An Interpretive Theory on Communication

The communication privacy management (CPM), originally known as communication boundary management, was created by Sandra Petronio. Its objective was to look at how customers established their personal information disclosure boundaries. The CPM hypothesises that consumers make conscious selections about the limitations they perceive for their own secrecy. It also examines the bargaining process used to jointly own, exchange, and transmit personal information. It has been used in a variety of media technology communication contexts, including those that are growing like Facebook and blogging. This thesis has four sections. Just after the introductory section, in the second section, it gives a summary of the theory and what it entails explaining further on the key ideas applied to the theories. The third section identifies and explains the interpretive theory by determining its place on Griffin’s map of theory tradition. Also, it discusses the ways in which the theorists perceive the world with regards to either ontology or axiology. This section concludes this chapter by discussing each person’s epistemology theory. The fourth section analyses the theory using Griffins standards and indicates whether the theory satisfies the required standards. The argument is grounded on the six standards of the interpretative theory of communication. The fifth and the final section summarizes by drawing conclusions from the theories learned.

Theory Summary

The authors of CPM are Petronio, Taylors and Altman and Griffin. Each one of them bears a different perspective of CPM. According to Petronio, CPM is a map of the methods by which people negotiate privacy. The components were made from the way people report handling of privacy in everyday life. Additionally, the theory maps out the complicated methods that people use to deal with desires that are against their privacy and openness. Moreover, her idea depicts the methods through which people come up with their own disclosure rules, and the coordination those who reveal their private information may require. Further, it explicates clearly the ways in which people who reveal the information need the confidants to behave and the relational confusion that come in when the revelation and confident boundaries rules fail to match. Petronio argues that the individual rules that influence our privacy decisions are normally founded on five different categories including gender, culture, risk-benefit ratio, context, and motives (Martin, 2010).

The social penetration theory (SPT) is founded on the development of relational closeness. Intimate closeness comes about from an advanced superficial relation. Self-disclosure comes about as a result of closeness, hence when relationships are coming up, they get deeper into personal and secret matters. It reveals weaknesses, in a way that that along the way trust must be developed. Penetration goes through many stages including orientation, exploratory effective, stable and de penetration. The rule-based management system allows management on both collective and personal level.

However, unlike social penetration theory, communication privacy management presumes a dialectical tension between disclosure and confidentiality. Dialectical tension is a natural outcome of our conversations offers a chance for dialogue. Dialectical tensions occur internally meaning within a relationship and externally meaning between individuals and their community (Phelan, 2007).

Also, unlike social penetration theory, communication privacy management assumes that rules (not laws) influence decisions to disclose. Violation of practices, anticipations and relational rules reflect on a relationship that broke down and what led to the breakdown of the relationship (Petronio, 2013). Also, what a person decides to reveal could break or make a relationship. The primary method of developing close relationships was centered on self-disclosure as shown by Taylors and Altman’s social penetration theory. On the other hand, Petronio states that disclosing private information could strengthen how individuals relate; however, sharing private information often reduces an individual privacy.

The way in which people develop their privacy rules and understand the characteristics of those rules is known as the privacy rule. They usually apply in cases where the boundaries are tested through social interaction. Rules are put up in various social settings which prescribe kind of disclosure that should be made, for example, the difference between events at the office versus a disclosure at a birthday party where only family members are present. Every situation bears its set of rules that determine the privacy management as Petronia explains. The applied criteria which determine how the information will be shared is usually affected by features developed by privacy rules.

Theory Worldview

In recent years, several interpretive intellectuals have recognized that emotions are crucial and legitimate modules of the convincing and persuasive method. On Griffin’s map theory communication, privacy management falls under the interpretive theory. The theory is often compared with theories that are structural which claim to eradicate the subjectivity of the actor and assume that the behavior of humans can be best understood by the known pulls and pushes of fundamental forces.

Epistemology – Multiple Truths; Text Analysis

Epistemology looks into the relationship amongst the person after the knowledge and the sources of the knowledge and how well a person trusts the sources. Individuals with this attribute of objectivism claim to grasp the development since it exists within the human mind and takes away all contextual factors that are determined and observed. As we all understand, knowledge is globally relevant because the essence of the object does not change with regards to the person learning it. Also, the epistemological position knowledge work is frequently used to foresee, expound, and regulate.

Ontology – We Create and Negotiate Rules

Ontology is defined as the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality including their fundamental categories of their relations and being (Margulis, 2003). Within the current online social structure, a common way to control this is for the user to complain to the social link administration and ask the information to be taken away. However, by the time the content is deleted (if at all), then many people could have seen it already. Rather, it would be better if such information was not shared at all in the first place. Each agent is mindful of the privacy concerns of its consumers but also has data about the social network, such as the contacts of the user. This data is taken in an ontology that is signified in a web ontology language (Gasson, 2004).

Axiology – CPM Values Participation Over Effectiveness; Describes Our Decisions

The axiological matters that are necessary for the growth of communication concept are in case the study can be free of value and if the completion of the research done should be made to broaden knowledge or to modify society (Petronio, 2010). For communication philosophers, a key area of focus concerns the philosophical formation of the study method. Interpretivists believe that the biases are at times to a great extent rooted in the scholar’s traditions such that they are likely to go unobserved during the study. No person can surely be impartial, some are more informed concerning some things than other because of their stature in society, and as a result, they may be regarded fit to do a study on given topics (Gasson, 2004).

Theory Analysis

A good objective theory predicts what will happen and explains the human behavior. The interpretive approach theory assumes that the truth is accessible when the communicating parties are committed to uncovering the cause and effects of relationship. Theories should fulfill the six functions, these are create understanding, identify values, inspire aesthetic appreciation, stimulate agreement, reform society, and finally conduct qualitative research.

The first standard is that the theory should create understanding. The interpretive scholarship helps us appreciate members of the society and unique rules that govern their interaction. The individual’s limits make sure that the personal information is safe. The penetrability of the boundaries keeps on fluctuating and permits certain areas of the community to have access to particular bits of information and data that belongs to a person (Lee, 2013). After personal information has become public, mutual owners should harmonize the confines or boundaries of confidentiality and revelation established on limits of penetrability, border linkage and possession. Petronio defines the joint limit organization of mutual possessors as a representation of similar limits on a map around a common part of information. It is not a relaxed procedure bearing in mind that each owner will tackle the data from separate lookouts and consider their standards for privacy rule growth (Flavell, 2004).

The second standard is that the theory should identify values. An interpretive theory that is good brings values of people into the open. Furthermore, the theorist aggressively seeks to identify, know and bring to light the ideologies behind a message passed in communication. It is essential for all for all sides to understand and comprehend the information that they share and the people they should share it with at an appropriate time when they have set aside a common form of confidentiality.

The third standard is it that the theory should inspire aesthetic appreciation. The creativity of interpretive theorists gives them the aesthetic appeal. With their vast and great ideas, they capture the reader’s attention. Also, artistry should be significantly considered in communication as it makes a huge impact on the society. The style and content of any communication should be appealing to the parties applying it. The method of communication also ought to be clear. Numerous researchers highlight the usage of communication privacy management in relations because of the notions of exposing information and limits. When thinking of communication privacy management, friendships and passionate affairs are vital. For a moment, efforts on conflicts and subject evasion, viewing the interpersonal influence of confidentiality turbulence, scholars and departmental relationships, and places of work relationships have all formed valuable information that unlocks new doors concerning communication privacy management based study (Bevir, 2002). It is either the collective term for aesthetics and ethics philosophical areas that depend critically on ideas of value or the basis for these areas, and thus same to concept and Metaethics (Hansen, 2007).

The fourth standard is that the theory should stimulate agreement. An excellent interpretive theory is usually identified for the information it generates within a community setting. In any community, there must be a culture that governs the community day to day living. However, the human development varies from one culture to another and viewed as a process that is socially mediated. The theory of socio-cultural is a psychological theory which explores the internal and external relationship processes. Furthermore, the theory dwells on the usage and creation of mediating tools that a part in the cognitive part of humans or how they think. It assists make a structure that facilitates in the cognitive investigation and keeping in mind the social context. The theory of sociocultural explains that knowledge does not exist inside the head of a human being. It implies that the meaning of anything is negotiated when individuals, activity and culture intersect. Furthermore, it explains how the social mediation plays a significant role in the construction, reconstruction and transformation of historically and culturally situated meanings (Margulis, 2003).

The fifth standard is that the theory should reform the society. Change is normally reflected in a good interpretive theory. Good interpreters are ever looking for ways to change the society and the world we live in. They publicly the ideologies that permeate culture wisdom and thus they raise crucial questions regarding the social life. They have the tendency to reject any notion of permanent meaning as they are free thinkers. They are not held back by the culture and traditions of any community. Critical interpreters are reformers, and therefore have an impact on society. They are ever pushing for change in the way some systems have been wired.

The sixth and the last standard is that the theory should conduct qualitative research. Interpretive researchers study things in their natural setting, use words, try to interpret, try to make sense of particular phenomena regarding bringing out what people mean when they are communicating. The interpretive researchers focus on meaning and importance of everything that they set their eyes on. They explain the humanistic perspective of the messages communicated between people.

Conclusion

Often, the cultural approach fails to meet the criteria to be categorized as a good interpretive theory called aesthetic appeal. Altman shows the standards of this concept as it develops our intelligence by including several levels or groups of contributors in communication processes. Although Petronio has keenly shown that prior study and hypothesis on privacy disclosure focussed on particular people, a very complicated set of diverse aspects. Furthermore, Petronio defines communication of relatives, fellow family and strangers, internally and externally work and communal settings, and among various blends of personalities, dyads, and others inside and through the communal boundaries.

In her examination, both articulate and systematic are added, that is, privacy-disclosure turbulence, or breaks of anticipated messaging patterns (Petronio, 2008). Some scholars have examined whether CPM concept is dialectical in nature. They claim that CPM assumes a dualistic way of giving revelation and confidentiality and, thus, is able to survive in a vibrant and interactive environment. The charge of dualistic thoughts results in models’ usage of the equilibrium and stability terms in the original forms of CPM concept. Balance in the psychological sense is not focused on CPM as stated by Petronio.

Instead, CPM claims that harmonization with others that does not support an optimal equilibrium between privacy and exposure (Bevir, 2002). As a substitute, the theory states that there are fluctuating forces some sort of confidentiality and disclosure that persons hold by creating decisions about the extents of privacy and openness they would want to familiarize themselves within any specified interaction. It is thus reasonable to call communications privacy management theory dialectical in nature as Petronio argues.

An established and simple clarification of how closeness improves in friendships and romantic relationships is known as Social penetration. However, Petronio reasons out that it simplistic to associate self-disclosure with interpersonal familiarity. She also tests the theorists’ opinion of disclosure boundaries as being secure and progressively less penetrable.

References

Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. (2002). Interpretive theory. Theory and methods in political science,1.

Blatt, W. S. (2000). Interpretive Communities: The Missing Element in Statutory Interpretation. Nw. UL Rev., 95, 629.

Dallos, R., & Draper, R. (2010). An introduction to family therapy: Systemic theory and practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Flavell, J. H. (2004). Theory-of-mind development: Retrospect and prospect. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 274-290.

Gasson, S. (2004). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. The handbook of information systems research, 79-102.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Psychology Press.

Lee, H., Park, H., & Kim, J. (2013). Why do people share their context information on Social Network Services? A qualitative study and an experimental study on users’ behavior of balancing perceived benefit and risk. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(9), 862-877.

Margulis, S. T. (2003). On the status and contribution of Westin’s and Altman’s theories of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 411-429.

Martin, J., Maton, K., & Matruglio, E. (2010). Historical cosmologies: Epistemology and axiology in Australian secondary school history discourse. Revista Signos, 43(74), 433.

Petronio, S. (2008). Communication privacy management theory. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(3), 175-196.

Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 6-14.

Phelan, J. (2007). Experiencing fiction: Judgments, progressions, and the rhetorical theory of narrative. The Ohio State University Press.

Hansen, H., Ropo, A., & Sauer, E. (2007). Aesthetic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 544-560.