Communication Metatheory: Objective vs. Interpretive

Understanding that communication contains countless theories is vital to purposeful and decisive communication.  A person a can use theories to their benefit in any given situation, but grasping and understanding their true theoretical assumptions is key towards befitting the skill into your repertoire.  A great communicator will incorporate different and effective theories into their message, which is why it is essential to understand multiple theoretical assumptions.  However, after exposure towards numerous other theories, a student of communication may soon find it hard to juggle all the theories in their mind without confusion. This is why it is imperative to classify certain theories by their assumptions into two different perspectives: “Objective” and “Interpretive”.

Objective approaches are in fact “objective-based”.  Here are a few theories classified under the objective perspective: Uncertainty Reduction Theory, Social Judgment Theory, Social Information Processing Theory, and Expectancy Violations Theory.  By looking at each theories name you can acquire some sort of description/assumption of how each theory are objective-based, in other words goal-oriented.  Now what makes a “good” objective theory?  Well, it must first go beyond the collection of data and explain why, be relatively simple, predict future events (mirror reality), be practical and useful, have quantitative research with empirical evidence, and contain a testable hypothesis. 

However, interpretive approaches are the exact opposite.   They differ because they clarify value and assign meaning to communicative messages, and assume that there are multiple meanings or truths rather than one singular truth (objective).  Interpretive approaches help find new understandings of people and offers fresh insight into the human condition.  A few example theories of the interpretive perspective include: Cultural Approach, Critical Theory of Communication Approach, Symbolic Interactionism, and Relational Dialectics.

Personally speaking, I do find myself being more of an objective scholar rather than an interpretive scholar.  I see more value in objective-based theories since they can be goal-oriented which gathers me to believe that a seasoned objective-based communicator can control any given conversation and lead it into the direction he/she desires.