2023-10-25: Canvas will be available latest on Monday. We intend to move the mandatory session 9 Nov to the afternoon and will verify this with you when the course starts. /Malte

----------

Dear Students,

we look forward to meeting you on Tue, 31 Oct, 9am in Room O2 (Undervisningshuset). We have uploaded a schedule to the studentweb that includes all planned course activities, as well as dates/times for all mandatory course activities and examinations. While minor changes may be made to the schedule, there will be no on-campus activities between Tue 19 Dec 2023 and Sun 7 Jan 2024. However, you are expected to work on your assignment during this period—apart from SLU's winter break (Sat 23 Dec 2023 to Mon 1 Jan 2024).

We look forward to meeting you in a few weeks. If you have questions of personal or administrative character, please email course assistant Daniela Kreber daniela.kreber@slu.se. If you have any concerns about course content, examinations, or need disability-related adjustments to the course, please get in touch with the course leader Malte Rödl malte.rodl@slu.se

With best wishes,
Malte on behalf of the teacher team

Kursvärderingen är avslutad

MX0158-20162 - Sammanställning av kursvärdering

Efter att kursvärderingen stängt har kursansvarig och studentrepresentanten upp till en månad på sig att skriva kommentarer. De publiceras automatiskt i sammanställningen.

Andra kursvärderingar för MX0158

Läsåret 2024/2025

Kommunikationsteori och strategi (MX0158-20112)

2024-11-01 - 2025-01-19

Läsåret 2022/2023

Kommunikationsteori och strategi (MX0158-20131)

2022-11-01 - 2023-01-15

Reading List MX0158: Communication Theory and Strategy

All readings are available on Canvas. Supplementary readings for eager readers are marked with a preceding star. All other readings are mandatory to read within the indicated course week.

CW1: Introduction to Communication Theory

In this first course week, we are looking at communication models (Organizational Communication Channel, 2017) and the value of theory. We look at the use of theory in communication practice (Barge & Craig, 2009), reflect upon the usefulness of theory when talking about communication (Craig, 2005; see also Craig, 2013), and how theory can helps us to think about strategizing communication (Gullbrandsen & Just, 2020).

When reading, you should consider how the readings apply to environmental communication: What should be the role of the environment in communication theory? How can communication theory be relevant to analyse or act in relation to issues concerning the environment?

Barge, J. K., & Craig, R. T. (2009). Practical theory in applied communication scholarship. In L. R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 95–118). Routledge.

Craig, R. T. (2005). How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public interest. Journal of communication, 55(4), 659–667.

Guldbrandsen, I. T., & Just, S. N. (2020). Strategizing Communication (Ch. 1*) In: Strategizing Communication* (2nd ed.). Studentlitteratur.

Organizational Communication Channel. (2017). Communication Models. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-O-fV5qT-0

* Craig, R. T. (2013). Communication theory and social change. Communication & Social Change, 1(1), 5–18.

CW2: Transmission and Transaction Models

In the second course week, we engage with literature that—in our understanding—follows an understanding of communication as transmission or transaction: the readings include research on individual messages (Werder, 2014; Taylor, 1999), and on rhetorics (Foust & Murphy, 2009), and rather instructive articles on pro-environmental behaviour change from a psychologists perspective (Steg & Vlek, 2009), and on communication planning from a transmission/transaction perspective (Jurin et al, 2010). That simply ‘informing’ and ‘influencing’ is not that simple is emphasised in other articles (Godemann, 2021; Seamon, 1982; Tyson & Unson, 2006).

The following questions may guide your sense-making of these: What are assumptions about individuals and agency in these readings? What is ‘good’ or ‘successful’ (environmental) communication according to these readings, and how does this relate to your understanding? In which cases or contexts of environmental communication is an approach of transmission or transaction insufficient? How can we distinguish different levels of communication in communication practice, from individual utterance/message to overall strategy?

Foust, C. R., & Murphy, W. O. S. (2009). Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse. Environmental Communication, 3(2), 151–167.

Godemann, J. (2021). Communicating sustainability. Some thoughts and recommendations for enhancing sustainability communication. In F. Weder, L. Krainer, & M. Karmasin (Eds.), The Sustainability Communication Reader. Springer.

Jurin, R. R., Roush, D., & Danter, J. (2010). Planning Environmental Communication. In *Environmental communication. Skills and principles for Natural Resource Managers, Scientists, and Engineers *(pp. 75–82). Springer.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.

Werder, K. P. (2014). A theoretical framework for strategic communication messaging. In The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 293–308).

* Jurin, R. R., Roush, D., & Danter, J. (2010). Planning Environmental Communication. In *Environmental communication. Skills and principles for Natural Resource Managers, Scientists, and Engineers *(pp. 83–121). Springer.

* Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribution to environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2(2), 119–140.

* Taylor, R. E. (1999). A six-segment message strategy wheel. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(6), 7–7.

* Tyson, B., & Unson, C. (2006). Environmental communication strategies: When is what appropriate? Management of Natural Resources, Sustainable Development and Ecological Hazards, 99, 83.

CW3: Communication as Constitutive to Society

In the third course week, we look at models of communication that look at emergent meanings, interactions, and social systems; Mead (1934) provides an essential introduction what this means. Other articles look rather theoretically at talk in context of organisations and organisational communication (Fredriksson & Pallas, 2014), in relation to conversations and persuasion (Humă et al, 2020), or behaviour and social change (Berglez & Olausson, 2021; Keller et al, 2016; Hausknost et al, 2018; Shove, 2010). There are also articles looking at the role of social movements (Cox, 2010), fair-trade marketing (Machin & Cobley, 2020), and sense-making of climate change in remote communities (Paerregaard, 2020).

The following questions may guide your sense-making of these articles: What are assumptions about individuals, agency, and structure in these readings? What is ‘good’ or ‘successful’ (environmental) communication according to these readings, and how does this relate to your understanding? What are the roles and confinements of environmental communication practice to be impactful? In which contexts or situations is an approach looking at overall societal and environmental change insufficient, and what is the role of power relations in this?

Cox, J. R. (2010). Beyond frames: Recovering the strategic in climate communication. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 122–133.

Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2014). Strategic communication as institutional work. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 167–180). Routledge.

Humă, B., Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R. O. (2020). Putting persuasion (back) in its interactional context. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(3), 357–371.

Mead, G. H. (1934). In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (pp. 253–260, 325–328). University of Chicago Press.

Keller, M., Halkier, B., & Wilska, T.-A. (2016). Policy and Governance for Sustainable Consumption at the Crossroads of Theories and Concepts. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(2), 75–88.

Berglez, P., & Olausson, U. (2021). Climate irresponsibility on social media. A critical approach to “high-carbon visibility discourse”. Social Semiotics, 1–15.

* Hausknost, D., Haas, W., Hielscher, S., Schäfer, M., Leitner, M., Kunze, I., & Mandl, S. (2018). Investigating patterns of local climate governance: How low-carbon municipalities and intentional communities intervene in social practices. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(6), 371–382.

* Machin, D., & Cobley, P. (2020). Ethical food packaging and designed encounters with distant and exotic others. Semiotica, 2020(232), 251–271.

* Paerregaard, K. (2020). Communicating the inevitable: Climate awareness, climate discord, and climate research in Peru’s highland communities. Environmental Communication, 14(1), 112–125.

* Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.

CW4: Critiquing Communication & Metadiscourse

In the fourth course week, we look at theoretical perspectives that highlight the limitations and issues of communication (Luhmann, 1992; Singer, 2020; Harsin, 2018) and understanding (Habermas, 2001; Kings & Ilbery, 2014; Toledano, 2018; Foss & Griffin, 1995) as well as their implications (Nothaft & Wehmeier, 2007; Deetz, 1992).

When reading, you may want to reflect on the following questions: What does communication mean or entail? How is communication problematic? What are the different ways in which communication studies can be(come) relevant for the environment and related issues? What are the implications of the readings on communication practice in line with ‘textbook models’?

Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life (pp. 173–198). SUNY Press.

Habermas, J. (2001). Truth and society: The discursive redemption of factual claims to validity. In B. Fultner (Trans.), On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action (pp. 85–103). MIT Press.

Luhmann, N. (1992). What is communication? Communication Theory, 2(3), 251–259.

Nothhaft, H., & Wehmeier, S. (2007). Coping with complexity: Sociocybernetics as a framework for communication management. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(3), 151–168.

Singer, N. R. (2020). Toward Intersectional Ecofeminist Communication Studies. Communication Theory, 30(3), 268–289.

* Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communications Monographs, 62(1), 2–18.

* Harsin, J. (2018). Post-truth and critical communication studies. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication.

* Kings, D., & Ilbery, B. (2014). The lifeworlds of organic and conventional farmers in central-southern England: A phenomenological enquiry. Sociologia Ruralis, 55(1), 62–84.

* Toledano, M. (2018). Dialogue, strategic communication, and ethical public relations: Lessons from Martin Buber’s political activism. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 131–141.

CW5: Metatheory and Metadiscourse

Finally, we discuss metatheory and metadiscourse, by wrapping up all the different theoretical perspectives discussed into a coherent metatheoretical framework (Craig, 1999), and using this framework to interrogate communication metadiscourse, i.e. talk about communication (Craig, 2019).

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161.

Craig, R. T. (2019). Models of communication in and as metadiscourse. In M. Bergman, K. Kirtiklis, & J. Siebers (Eds.), Models of communication (pp. 11–33). Routledge.

CW6–10: Case study

These texts provide excellent contextualisation to the course project and offer frameworks of reference and thinking (Ablett & Dyer, 2009; Hallgren, 2019), but also concrete research results that may help to guide (Christmas, 2013) or critically interrogate communication contexts (Horst & Michael, 2011).

Ablett, P. G., & Dyer, P. K. (2009). Heritage and hermeneutics: Towards a broader interpretation of interpretation. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(3), 209–233.

Christmas, S., Wright, L., Morris, L., Watson, A., & Miskelly, C. (2013). Engaging People in Biodiversity Issues: Final report of the Biodiversity Segmentation Scoping Study (Final Report No. WC1056). Defra. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18411

Hallgren, L. (2019). The strategic Nature Interpreter & Planning for peoples shared creation of meaning. In E. Sandberg (Ed.), Naturvägledning i Norden: En bok om upplevelser, lärande, reflektion och delaktighet i mötet mellan natur och människa (pp. 222–241). Nordic Council of Ministers. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1426533&dswid=-2542

Horst, M., & Michael, M. (2011). On the Shoulders of Idiots: Re-thinking Science Communication as ‘Event’. Science as Culture, 20(3), 283–306.

CW7: Connecting Theory and Practice

After the presentations of the case study, we try to connect theory and practice a bit more again. We look again at the role of communication theory for thinking about strategy (van Ruler, 2018), at how communication strategy emerges through interaction (Guldbrandsen & Just, 2020), and how evaluation does (not) happen (Macnamara, 2018). Further articles consider diversity of communication across different organisations (Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016) and a different take on communication models (GTZ Rioplus, 2006). When you are reading these, consider the following questions: How can communication be ‘strategic’ on behalf of the environment? To what extent does the context of communication (e.g. organisations, expectations) make communication a ‘performance’ of disciplinary principles or organisational self-conception? What is the role of professional reflection in communication practice?

Guldbrandsen, I. T., & Just, S. N. (2020). Strategy as emergent action (Ch. 4)* In: *Strategizing Communication (2nd ed.). Studentlitteratur.

Macnamara, J. (2018). A review of new evaluation models for strategic communication: Progress and gaps. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(2), 180–195.

van Ruler, B. (2018). Communication Theory: An Underrated Pillar on Which Strategic Communication Rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 367–381. Feel free to skip the “Strategic communication defined” section.

* Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016). Diverging principles for strategic communication in government agencies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 153–164.

* GTZ Rioplus. (2006). Strategic communication for sustainable development: A conceptual overview (pp. 2–4, 14–47). GTZ.