Wednesday, October 30, 2013

14 Hours... 14 whole hours.

Hola, Guten Tag, Bonjour and Hello again,

        I hope all of my loyal viewers are doing well and enjoying my blogging thus far. Today is a great day for me as the Portland Trailblazers start their season! Anyways, for my second official blog entry I would like to focus on the theory of Social Information Processing or SIP. This theory was coined by Joseph Walther and heavily focuses on the use of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). CMC is seen as text based messages, which filter out most non-verbal cues. This can be a text message, facebook message, online forum, or even a blog entry like this one. For the purpose of this blog I made a great sacrifice and attempted to go 48 hours without the use of CMC. Throughout this post I will discuss my experience without CMC while providing a bit more detail about the theory. Also, since this is a sports in communications blog, I will be providing an example of how CMC can be seen in sports today.
text messaging cartoons, text messaging cartoon, funny, text messaging picture, text messaging pictures, text messaging image, text messaging images, text messaging illustration, text messaging illustrations         
        As I explained, CMC is the communication via text based messages. This day in age much of this is done via the web. I think it is safe to say whether it be facebook, twitter, chatrooms, etc. almost all of us use CMC daily (especially so considering you are reading this blog). CMC provides some benefits that face to face communication may not, such as increased self-disclosure, extended time for those who prefer it, and a platform for those who struggle with face to face communication to communicate comfortably. Critics of CMC such as media relations theorists argue though that CMC is too narrow to convey rich messages. You can also argue that CMC is depriving people of necessary real life social skills. Other critics point to CMC as depriving users of the sense that another actual person is involved in the communication, these would be social presence theorist. Whether you think CMC is an effective means of communication or are a critic, it is likely CMC is not going to disappear anytime soon. This is because it is a key aspect of interpersonal relationships today, but considering these critical theories can make one question the extent that CMC should be used.
          
        For the purpose of this blog I attempted to make a great sacrifice and go without CMC for 48 hours. This meant no internet essentially, no facebook, twitter, email, etc. As an avid tweeter I thought this may be very difficult for me. I began attempting this challenge the morning of Tuesday, October 29th. The day began with me fighting the temptation to roll over out of bed and check my texts, facebook, twitter, and email as is my usual morning tradition. I quickly realized that my phone tells me when I have a text and displays it on the screen, so in a panic I switched my phone into airplane mode. Throughout the day of class, studying and going to the gym I noticed that not using CMC was not as difficult as I had expected it would be, it was almost peaceful in a sense and increased my rate of information sharing. The real challenge though came at night. During my downtime is when I tend to use the most CMC, facebook messaging, tweeting, or texting friends. It was at this time I also realized I needed to email a professor regarding an assignment due on the upcoming Friday. This put me in a dilemma, do I wait until Thursday (the night before) to email or break my CMC ban to give them ample time to respond. Sadly, despite my best efforts, my true colors as a worry wart broke through and I emailed my professor thus ending 14 hours without CMC. While going without CMC was by no means the most difficult thing I have done in life, merely going 14 hours made me realize how critical it is in today’s society.
         
       One aspect of CMC that really stood out to me during this challenge was the chronemics. Chronemics are the study of people’s systematic handling of time in their interaction with others. Simply put, it looks at how we balance time in our interaction with people. 
I noticed that CMC allows us to balance our time much more on our own terms. For example I am able to email my professor at my convenience with CMC, but without CMC I am forced to attend his office hours or call him to make an appointment to meet with him. This being said, CMC is an effective tool for time management in communication. The above comic shows an example of how chronemics can vary between participating members of the communication as well. 

       I’d like to give a brief example to conclude this entry of how we are seeing CMC in sports today. CMC is everywhere in sports, from players, coaches, and managers communicating through text messages to email correspondence between employees for professional sports franchises. But one particular area I found interesting was how CMC between coaches and prospective athletes is being limited by the NCAA. There is currently a push to deregulate texting rules in recruiting for the NCAA, here is a brief video from the NCAA discussing both the pros and cons of CMC in recruiting (sorry the embedded video would not work). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1txZxoDSDA. Do you think coaches should be limited in the amount of CMC they can have with a prospective player? Or is it unfair to set a limitation on a communication method? No matter what side of the fence you sit on one thing is clear, CMC is everywhere. It will be interesting to see how different people and industries adapt to CMC as a part of everyday life in the near future.

Until next time, stay cool friends.

P.S. here is the sports video of the day, Go Blazers! 

-Zach 

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Objective and Interpretive Theories in Sports

Hello and happy hump-day to all, here is a quick video of one of the most amazing plays I have seen in sports to wake you up! 


Today I will be looking into an aspect of metatheory, exciting I know! Metatheory is the inception of the communication world, but instead of a dream within a dream it is a theory about a theory. This complex idea can be broken down into simpler terms as the assumptions we make about a theory. When we make these assumptions we tend to group them on a scale somewhere between objective and interpretive. It is important to understand the differences between both sides of this spectrum because it allows us to understand the roots of theories. For this blog entry I will be taking a closer look at the differences between objective and interpretive theories while using the film Moneyball to illustrate the differences.
Before I get to the exciting video clips it’s important I explain to you the differences between objective and interpretive theories. An objective theory is one that explains the past and present, and predicts the future (Griffin 26). We tend to look at objective theories as measurable, factual, scientific and quantifiable.  A good objective theory will not only be testable, but will provide evidence. There are six main scientific standards for a good objective theory but three I find key; explanation of data, prediction of future events, and a hypothesis that can be tested. These are all relatively self-explanatory standards, but if you require more depth or clarity I recommend reading pages 26-30 in Em Griffin’s “A First Look at Communication Theory”. I think when looking at objective theory it’s easiest to think of it as theories not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or opinions, it is simply based on fact.
Interpretive theories on the other hand assume multiple truths or meanings as possible. They are subjective, socially constructed and depend on context, and perception. A good interpretive theory also follows scientific standards. A well thought out interpretive theory will provide a new understanding of people, clarify values, have a community of agreement, as well as qualitative research. More depth on these standards can also be found in the aforementioned textbook on pages 31-34. We can see an example of interpretive theories such as the cultural approach, cultural studies, or the interactional view. As you can infer these theories are less scientific and based on interaction, culture, and perspective. Interpretive theories may involve in-depth interviews while an objective theory may focus more on surveys or data bases.
Now since I am attempting to tie sports into each blog post, I have taken two clips from the film Moneyball. For those who have not seen it I highly recommend it, between Brad Pitt’s good looks and the intriguing story about sports there is enough to keep members of both sexes interested throughout. In brief, the film is about the Oakland A’s, a small budget Major League Baseball team. Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is responsible for putting together the team of players and faces some challenges. Although the clips I am sharing do not necessarily portray particular communication theories, I feel they provide a great picture of the difference between an objective approach and an interpretive one. 
The first clip is one where Billy Beane (Pitt) is discussing with his old scouts on how the team should be built. As we can see in this clip the old scouts take a more interpretive approach to the problem They use their perception of players, socially constructed opinions and subjective ideas on how the team should be built. We hear them talking about how the girlfriends look, their confidence, jaws, etc.  Their theories address values they have, are less scientific, and focus on the opinions of the scouts rather than science or facts.

In this second clip Billy Beane is listening to a young Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill) about his theory on how the team should be built. As we can see here a more objective approach is being taken. Brand’s theory is measurable, factual, scientific and predicts the future. These examples provide us evidence as to how this dichotomy between objective and interpretive is everywhere, making it crucial to understand. This is not to say that one theory is better than another, it shows that depending on the situation different theories are applicable. 


We can see objective and interpretive theories all over. Whether it is used in sports to pick your team or it is used in differentiating communication theories. I hope you now have an improved understanding of objective and interpretive theories and are able to see how they can help you not only understand communication theories but theories in general. The more (communication) theories you understand the more aware you become of any personal biases or tendencies you might have which is beneficial in communication. So the next time you are reading about a communication theory, or one of your buddies has a crazy theory about the zombie apocalypse, try and place the theory on the scale and see if it meets the standards!

Please feel free to leave me any comments, ideas, etc. for my next blog(s). Until next time, stay cool friends!

-Zach


Citation

Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 8th. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012. Print.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

I don't know how to put this, but I'm kind of a big deal....

         Okay, well maybe I'm not that big of a deal, but I do love the movie Anchorman. Anyways, welcome to my blog, whether you arrived here by accident, are a family member, classmate, or Dr. Gallagher you are here now, so no going back! I've attempted to keep a blog once before during my travels abroad and failed, but the motivation to keep this communication theory blog going is much stronger considering it makes up half of my grade for my Comm 321 course. I assume that you might want to know a little bit about me now, so let's do that. My name is Zachary Johnson, but everyone calls me either Zach or ZJ. I am 22 years old and a senior at Oregon State University where I am majoring in Political Science and minoring in Communication. I come from a very typical middle class American family with my mom and dad (still married) and two younger sisters. I was born and raised in Newberg, Oregon and until recently my entire family had lived there as well.

So why am I studying communications, well I am studying communication for many reasons, but primarily because I believe that being an effective and efficient communicator is vital to having successful relationships, a successful career, and generally success in anything really. For the duration of this blog I will be attempting to relate the communication theories and prompts with my biggest personal interest of sports, thus the name of my blog, "Sporting" a communication theory blog. I am a sports fanatic, I grew up playing basketball, soccer, football, and baseball. My favorite teams are the New England Patriots, Portland Trail Blazers and Boston Red Sox.
Outside of sports I enjoy long walks on the beach, curling up with a blanket next to a fireplace on a cold winters evening, traveling (I spent the last year abroad in England) and spending time with family and friends. I consider myself to be a very outgoing and approachable person and enjoy working in groups. My dream job would be being a General Manager for an NBA team, but I would settle for working in the public relations department for a professional sports franchise. This career goal directly relates to my interest in communication as being a skilled communicator is vital in a career in public relations. Now that I have bored you to death with information about me, I hope you will come back to read some interesting ideas and theories about how sports and communication theory tie together! I have added a few other links to my other social media accounts and a few of the sports sites I get a lot of my articles and information from if you are interested. I have also added a little video to show you exactly why I love sports so much, so enjoy. Until next time, stay cool my friends. 

- Zach




https://twitter.com/ZJ_THE_ROCK
http://espn.go.com/
http://www.sbnation.com/
http://blog.travelpod.com/members/zjohnson2332