Now that you know how researchers use different approaches to create theory, let’s talk about how scholars test and evaluate theories as good or bad.

Would you let a surgeon use a procedure on you that had not been tested to see if it was good or bad? How does the surgeon know if the procedure will work? The procedure has likely been through a rigorous screening using several criteria to determine whether it will work consistently with good results.

The same is true for communication theories. To be endorsed as a “good” theory it must go through seven tests. Multiple experts will evaluate the theory.

multiple scientists in a lab.png

These communication scholars examine the theory in every detail.

scientist looking through microscopes

So when a theory passes we celebrate because it has had to passes several tests!

people jumping and cheering with balloons

As you read about the theory evaluation criteria in your text, pay close attention to:

The types of criteria
Examples of how a theory meets or does not meet this criteria (because you will be using these criteria to do your own evaluations on a future paper)

The seven criteria for theory evaluation are scope, logical consistency, parsimony, utility, testability, heurism and test of time. Most of these terms are familiar vocabulary to you and the explanations in your text are understandable. However, two terms Parsimony and Heurism are not typically in our vocabulary so I will review these definitions to help you become familiar with them..

Parsimony (pronunciation: par si-like sip-moan ee) is easy for me to remember if I think of how pars sounds like sparse. Sparse means few or only a little. If I walk into a room that is sparsely furnished there may only be a table and chair. If a theory has parsimony it has few concepts. It is only sparsely furnished with concepts. Parsimony is highly valued because it is much more difficult to describe all the aspects of a complex communication phenomena with few concepts.

For example, the Expectancy Violation Theory has good parsimony. The Expectancy Violation Theory can account for several different kinds of reaction in a conversation with just one concept. Say you come to talk to a friend. You expect your friend to behave in certain ways. You anticipate they will be welcoming, look you in the eye, listen to what you have to say and support you. However, when you start talking, your friend is clearly angry, doesn’t make eye contact and tells you to go away and never come back. Wow! You would be shocked! You may react in a number of different ways. Expectancy Violation Theory can explain all your feelings and reactions using one concept. Your expectations of how your friend was to behave were not met, they were violated.

Now let’s talk about Heurism. Heurism is the amount of research and new thinking stimulated by the theory. Do other theorists quote the theory and use it as a springboard to create their own theories? If so, this theory has good heurism.

The Systems Theory is a good example of heurism. It was first used in biology to describe how the systems in the body exhibit common characteristics. Their parts are interdependent, they need feedback from the environment to know when to change to survive and more. The circulatory system, nervous system, digestive system all have these characteristics. Systems Theory gained heurism when researchers saw it could apply to other disciplines. Psychology saw families were systems where each family member was interdependent on the other family members. Communication notice organizations were systems with interdependent departments.