Teaching Communication Theory in the Professional School

"There is nothing so practical as a good theory," is the adage originated by Kurt Lewin. Mary John Smith (1988) notes that the most important criterion for judging how good a theory may be is its usefulness. Even the dense and abstract theory text of Littlejohn (1992) devotes a section to noting that the reasons for theorizing about communication are inherently pragmatic. If these assertions are true, then the ideal academic environment for theory is the professional school where the chief concern is "preparing students for leadership in the labor force" (DeFleur, 1996). This logical conclusion, however, was contradicted by my actual experience when making the transition from teaching communication theory to undergraduate honors/traditional arts and sciences students to teaching graduate students in mass communication, advertising, communication studies, marketing, and public relations. I was informed, civilly but vehemently, by many students that requiring all graduate students to take a course in communication theory was an egregious waste of their tuition dollars. It seemed conceivable that my years in more traditional academic groves had tainted my perception of what constituted useful and practical knowledge, so I decided to consult with a nomination sample of individuals possessing considerably more experience assessing the professional school presentation of theory than myself. Based on recommendations from colleagues, I interviewed individuals with expertise in curriculum planning and reform to ascertain their views on teaching theory. All are currently administrators in professional schools, have authored popular mass communication texts with a theory component, and/or currently teach theory. The following individuals agreed to be interviewed in the spring of 1996: Melvin L. DeFleur, chairman, School of Mass Communication and Public Relations, Boston, University; Everette E. Dennis, executive vice president, The Freedom Forum, Columbia University; John V. Pavlik, director of new media studies, Columbia University; Lana F. Rakow, director, School of Communication, University of North Dakota; Everett M. Rogers, chair, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico; Pamela J. Shoemaker, John Ben Snow Professor, S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communication, Syracuse University; and Ellen A. Wartella, dean, College of Communication, University of Texas, Austin. Interviews were taped in order that comments could be accurately attributed to the correct source, and all quotations come from the interview transcripts unless otherwise cited. The interviews were either in person or by telephone, and ranged from 20 to 60 minutes in duration with an average time of approximately 30 minutes. The discussion is organized into the following categories: (a.) desirable theory course content, (b. ) techniques and strategies for teaching theory, (c.) assignments, (d.) the anticipated outcomes of theory study for students, and (e.) rationales for requiring theory study. The complete list of interview questions is appended to this article. The final discussion section provides my own innovative rationale for requiring professional school students to study theory. The underlying query, of course, is whether or not communication theory ought to be taught in the professional school, and the unanimous response was that it should be. The consensus was that theory is an essential component in the professional school curriculum. Rakow took the most adamant position stating emphatically, "I don't think we should have professional schools that don't teach communication theory." The various rationales for including theory in media education are treated in depth in the "rationales" and "discussion" sections of this article. Content of theory courses Questions pertaining to course content asked the respondents to identify important theories, topics, or subject areas that they thought a communication theory course should include. …