use 10Listening SLoneliness 6Love/Like 7Maintenance Strategies 14Mediation 2Memory 6Messages 22Negotiation 2

Academic Performance

AgingChildren

College Students

College Success

Community

Culture

Depression

Divorce/Separation

Drugs and Alcohol

Extramarital Relationships

Family

Friendships/Peer Relationships

2gI I22135105411816

Gays/Lesbian

Gender

Health Settings

Initial Interactions

Instructional Settings

Marital InteractionMediated Interactions

Mentoring Relationships

Parent-Child Relationships

People with Disabilities

Personal Relationships

Persons with AIDS

3231661935131127122

Nonverbal Communication 37Persuasion 27Play/Humor 7Power-Control 6Refusal and Rejections IRelational Judgements 1Satiafactlon/Dissatisfaction 34Self-Esteetn 4Sense-Making 2Social Behavior 4Social Networks ISSocial Skills 7Social Support 11Solidarity ITrust IVerbal Aggression 13Willingness to Communicate 7

•APPLICATION

Relational Cultures 1Relationship Length IRisk 5Romantic Relationships 24Roommate 2Sexual 6Sibling 2Spousal/Dating Violence 6Step-Family/Single Parent 2Time 2Widowhood IWoman as Victim 2

Focus: Context

RELATIONSHIPS

Ino

8

1S2D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsid

ad d

e Se

villa

] at

05:

43 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 342 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 2000

communication, theory—relationships; application—communication, and application—relationships). Decisions were reached with relative ease and disagreements (although few)required coders to deliberate until agreement was reached. Frequency of identified topicswas computed to determine the amount of research conducted on a topic. The sum of re-search is but one means of illustrating the emphasis or importance of an issue. The followingsection presents the results of this data collection and analysis process.

RESULTSThe total number of articles reviewed was 572, resulting in the identification of 998

interpersonal communication theories, constructs, and contexts. The theories, constructs,and contexts were then collapsed into 120 interpersonal communication topics. To derivethe interpersonal communication topics, the co-coders utilized the constant comparativemethod (i.e., analytic induction) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). After establishing the codingscheme, a random sample consisting of 22% of the articles (125 articles) was re-coded by athird, independent coder. Before conducting the confirmatory coding process, the third coderwas trained regarding the composition of each of the topics and the quadrants. This trainingprovided the coder with necessary information regarding the essence of the coding schemes.

The third coder first examined the articles to determine the types of interpersonal com-munication topics addressed and then classified the topics in one of the four quadrants.Cohen's kappa was computed to determine an index of reliability for the topic coding schemeas well as for the quadrant coding scheme (Cohen, 1960). For the topic coding scheme Cohen'skappa was .895 and for the quadrant coding scheme Cohen's kappa was .904. The reliabilityindices represent an acceptable level of consistency across coders. The organization of the120 topics along the communication—relationships and theory—application dimensionsprovides an illustration of the field utilizing the Interpersonal Communication Template asan organizing mechanism. Table 1 presents the results of the analysis with each quadranthighlighting a specific communication domain.

The theory—communication quadrant focuses on message and meaning theories. Cog-nitive complexity, various persuasion theories, and social construction theory were the mostcommonly employed theories in interpersonal communication research during 1991-1995.

TABLE 2Theory—Communication Quadrant

Topic Frequency

Social Construction [Identity] Theory 12Cognitive Complexity 6Persuasion Theories-Inoculation Theory 3Semiotics 3Axioms/Postulates 3Information Manipulation Theory 2Innovation Theory 2Self-Perception Theory 2Communication Accommodation Theory 2Transactional Approach 2

To further detail the activity of this quadrant, Table 2 presents the ten most frequently re-searched topics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Interpersonal Communication Template - Page 343

The theory—relationships quadrant is characterized by relationship theories. Table 1indicates that the study of relationships has been heavily influenced by attribution theory,

TABLE 3Theory—Relationships Quadrant

Topic

Attribution TheoryAttractionDialecticsAttachment StylesAttitude SimilarityUncertainty Reduction TheoryRelational CommunicationNonverbal-Expectancy Violation TheoryMemory Organization PacketsEquity Theory

Frequency

17987653322

attraction theories, and dialectical contradictions. To further detail the activity of this quad-rant, Table 3 presents the ten most frequently researched topics.

The application—communication quadrant is comprised of many individual communi-cator variables. The most commonly studied concepts include interpersonal competence,communication satisfaction, and communication apprehension. Visually it is clear that this

TABLE 4Application—Communication Quadrant

Topic Frequency

Competence 47Nonverbal Communication . 32Satisfaction 31Communication Apprehension 31Deception 27Compliance Gaining 27Conflict 27Conversations 26Messages-Message Design 22Argumentativeness 19

is the largest quadrant in the template. To further detail the activity reflected in this quad-rant, Table 4 presents the ten most frequently researched topics.

The application—relationships quadrant highlights the settings that serve tocontextualize the study of interpersonal relationships. Although not as visually imposingas the application—communication quadrant, this domain is also quite large. As Table 1illustrates, marital and romantic interactions and cultural settings serve as the setting and/or focus of many research endeavors. Table 5 identifies the ten most frequently researchedtopics.

The ten most researched topics in each quadrant collectively account for 61% of the IPCtopics identified in the journal articles. In other words, 40 of the 120 categories account for61 % of the total research activity. In essence, the majority of study in interpersonal commu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 344 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 2000

TABLE 5

Application—Relationships Quadrant

Topic Frequency

Culture 37Marital Interaction 35Friendship-Personal Relationships 28Romantic Relationships 24Gender 23Instructional Settings 19Family 18Health Settings 16Mediated Interactions 13Parent-Child Relationships ' 12

nication during the years 1991-1995 focuses on a few key topics. In addition, the left-side ofthe template (i.e, communication and relationship theories) only accounts for 11% of re-search interests while the right-side of the template (i.e., constructs and contexts) accountsfor 89% of the research activity. Next, implications derived from the findings will be dis-cussed.

DISCUSSIONThe previous analysis illustrates the utility of the template as a parsimonious mecha-

nism for organizing scholarly activity in interpersonal communication. More importantlythough, the Interpersonal Communication Template is evidence that there is indeed a coher-ence to the research in interpersonal communication. Although there is no grand theory ofcommunication, the template suggests that our research efforts do embrace theory, as well asapplication in an effort to understand communication, particularly in the context of inter-personal relationships.

Furthermore, the results of this analysis suggests that there is a healthy respect for thetotality of the field. Unlike other disciplines that appear to be splintered into theoreticalfactions, the study of interpersonal communication reflects a tolerance for multiple defini-tions of scholarly inquiry.

Ultimately though, the template reveals a way of thinking about interpersonal communi-cation that rests on the interdependence of the theoretical and applied and communicationand relationship axes. Thus, the template portrays the field of communication as simulta-neously fluid yet structured, independent but connected, and reflective of patterns whileopen to future refinement. Like all successful theoretical models, the template can encom-pass new additions to and explanations of the field of interpersonal communication. Thedata from this analysis suggest other trends as well.

Table 1 reveals that the application of communication appears to have received moreresearch attention than the theoretical dimensions of communication. To strive for a bal-anced split between theory and application may be unnecessary since one theory could beemployed for the purpose of investigating three concepts in any number of contexts. How-ever, the results indicate that approximately 10% of our efforts have been occupied withtheory while 90% of our time is spent in the practice of application. If we are promotingtheory based research, our research activity does not illustrate a commitment to this practice.

Failing to attend to theory results in an imbalance in our efforts and thus an imbalancein our knowledge. These are not new observations. Over the years scholars have character-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Interpersonal Communication Template - Page 345

ized the discipline as suffering from an academic trade deficit—we import more theory thanwe export (Berger, 1991). An absence of theoretical dialogue (Swanson, 1994) has led to asensitivity about our disciplinary status (Beniger, 1994). In addition to these concerns, ne-glecting theory has the effect of limiting worthy communication questions (Berger, 1991).

The growth of the application dimension, however, is not evidence of intellectual andscholarly demise; quite the contrary. Growth is not a problem, but lack of balance betweentheory and application can be. The increased emphasis on specialization and problem-centered, context-based research has contributed to the recent expansion of the applicationquadrant. Further evidence of this orientation is the emergence of new divisions, commis-sions, and caucuses in our national associations dedicated to the study of communication inparticular settings (e.g., Health and Family Communication, Communication and Aging,Intercultural Communication) or challenged with a particular problem or agenda (e.g., Com-munication Needs of Students at Risk and The Peace and Conflict Commission) (Swanson,1994). The growth of this domain is one indication that interpersonal communication schol-ars are engaged in responsible scholarship and committed to promoting a better society.These findings are consistent with an academic trend that promotes an applied perspective(Knapp, et al., 1994).

The range and diversity of interests of interpersonal communication scholars is evi-denced in the communication—application quadrant. Clearly, these topics have capturedthe attention and efforts of researchers. Maybe it is the ease with which these concepts lendthemselves to discussion or their inherently interesting nature that account for the magni-tude of this quadrant. Additionally, interpersonal communication is not hierarchically or-ganized and this promotes a wider latitude for investigation of topics. Regardless of thereason, concepts and constructs seem to be the focus of research efforts in interpersonalcommunication during 1991 through 1995.

Implications for InstructionIn addition to the implications the template has for research, the Interpersonal Commu-

nication Template serves three instructional functions. First, the template illustrates pastresearch activity. Insight into research traditions can help students define the future of theirwork in interpersonal communication. As the previous discussion indicates, one of theprimary functions of the template is its ability to visually portray the variety and frequencyof topics studied in interpersonal communication as well as illustrate core issues facing thefield (e.g., the need for more theory generation and the possible fragmentation of the field intocontexts of study). The research tracks left by the efforts of others perhaps best defines whatconstitutes interpersonal communication scholarship.

The template might also serve as a mechanism by which the validity of an idea or a claimcan be tested. In this sense, the template, much like a theory, can organize, extend, stimulate,guide, and test research. It is important to note that failing to incorporate the four quadrantsin research is not necessarily problematic or likely to render the research invalid. Not allresearch need be an exhaustive passage through every quadrant in the template. What ismost important is that students and researchers realize that choices have been made thatresult in privileging some domains of knowledge to the exclusion of others. It is in this waythat The Interpersonal Communication Template serves to facilitate self-identification. Self-identification requires knowing where one "fits" in the discipline. Self-positioning necessi-tates a full understanding of the constellation of the constructs and theories that define thestudy of interpersonal communication. The IPCT is one means for students to identify their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 346 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 2000

interests and where their contributions are being made as well as the boundaries of theirinquiry.

A second function of the template is to guide students through the process of inquiry.The topics we choose to study are often a reflection of our experiences, interests, and con-cerns. Sometimes it is a context or a problem that first sparks interest and curiosity. Forexample, confronting the reality that a family member is afflicted with Alzheimer's diseasemight prompt a researcher to investigate this phenomenon further. Recognizing that therelationship you share with this person will be altered in some way might lead one toconceptualize a project concerning relationship change. What theories best capture the es-sence of relationship change? This question directs one to the theory relationship quadrantof the template. Dialectical theory and uncertainty reduction theory represent the theory—relationships quadrant and are central to relationship change. Moving through the templateit becomes clear that communication constructs often emerge from theory, prompting theresearcher to consider the communication—application quadrant. Three constructs thatprovide insight into relationship change are commitment, closeness, and satisfaction. Tocomplete the course then, theories such as social construction theory (communication—theory quadrant) could be explored to further explain how messages and meanings arecréa ted within relationships in which one partner has Alzheimer's disease.3

This example illustrates only one application of the IPCT. Clearly, inquiry can start withinterest in a context, a theory, or even a single construct. The point of entry into the Interper-sonal Communication Template is not fixed, nor the course of navigation, but movementthrough the template quadrants is necessary to fully experience the research process. Bystressing to students the importance of attending to all the quadrants, we promote a methodof inquiry that is more likely to yield provocative and heuristic questions.

Last, the Interpersonal Communication Template functions as an organizing mecha-nism for instruction. Interpersonal communication instructors, while designing their courses,can target specific quadrants as well as ensure that all topics have been sufficiently sur-veyed. In addition, sharing the template with students early on in a course serves as afoundation for study. Students will be able to articulate how the concepts, constructs, andtheories they are studying contribute to the field of interpersonal communication. Conversely,instructors who choose to employ the template at the end of a course can use it as a conclud-ing pedagogical tool. In this capacity, the template shows students "how all the pieces fittogether" in the field.

Our past research efforts have influenced the study and definition of interpersonal com-munication today, and to some extent, will continue to determine the direction of our field.Although the Interpersonal Communication Template was proposed as a descriptive tool,and its utility as such was validated by a content analysis of research reports from 1991-1995, it is perhaps more instructive as a vehicle for understanding how the study of interper-sonal communication has developed and how that study might evolve in the future. Indeed,future research is needed to examine how our current research practices reinforce or deviatefrom those of the past, as expressed in their relation among the four axes of the InterpersonalCommunication Template.

The Interpersonal Communication Template offers a clear, concise mechanism for shar-ing the field of interpersonal communication with our students. In addition, it can help bothinstructors and students define their scholarly and instructional interests in interpersonalcommunication. Presently, the IPCT does not incorporate a methodological focus nor does it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Interpersonal Communication Template - Page 347

reflect the paradigmatic underpinnings characteristic of social interaction research. Alter-native models focusing on functional, message, cognitive, and biological components ofcommunication are also possible. Future refinement of the template could attend to theseomissions (and others yet to be identified) in order to enhance the utility of the InterpersonalCommunication Template and our ability to share the field with future interpersonal com-munication scholars.

NOTES1 There are exceptions to the traditional organization of interpersonal commu-

nication topics (see for example, Canary, Cody, & Manusov, 2000; Wood, 1998).2 The researchers recognize other journals may address interpersonal commu-

nication concepts, however, the aforementioned journals appear to be the pre-dominate avenues for interpersonal communication scholars' research activity.

3 The example provided to illustrate the utility of the IPCT is an outline of thesecond author's dissertation.

REFERENCESAndersen, P. A. (1987). The trait debate: A critical examination of the individual

differences paradigm in interpersonal communication. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight(Eds.), Process in communication sciences (Vol. 8, 47-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M.(1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. NewYork: Guilford.

Beniger, J. R. (1994). Communication—Embrace the subject, not the field. In M.R. Levy & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Defining Media Studies (pp. 26-33). Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Berger, C. R. (1994). Evidence? For what? Western Journal of Communication, 58,11-19.

Berger, C. R. (1991). Communication theories and other curios. CommunicationMonographs, 58, 101-113.

Berger, C. R., Knowlton, S. W., & Abrahams, M. F. (1996). The hierarchy prin-ciple in strategic communication. Communication Theory, 6, 111-142.

Canary, D. J., Cody, M. T., & Manusov, V. L. (2000). Interpersonal communication:A goals-based approach. (2nd. ed). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Cohen, J. A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Education andPsychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.

Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy ofManagement Review, 8, 539-546.

DeVito, J. A. (1991). The interpersonal communication course. Basic Communica-tion Course Annual, 3, 73-87.

DeVito, J. A. (1998). The interpersonal communication book. (8th ed.). New York:Longman.

Duck, S., & Pittman, G. (1994). Social and personal relationships. Language andinterpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook ofinterpersonal communication 2nd ed. (pp. 676-695). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Duncan, D. H. (1967). The search for a social theory of communication in Ameri-can Sociology. In F.E.X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory (pp. 236-263).New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 348 - Communication Research Reports/Fall 2000

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategiesfor qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Graham, E. E., & Pearson, J. C. (1993). The interpersonal communication basiccourse. In L. Hugenberg, P. L. Gray, & D. M. Trank (Eds.), Teaching and directingthe basic communications course (pp. 43-49).

Jacobs, S. (1994). Language and interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp &G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication 2nd ed. (pp. 199-228).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages:

Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 4, 3-60.Knapp, M. L., Miller, G. R., & Fudge, K. (1994). Background and current trends

in the study of interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),Handbook of interpersonal communication 2nd ed. (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1998). Dialogism and relational dialectics.In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying per-sonal relationships (pppl55-183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nicotera, A. (1995). The constructivist theory of Delia, Clark, and associates. InD. P. Cushman & B. Kovacic (Eds.), Watershed research traditions in human commu-nication theory (pp. 45-66). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Stewart, J. (1999). Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication. (7thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Swanson, D. L. (1994). Fragmentation, the field, and the future. In M. R. Levy &M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Defining Media Studies (pp. 405-414). Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press.

Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2000). Interpersonal communication. (4th ed.). NewYork: Wadsworth.

Wilson, B. J. (1994). A challenge to communication empiricists: Let's be moreforthcoming about what we do. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 25-31.

Wood, J. T. (1998). But I thought you meant. . . misunderstandings in human commu-nication. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

5:43

27

Oct

ober

201

4