Posts Tagged “transmission model of communication”

The view of communication as information transfer was furthered by the application of Claude Shannon’s “Mathematical Theory of Communication,” as posited in his 1948 paper of the same name.

In his paper, Shannon posited the reproduction of messages as an engineering problem and looked at the process of communication in terms of accurately conveying the symbols of communication through technological sources, such as the telegraph. The main issue at stake for Shannon was the proper encoding of information, which he felt would allow for a time savings by encoding the message sequences into proper signal sequences that eliminated some of the redundancy found in language, and which, in turn, would lead to better encryption forms.

Shannon’s one-way communication model helped to set off the academic field of modern communication theory and research by providing an understanding of the main components to communication: source, message, channel, receiver.

The ability of a theory from one academic discipline to provide intellectual points of leverage for investigation in another discipline shouldn’t be discounted. Applying theories in new ways enhances our ability to think more broadly about the worls. However, not carefully exploring new paradigms can intellectually trap us in unfounded assumptions.

That said, the No. 1 reason Shannon’s theory shouldn’t have been applied to human communication rests in its origins. Shannon’s major goal was to determine how an information source could be described mathematically to ensure proper information encoding to save time and protect the message. It was not to influence or cause someone to take some action.

Shannon’s theory grew from the desire to prevent effective communication, by introducing noise to the message, making the encrypted message more secure. Thus noise was a positive aspect of his information theory. The more noise, the more secure the encrypted message.

As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the transmission model is based on the work of John Locke. It also has ties to the transport model from the 19^th century when writing (communication) had to be transported from writer to reader in some physical form like books, letters, newspapers (Chandler, 1994, para. 15). Applying the transmission model to modern communication is problematic because it focuses on the transmission of information and not of meaning.

First, the transmission model fixes the roles of sender and receiver - with the sender having the primary role and the receiver a secondary, passive role - in a linear, one-way model that relies on the receiver to absorb information (Chandler, 1994, para. 22). But, a linear communication model can’t accurately explain or account for proper communication in a multi-vocal world consisting of multiple societies, languages and belief systems.

We also have the processing of information - in this case in terms of absorption, as if through the skin - of content or information in the form of words and a not their meaning. But we don’t just absorb information. Rather we frame the information we receive based on many factors - our gender, age, social class and education in a nonlinear world- and on the relationships we have with the “senders.” So, there’s no possible way any one message could have just one fixed meaning for all “recipients.”

Likewise, a third issue revolves around the purpose of language, which is to express ourselves to one another through recognizable symbols. Given that the 500 most common words have more than 13,000 different meanings, language is a tricky and elusive thing. Thus we can’t assume that two people will use or understand the same language we use in the same way. And we can’t take an Orwellian approach and create our own Newspeak to purge the shades of gray and redundancy in our language.

This leads to a fourth issue with the transmission model: the model equates content with meaning even though the intended and generated meanings might diverge. But books, letters and such only contain words; meaning is constructed when a listener or reader makes sense of those letters and words. So inserting a meaning into a message isn’t easily done.

Finally, the transmission model doesn’t account for context. Context is often based on our perception, and perception is not single-sided. We see things in their completeness - like a complete table, and not just its top - in the context of our kitchen.

Before we can discuss the true nature and definition of noise, and how to combat it, a short review of some contributing theories is called for.

First is to define communication, another term that academics and practitioners alike have many different definitions for communication. Some say it’s the accurate transmission of information (Hutton & Mulhern, 2002). Some define it as the passing of information or the exchange of ideas. Others believe it’s the process by which a sender and a receiver establish a commonness in their thoughts (Belch & Belch, 1998). Any way you slice it, most will agree the definitions all suggest a transfer of information, and not meaning, between parties.

Regardless of how you define communication, its origins lie mostly in the transmission model of communication, in which:

• A sender encodes a message and sends it through a communication channel, which might be affected by noise, interference or distraction.
• The intended recipient gets and decodes the message and may or may not provide feedback upon its receipt.

The transmission model of communication was developed by John Locke in the 1690s. Yes, it was written more than 400 years ago and communication as information transfer is still a leading communication theory. Locke believed the “end of Discourse and Language” was to convey thoughts and ideas to one another; to “excite ideas in the hearer as they exist in the speaker” (Locke, 1996).

Much of the shift in thinking about communication - from a means of sharing to a means of conveying messages - took hold following the Industrial Revolution as the modern organization came into existence. With the Industrial Revolution, society moved from an agricultural economy to one of mass production, mass distribution and mass promotion (or communication).

No longer did individuals relate with others on a one-on-one basis. Rather, they began relating to the large, impersonal organizations providing jobs, goods and services. In this way, communication took on a one-way, single-sided aspect.