IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2014 - 56

conceptions, with clearly stated
heuristic potential, methodological
limitations, and social and ideological implications [17]-[22]. The
general consensus is that human
communication features a multitude
of aspects, including information
transmission, influence, interaction,
functions, and representation.

Information Transmission
The view of communication as
information transmission is generally associated with a so-called
information-cybernetic
(parcelpost) model that stems from Claude
Shannon's [23] famous diagram of
a general communication system
as a flow of signals from transmitter to receiver. As Shannon states,
the diagram represents an engineering view of communication, focusing on a signal-to-noise ratio, and
intentionally leaving out semantics: "Frequently the messages have
meaning... These semantic aspects
of communication are irrelevant to
the engineering problem" [23, p.
379]. Nevertheless, the informationcybernetic model of communication
has actively affected an understanding of human communication, albeit
in opposing ways.
Within the realm of disciplinary knowledge, the informationcybernetic model served mainly
as a starting reference point
for criticism, rather than as a heuristic device:
"How many chain diagrams
linking sender-messagereceiver have been presented
as insightful theories, with
the occasional addition of a
loop going in the opposite
direction called "feedback"
as a sophisticated refinement? The more advanced of
these "models" have a dotted
line round the edge called
"social context." Model
building is not theory building, and banal sketches of this
kind are not even adequate as
models" [20, p. 347].
56

Criticism of the reductionist
view of human communication
was accompanied by a shift from
semantics to pragmatics and semiotics [24]-[26]. This resulted in
the understanding that analysis of
human communication cannot be
reduced to an analysis of the message structure. The message sender
does not have monopoly over the
message meaning. The audience is
an active and creative participant
of the information transfer process. The communication results
(what meaning will be assigned to
a signal and how a message will be
understood) are determined by the
addressee's subjective experience,
communicative competence, and
cultural picture of the world.
Unfortunately, outside the realm
of rigorous disciplinary knowledge,
the information-cybernetic metaphor
has been uncritically taken as a representation of the essence of human
communication. This metamorphosis
is best symbolized by cartoon depictions of the communicative process,
where transmitter and receiver are
represented by human figures. The
reductionist view of human communication has been naturalized in
semi-popular discourse on successful
communication, despite the fact that
the linear top-down pattern of communication has proven ineffective
and counterproductive within numerous areas of practice. In education,
for instance, this pattern encourages
a focus on content delivery, rather
than on active learning. The view of
communication as information flow
from sender to receiver does not correspond with the interactive format
of Internet-mediated communication [27]. Furthermore, terms that
have neutral and rigorous meaning
in the engineering context (sender -
receiver) may become loaded with
sociocultural connotations (active -
passive; powerful - submissive). In
this way, the mechanical application
of the information-cybernetic metaphor may serve to legitimize a
command-control pattern of social
interaction. At the same time, this

pattern may entail undesirable consequences in some situations, including
disaster and emergency [28].

Influence
According to an instrumentalist
approach, human communication
is a purposeful action of influencing cognition and behavior: "we
communicate with some end in
mind, some function to be fulfilled. We request or indicate or
promise or threaten" [29, p. 252].
The instrumentalist conception of
human communication is grounded
in the philosophy of language [30]
and Speech Act Theory [17]. The
major contribution of this approach
is in highlighting the role of interpersonal and social relationships in
communicative activity. Whether
the subjects follow instructions,
obey commands, or change attitudes depends on their situational
roles; their social status as defined
by occupation, income, property
ownership, and organizational
affiliation; and their frame of reference expressed through personal
histories, social network participation, and patterns of media use [31].
The instrumentalist conception
of communication has been applied
in such areas as language pedagogy,
ideological propaganda, commercial advertising, judicial practice,
negotiations, and decision-making.
The idea of influence being the
most essential aspect of human
communication has been captured
by Lasswell's [32] famous formula
Who says What in which Channel
to Who with what Effect, and Berlo's [33] Source-Message-ChannelReceiver-Effects model. However,
the instrumentalist paradigm has
a serious limitation. It imposes a
sharp distinction between the influential and the influenced, and overemphasizes the place of persuasion
in social interaction. In reality,
communication is often characterized by uncertainty of roles and
dynamic relationships of power
and agency. Within many cultures,
persuasion is not considered as the

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SPRING 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2014