Showing papers in "Journal of Communication Inquiry in 1975"
TL;DR: The only member of the Chicago School whose academic career was not embraced, at any time, by the University of Chicago is Charles Horton Cooley as discussed by the authors, who is, nevertheless, included among the Chicago Scholars because in terms of the thematic content, methodological outlook, and intellectual influence of his work he was, so to speak, a resident in absentia of the University's Department of Sociology.
Abstract: Charles Horton Cooley, one of the founding figures in American sociology, is the only member of the Chicago School whose academic career was not embraced, at any time, by the University of Chicago. He is, nevertheless, included among the Chicago Scholars because in terms of the thematic content, methodological outlook, and intellectual influence of his work he was, so to speak, a resident in absentia of the Chicago Department of Sociology. ~
2 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an understanding of the process of interpreting human communicative behavior has been discussed in a session on hermeneutics at the Frankfurt School of philosophy and philosophy of communication.
Abstract: I have been asked to discuss here how that intellectual tradition signified by the term &dquo;Frankfurt School&dquo; has regarded hermeneutics. And, since the subtitle of this conference session on hermeneutics is &dquo;An Understanding of the Process of Interpreting Human Communicative Behavior,&dquo; I feel compelled to relate my remarks to the study of human communication. I feel even more compelled to do so as I reflect upon the conference program in general, noting that by comparison this session sticks out like a sore thumb. I am brought to wonder how a session on hermeneutics is seen to relate to those behavioral studies being reported elsewhere. Now I could, of course, assume that there is
2 citations
2 citations
1 citations
TL;DR: This article argued that Marx did not conceive of this relationship in deterministic terms; i.e., he did not argue that material production is the only active factor determining history, while all other human activities are mere reflections of it.
Abstract: We demonstrated that Marx did not conceive of this relationship in deterministic terms; i.e., that he did not argue that material production is the only active factor determining history, while all other human activities are mere reflections of it.3 For Marx there was, instead, interaction among all these activities; and it is through this interaction that material production always affirms itself as a most important factor conditioning the whole social process.4
TL;DR: In this paper, projective tests such as the Thematic Apperception Test and Rorschach's set of ink blots are extolled along with Stephenson's own Q-Technique, as being able to reach into the actual rather than the potential characteristics of persons.
Abstract: Iz is ironic that Stephenson chooses to characterize the fallacies of the &dquo;rule of the single variable&dquo; as leading, in mental testing, to the uncovering and measurement of potentialities only.l Projective tests such as the Thematic Apperception Test and Rorschach’s set of ink blots are extolled along with Stephenson’s own Q-Technique, as being able to reach into the actual rather than the potential characteristics of persons.2 Now this is a worthwhile and praiseworthy accomplishment, this reaching into the actual rather than potential characteristics of persons, and Stephenson should be roundly applauded for achieving what no other scientist has been able to--if, indeed, he has done so.