Showing papers in "Western Journal of Speech Communication in 1978"
50 citations
TL;DR: In this article, Johnson and the "crisis" of the Tonkin gulf are discussed, and a president's justification of war is discussed. But the authors do not discuss the role of women in the crisis.
Abstract: (1978). Lyndon Johnson and the “crisis”; of Tonkin gulf: A president's justification of war. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 93-104.
44 citations
28 citations
27 citations
TL;DR: The authors The rhetoric of science and the science of rhetoric Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol 42, No 1, pp 37-43 (1978) and The authors, pp 39-40
Abstract: (1978) The rhetoric of science and the science of rhetoric Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol 42, No 1, pp 37-43
20 citations
16 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors pointed out several confusions and ambiguities encountered in the critics' writings, including those associated with practices which are characterized as the "reigning paradigm" and with certain alternative paradigms that have been advocated, and they also related to broader issues concerning the epistemological moorings of communication research.
Abstract: Evidence abounds that a segment of our field views the current status of communication research with alarm. Whether the specific issues involve the logic of theory construction, the methodologies employed in collecting and analyzing data, or the criteria used in assessing scientific evidence, the refrain is constant: prevailing research practices are fruitless and wrong-headed and our wrong-headedness will be remedied by an alternative approach that will lead to a tree scientific understanding of human communication. In other words, the lost souls responsible for promulgating heathen research practices of old are urged to repent and to accept the word of the philosophical and scientific messiahs who have come to save them. A new gospel is compelling when sinners are convinced that they have really sinned or when they are persuaded that it is indeed new and better than the prevailing theology. Unfortunately, we find the scriptures of alarmists jumbled. Rather than presenting a ringing reaffirmation of our own faith, we will content ourselves with pointing out several of the confusions and ambiguities encountered in the critics' writings. There are two kinds of confusions and ambiguities: those associated with practices which are characterized as the "reigning paradigm" and those associated with certain alternative paradigms that have been advocated. Although our comments are relevant to the problem of assessing scientific evidence, they also relate to broader issues concerning the epistemological moorings of communication research. INDICTMENTS OF THE REIGNING PARADIGM: OR, ARE YOU POSITIVE THAT'S A POSITIVIST? Disciples of the new research order frequently warn that stubborn adherence to prevailing practices forces the researcher to worship at the pagan shrine of an outmoded, discredited logical positivism. Despite the religious fervor of their remarks, it is often difficult to discern just how or in what ways these critics equate current communication research practices with positivism. Indeed, some skeptics have dismissed the effort to make such an equation as a red herring which relies on a naive or distorted view of logical positivism. For instance, Robert Bostrom stated in a recent paper that "close attention to most of these polemics reveals a standard tactic: the construction of a far-fetched and altogether unrepresentative set of assertions which are blandly identified as the essence of the positivistic position."(1) As we attempt to untangle some of the ways that prevailing research practices have been linked with positivism, it will become apparent that we are at least partially sympathetic with Bostrom's indictment of this practice. In some cases, allegiance to logical positivism is equated with paying homage to the covering law model of explanation. Typically, the argument proceeds as follows: (1) logical positivism champions the covering law model of explanation; (2) the covering law model demands universal, invariant generalizations; (3) no such generalizations have been discovered in communication; therefore, (4) the covering law model is deficient; and (5) logical positivism is deficient. This argument is patently specious, both on intellectual and practical grounds. Nowhere in the literature of logical positivism does one encounter the claim that covering laws constitute the sole acceptable means of scientific explanation. In his classic analysis, Carl G. Hempel distinguishes three types of scientific explanation, two of which rely upon statistical or probabilistic premises.(2) An astute critic of the law-governed approach to theory construction, Donald Cushman, has characterized the logical positivist position regarding explanation thus: "According to this view [positivism], laws enunciate the uniform concomitance of phenomena, the prototype instance of which is either a universal implication (all A are B) or a problematic correlation [italics ours]."(3) Simply stated, total allegiance to the covering law model of explanation is not an inherent feature of a positivistic perspective, nor does knowledge of one's position regarding the efficacy of covering law explanations permit his or her classification as positivist or non-positivist. …
15 citations
13 citations
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the research process of speech communication is described in terms of research process and research process, and the authors propose a method for research process for speech communication. But this method is limited.
Abstract: (1978). The research process. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 3-11.
12 citations
TL;DR: The reflexivity of communication research was examined in this article, where it was shown that the reflexivity is correlated with the number of words in a sentence, not the length of the sentence.
Abstract: (1978). The reflexivity of communication research. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 12-20.
10 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the Hellenic rhapsode is used to describe the Hellenistic rhapsodia and the Hellenes' poetry, and a translation of the rhapsoda is given.
Abstract: (1978). The Hellenic rhapsode. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 134-143.
TL;DR: In this paper, the pardoning of Richard Nixon: A failure in motivational strategy is discussed, with a focus on the failure of motivational strategy in the case of the pardon of Nixon.
Abstract: (1978). The pardoning of Richard Nixon: A failure in motivational strategy. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 116-123.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss freedom of speech and the language of oppression in the context of political speech and its application to the media. But they focus on the media and do not consider the broader public.
Abstract: (1978). Freedom of speech and the language of oppression. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 209-221.
TL;DR: In this paper, Communicative competence and the bargaining of Watergate are discussed, and a discussion of the role of communication competence in the bargaining process is presented. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 105-115.
Abstract: (1978). Communicative competence and the bargaining of Watergate. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 105-115.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the notion of illicit and illicit in rhetorical appeals and propose a framework to detect and illicitly express rhetorical appeals, which is called Licit and Infringement.
Abstract: (1978). Licit and illicit in rhetorical appeals. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 222-230.
TL;DR: The revenge of Biff Loman as mentioned in this paper is a well-known story of self-recrimination and self-deletion in speech communication, and it has been studied extensively.
Abstract: (1978). “I know who I am”;: The revenge of Biff Loman. Western Journal of Speech Communication: Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 250-257.