COMM THEORY – ATTRIBUTION THEORY/CRISIS/COVID
Please see the attachment titled review topic and citations, which include all the topic details and APA citations. Please read the assignment description and rubric carefully. The assignment MUST be 2 pages and include APA in-text citations and the source material attached. This is a literature review on the communication theory, attribution theory, as it relates to dealing with workplace crisis management. This part 1 of a 4 part assignment. If the tutor does an excellent job on this assignment I will seek their assistance on the other 3 assignments.
COMM 300 Assignment 1 Literature Review
Assignment Subject
Communication Theory: Attribution Theory and Situational Crisis Communication Theory
Workplace Problem: Communicating Workplace COVID-19 Safety Protocol. Addressing employee and client fears as it relates to COVID-19 safety. The workplace communication problem I was faced with relates to the pandemic. COVID-19 created organizational changes and challenges, as well as uncertainty, and emotional disruption for my employees. It is difficult to find appropriate communication channels to match the multi-generational workforce to effectively covey messages. For example, communicating evolving safety protocols placed by the state, the building management team, and our organization. Normally, we would communicate HR related information via an in-person team meeting and place posters in the breakroom. Since the team is working remotely, keeping them in the loop on proper procedure has proven problematic. Employees are required to wear facial coverings when in the building, take their temperature when entering the office, and report if they have tested positive for COVID. Assuaging employee fears by effectively communicating the safety protocols in place needs to be rectified, so they are comfortable coming into the office on a limited basis
Communication Theory Goals:
My theory goal is to
understand workplace crisis management
.
My goal is to persuade co-workers to
follow workplace safety protocols.
My goal is to change peoples attitudes toward
workplace safety.
———————————————————————————————————————
Assignment Criteria
Content: Based on what you learn, write a 2-page, double-spaced essay in which you explain how the theory that you have chosen relates to your final papers research question.
Your literature review should begin with an introduction that contains your research question, an explanation of its significance, and any other background information setting the context of your research.
Use the body paragraphs to describe and assess what you learned about the communication theory that you plan to use in your final project.
The conclusion should summarize the major issues that the researchers reported about the theory; it also should evaluate whether the theory accurately explains or can be used to resolve the workplace* communication problem you are investigating.
Format:
2 pages
Double-spaced
12 point font
1 margins
APA-style cover page
Do not use any quotes or paraphrases in your writing. Just synthesize and summarize what you learned about your communication theory and critique its utility for your final project.
———————————————————————————————————————
Literature Review Citations
Charoensukmongkol, P., & Phungsoonthorn, T. (2020, July 21). The effectiveness of supervisor support in lessening perceived uncertainties and emotional exhaustion of university employees during the COVID-19 crisis: the constraining role of organizational intransigence. The Journal of General Psychology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1795613
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research.Public Relations Review,33(2), 135139. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016
Coombs, T. (2017). Crisis communication. In M. Allen (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vol. 1, pp. 291-293). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc doi: 10.4135/9781483381411.n108
Groysberg, B., & Abrahams, R. (2020, August 17). What the Stockdale Paradox Tells Us About Crisis Leadership. Retrieved August 21, 2020, from Harvard Business School: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/what-the-stockdale-paradox-tells-us-about-crisis-leadership
Holtom, B., Edmondson, A., & Niu, D. (2020, July 9). 5 Tips for Communicating with Employees During a Crisis. Retrieved August 21, 2020, from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2020/07/5-tips-for-communicating-with-employees-during-a-crisis
Honigmann, D., Mendy, A., & Spratt, J. (2020, June 26). Communications get personal: How leaders can engage employees during a return to work. Retrieved August 21, 2020, from McKinsey & Company: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/communications-get-personal-how-leaders-can-engage-employees-during-a-return-to-work
Institute for PR. (2007, October 30). CRISIS MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS. Retrieved August 21, 2020, from Institute for Public Relations: https://instituteforpr.org/crisis-management-and-communications/
McDermott, V. (2009). Attribution theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.),Encyclopedia of communication theory(Vol. 1, pp. 61-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412959384.n23
Thompson, S. (2019). Attribution Theory. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=89164082&site=eds-live&scope=site. Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135139
Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis
communication research
W. Timothy Coombs
Communication Studies, Eastern Illinois University, 600 Lincoln Avenue, Charleston, IL 61920, USA
Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 1 November 2006; accepted 20 November 2006
Abstract
The field of crisis communication is poised to take the next in its evolution. Now is the time to move beyond the limits of the
case study methods that shape the fields development and shift to empirical methods. As the field matures, crisis managers need
recommendations that are based on scientifically tested evidence rather than speculation. The argument for scientifically tested
evidence for action is based on the evidence-based in management and medicine. This article discusses the role Attribution Theory
has played and can continue to play in building scientifically tested evidence for crisis managers as well as providing an integrative
mechanism for the diverse crisis research that spans a variety of disciplines.
2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Crisis communication; Attribution Theory; Crisis
Post-crisis communication, what management says and does after a crisis, is a robust area of research in
communication and management. While prolific, the post-crisis communication research is often disjointed and
atheoretical. Much of the extant writings consist of lists of what to do and what not to do drawn from case studies.
Moreover, the case studies tend to be based on mediated accounts of the crisis and do not involve interviews with
those involved in the crisis. What is underrepresented are theory-based studies designed to systematically identify
and model the key variables in post-crisis communication. We know little about how people react to crises or crisis
responses given the lack of experimental study of the phenomenon (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000; Dawar &
Pillutla, 2000; Dean, 2004; Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998). What we need in crisis communication is a shift towards
evidence-based management, the use of scientific evidence to guide managerial decision-making (Rousseau, 2005).
In communication-based crisis research, we have an over abundance of rhetorical studies that attempt to use descrip-
tive data to claim issues of causality and theory building. There are also problems in preoccupations with finding
genres in crisis communication that contribute little to theory development and testing. Apologia was a gateway for
many into crisis communication. It was useful to think of organizations using communication to protect their public
personas/reputations and provided a wealth of resources for developing crisis response strategies (Hearit, 2006). But
that does not mean the genre should be the focal point of crisis communication. Some researchers seem bent on finding
a new genre in every new crisis. Every crisis does have unique features. However, is it right to have a genre of one?
Is not genre to be based on a pattern emerging from a number of works? Furthermore, of what value is discovering
Tel.: +1 217 581 3324.
E-mail address: [emailprotected]
0363-8111/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016
mailto:[emailprotected]
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.016
136 W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135139
another genre of crisis communication? While a valuable start for crisis communication, we seemed to have exhausted
the yields from apologia. Post-crisis communication research can offer greater value to theory and practitioners if there
is a grander picture that can unite and integrate the various genres in to usable applied knowledge.
Rhetorical cases studies provided the roots for the study of crisis communication in the communication field. It
awakened us to the need to focus on what organizations say and do as well keyed us to the value of the situation in
influencing crisis responses. However, the time has come to embrace the evolution of the field and influx of empirical
studies of crisis communication (e.g., Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005; Dean, 2004; Huang, Lin, & Su, 2005).
Crisis communication research should adopt the perspective of evidence-based management. This piece argues that
Attribution Theory provides one useful beacon for this evolutionary track.
1. Attribution Theory as a guide
Two key traits of crises are that they are unexpected (we might know one might hit but not when) and negative. These
are also the key characteristics that Attribution Theory expert Bernard Weiner identified as driving peoples need to
search for causes of an event (Weiner, 1985,1986). It is logical to connect crises and Attribution Theory. Stakeholders
will make attributions about the cause of a crisis; they will assess crisis responsibility. Was the crisis a result of
situational factors or something the organization did? Indeed, extant research forges a link between Attribution Theory
and crises (e.g., Bradford & Garrett, 1995; Coombs, 1995; Hartel, McColl-Kennedy & McDonald, 1998; Jorgensen,
1994,1996; McDonald & Hartel, 2000; Stockmyer, 1996).
The attributions stakeholders make about crisis responsibility have affective and behavioral consequences for an
organization (Coombs & Holladay, 2005; McDonald & Hartel, 2000). If the organization is deemed responsible, the
reputation will suffer. In turn, stakeholders may exit the relationship and/or create negative word-of-mouth. Management
has a vested interest in preventing either of these two negative outcomes.
1.1. Early application of Attribution Theory to crisis
The first true studies of crisis communication appear in the management literature with works appearing in the 1980s.
While the study of apologia pre-dates the 1980s, its application to crisis communication did not occur until the later
1980s. Mowen (1980) was among the first to systematically broach the idea of a crisis response. Mowen also initiated
an important conceptual link for crisis communication, the use of Attribution Theory. Wiener (1986) built Attribution
Theory on the premise that people need to assign responsibility for events. Attribution Theory posits that people look
for the causes of events, especially unexpected and negative events. Most experts agree that a crisis is negative and
unexpected. When using Attribution Theory, the threat of a crisis is largely a function of crisis responsibility/blame.
Managers should evaluate the situation to determine which crisis response is best for the situation (Coombs, 1995,
2004; Mowen, 1980).
Product harm crises were used for the initial development of crisis communication. For product harm crises, four
crisis response strategies have served as the focal point of research: denial, forced compliance, voluntary compliance,
and super effort. Denial involves the organization claming there is no threat from their product. Voluntary compliance
occurs when the government forces a recall or other remediation efforts. Voluntary compliance is when a company
recalls or takes remediation efforts on its own accord. Super efforts involve voluntary compliance plus compensation
and an extensive communication campaign to promote the effort (Siomkos & Kurzbard, 1994).
Researchers have documented that crises have negative effects on market share, sales of the recalled product,
stock prices, purchase intention, and sales of other products by the company (taint-the-line) (Dawar, 1998; Siomkos
& Kurzbard, 1994). The crisis response can reduce or eliminate these negative effects. It is important to note that
management researchers look beyond reputation (character) to include other variables. Again, this is not just apologia.
The management recognition of various outcomes more accurately reflects the demands faced by crisis managers. They
are not just wrestling with reputational concerns but with legal and financial ones as well.
Bradford and Garrett (1995) applied Attribution Theory to ethical crises, a departure from the product harm line of
research. Bradford and Garrett developed a model, based in Attribution Theory, which was designed to explain what
crisis response to select based upon the nature of the ethical crisis. We find Attribution Theory has now been applied
to a variety of crisis types. However, the research is made comparable by the theoretical linkage. The research shares
similar theoretical and methodological assumptions.
W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135139 137
1.2. Situational crisis communication theory
Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) applies Attribution Theory based ideas to a wider array of crises.
SCCT draws upon experimental methods and socialpsychological theory. This is true to the Attribution Theory roots
of SCCT. SCCT advances and test hypotheses related to how perceptions of the crisis situation affect the crisis response
and the effects of crisis responses on outcomes such as reputation, emotions, and purchase intention. SCCT research
extends and is comparable to the early product harm and ethical crises research found in the management and marketing
literatures.
SCCT begins with the crisis manager examining the crisis situation in order to assess the level of the reputational
threat of a crisis. The threat is the amount of damage a crisis could inflict on the organizations reputation if no action is
taken. Three factors in the crisis situation shape the reputational threat: (1) initial crisis responsibility, (2) crisis history,
and (3) relationship history/prior reputation. Crisis managers follow a two-step process for using these three factors to
assess the reputational threat.
The first step in assessing the reputational threat is to determine the initial crisis responsibility attached to a crisis.
Initial crisis responsibility is a function of stakeholder attributions of personal control for the crisis by the organization
how much stakeholders believe organizational actions caused the crisis (Coombs, 1995). Research has consistently
demonstrated that increased attributions of crisis responsibility produce lower reputational scores is a greater repu-
tational threat (Coombs & Holladay, 1996,2002,2004). The initial assessment is based upon the crisis type. The crisis
type is how the crisis is being framed. Frames are cues that stakeholders use to interpret crises (Coombs & Holladay,
2002; Dowling, 2002). A crisis type is a frame that indicates how people should interpret the crisis events. Was the
event an accident, sabotage, or criminal negligence?
SCCT posits that each crisis type generates specific and predictable levels of crisis responsibilityattributions of
organizational responsibility for the crisis. SCCT research has identified three crisis clusters based upon attributions of
crisis responsibility by crisis type: (1) victim cluster has very weak attributions of crisis responsibility (natural disasters,
workplace violence, product tampering, and rumor) and the organization is viewed as a victim of the event; (2) accidental
cluster has minimal attributions of crisis responsibility (technical-error accident, technical-error product harm, and
challenge) and the event was considered unintentional or uncontrollable by the organization; and (3) intentional cluster
has very strong attributions of crisis responsibility (human-error accident, human-error product harm, and organizational
misdeed) and the event was considered to be purposeful (Coombs & Holladay, 2002).
By identifying the crisis type, the crisis manager can determine how much crisis responsibility stakeholders will
attribute to the organization at the onset of the crisis. In turn, crisis responsibility indicates the initial reputational
threat because crisis responsibility has been proven to be negatively related to organizational reputation (Coombs &
Holladay, 1996,2001).
The second step in assessing the threat involves two intensifying factors, consistency and distinctiveness, derived
from Kelleys principle of covariance (Kelley, 1972; Kelley & Michela, 1980; Martinko, Douglas, Ford & Gundlach,
2004). Consistency is operationalized as crisis history; whether or not an organization has had a similar crisis in the past.
Consistency is high if an organization previously has had similar events. A history of crises suggests an organization
has an ongoing problem that needs to be addressed. The organization is consistently having problems.
Distinctiveness is operationalized as relationship history/prior reputation; how well or poorly an organization has
treated stakeholders in other contexts. Distinctiveness is low if the organization has a history of treating stakeholders
badly. An organization shows little consideration for stakeholders across a number of domains, not just in this crisis.
The crisis is not distinctive. Either high consistency or low distinctiveness increases the threat from a crisis. Each
indicates that the crisis is part of a pattern of behaviors rather than an isolated incident (Coombs, 2004).
Distinctiveness (relationship history/prior reputation) and consistency (crisis history) have both a direct and indirect
effect on the reputational threat posed by the crisis. Either low distinctiveness or high consistency will intensify
attributions of crisis responsibility thereby indirectly affecting the reputational threat. Moreover, the two factors have
a direct effect on the reputational threat that is separate from crisis responsibility (Coombs, 2004). Crisis history
(consistency) and relationship history/prior reputation (distinctiveness) are used to adjust the initial assessment of the
threat. SCCT posits that either a crisis history or a negative relationship history/prior reputation will intensify the
reputational threat. Applied to crisis management, a victim crisis becomes treated as an accident crisis and an accident
crisis becomes treated as an intentional crisis when either consistency is high (crisis history) or distinctiveness is low
(negative relationship history) (Coombs & Holladay, 2001,2004).
138 W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135139
The crisis response strategies vary in their perceived acceptance of responsibility for the crisis. SCCTs general tenant
is that as the reputational threat and negative affect increases, crisis managers should utilize crisis response strategies
with the requisite level of accepting crisis responsibility. Put another way, crisis managers need to accept grater levels
of responsibility as the reputational threat intensifies. SCCT has been applied beyond reputation. The factors shaping
the reputational threat also serve to shape the affect generated by crisis and purchase intentions (Coombs & Holladay,
2005). Refer to Coombs (2006) for a fuller discussion of SCCT recommendations for post-crisis communication.
2. Integrative nature of Attribution Theory
Attribution Theory provides a common set of concepts and shared methods that allow for easier integration of
research findings from different researchers. Kellys covariation principle is an example. Kelleys work is built on
the concepts of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency (Kelley & Michela, 1980). Studies that share the use of
covariation can be compared. The research will share experimental methods and how the variables should relate to one
another. Exact operationalization of variables might differ but the consistent conceptualization of concepts results in
similar operationalizations. The shared concepts and methods made it possible to integrate a number of diverse product
harm crisis studies into one larger set of recommendations for crisis managers (Laufer & Coombs, 2006).
The idea for evidence-based management is derived from evidence-based medicine. The focus is on using scientif-
ically proven results to guide actions in medicine and now management (Rousseau, 2005). This piece argues that we
should extend the ideas to create evidence-based crisis communication and move away from the speculation offered
by cases built from mediated reports of crises. Attribution Theory provides a mechanism for integrating the various
studies of crisis communication to build a set of principles for evidence-based crisis communication.
3. Summary
Post-crisis communication research should continue along its newer, empirical track. Such research is providing
tested results to crisis managers rather than speculation based on case studies. We move away from decisions based
on unsystematic data toward evidence-based decisions. Attribution Theory is an historical and still viable theory for
integrating crisis communication research. A common theoretical link allows for the integration of research from various
researchers in diverse fields. We begin to build upon one anothers work and see how the pieces can begin to be integrated
into a larger whole. Moreover, there is a broad research agenda to pursue based upon Attribution Theory. A partial
list would include application of fundamental attribution error to crises and implications for crisis communication, the
ability of crisis response strategies to shape perceptions of the crisis frames, how crisis response strategies can trigger
the discounting principle, and relationship of crisis frames to counter-factual thinking. With Attribution Theory as a
connecting point, diverse streams of research can converge into to a river of post-crisis communication knowledge that
provides a mechanism for evidence-based crisis communication.
References
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal
of Marketing Research, 27, 203214.
Arpan, L. M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Stealing thunder: Analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information. Public
Relations Review, 31, 425433.
Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 14, 875892.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the appropriate crisis response strategies.
Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 447476.
Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of
Business Communication, 41, 265289.
Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion
Management, 12, 241260.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study of crisis communication. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 8, 279295.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situation: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic
approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 321340.
W.T. Coombs / Public Relations Review 33 (2007) 135139 139
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication
theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 165186.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2004). Reasoned action in crisis communication: An attribution theory-based approach to crisis management. In
D. P. Millar, & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 95115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). Exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and crisis. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J.
Hartel (Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Volume 1: The effect of affect in organizational settings (pp. 271288). New York: Elsevier.
Dawar, N. (1998). Product-harm crises and the signaling ability of brands. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28, 109119.
Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of
Marketing Research, 27, 215226.
Dean, D. W. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation, response, and responsibility for a crisis event. Journal
of Business Communication, 41, 192211.
Dowling, G. (2002). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image and performance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hartel, C., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & McDonald, L. (1998). Incorporating attribution theory and the theory of reasoned action within an affective
events theory framework to produce a contingency predictive model of consumer reactions to organizational mishaps. Advances in Consumer
Research, 25, 428432.
Hearit, K. M. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Huang, Y. H., Lin, Y. H., & Su, S. H. (2005). Crisis communicative strategies in Taiwan: Category, continuum, and cultural implication. Public
Relations Review, 31, 229238.
Jorgensen, B. K. (1994). Consumer reaction to company-related disasters: The effect of multiple versus single explanations. Advances in Consumer
Research, 21, 348352.
Jorgensen, B. K. (1996). Components of consumer reaction to company-related mishaps: A structural equation model approach. Advances in
Consumer Research, 23, 346351.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107128.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457501.
Laufer, D., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). How should a company respond to a product harm crisis? The role of corporate reputation and consumer-based
cues. Business Horizon, 10(2), 123137.
Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., Ford, R., & Gundlach, M. J. (2004). Dues paying: A theoretical explication and conceptual model. Journal of
Management, 30, 4969.
McDonald, L., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2000). Applying the involvement construct to organisational crises. In Proceedings of the Australian and New
Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (pp. 799803). Gold Coast, Australia: Griffith University, Department of Marketing.
Mowen, J. C. (1980). Further information on consumer perceptions of product recalls. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 519523.
Rousseau, D. M. (2005). Is there such a thing as evidence-based management? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256269.
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook
21. Thousand Oaks (pp. 231276). CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Siomkos, G. J., & Kurzbard, G. (1994). The hidden crisis in product harm crisis management. European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 3041.
Stockmyer, J. (1996). Brands in crisis: Consumer help for deserving victims. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 429435.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychology Review, 92, 548573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Attribution Theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research
Attribution Theory as a guide
Early application of Attribution Theory to crisis
Situational crisis communication theory
Integrative nature of Attribution Theory
Summary
References Submit: Assignment 1 Final Project Literature
Review, due Tuesday, Week 2 (9/1)
Instructions
COMM 300 6380 Communication Theory (2208)
Assignment 1 Final Project Literature Review, due Tuesday, Week 2
This assignment is worth 15% of your final grade.
For this step of your final projects development, you will write a literature review on
what you have learned from your research and understand about the communication
theory that you plan to use in your final project. You should be able to use the
material that you develop here in your final project. Before you tackle this exercise,
please make sure you have read the Week 2 course materials.
Objective: To demonstrate a thorough understanding of your communication theory
and how it relates to your workplace* communication problem.
Skills: This assignment will help you refine your abilities to execute the following skills
for professional-level research:
identify and formulate research questions that clearly define and focus what you
would like to investigate in school or on the job;
locate authoritative information in library and internet resources;
analyze and assess the relevance of information to a research question, and
synthesize new knowledge and establish context for your inquiries.
Background: Please begin this assignment by reading the following information
carefully.
A literature review is a critical summary of what subject matter experts have to say
about a question or topic. In your case, you will write an account of what scholars
have published in peer-reviewed journals about the communication theory that you
have determined to be relevant to the communication issue in your workplace.*
Occasionally, you will be asked in school or on the job to write a literature review as a
stand-alone report. More often, you will use a literature review to establish the context
https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/le/content/511931/navigateContent/2997/Previous?pId=19233806
https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/le/content/511931/navigateContent/2997/Next?pId=19233806
https://learn.umgc.edu/d2l/home/511931
for a larger business report or business proposal, or for a scholarly report. In your
case, your literature review will become a part of your reports introduction where it
will help your readers to understand why the theory is applicable to your workplace
communication problem. You will use your literature review to disclose the knowledge
and ideas that already have been established on your theory. However, it must not be
just a description of the information available. To gain a better understanding of what
a literature review is and is not, watch this video from UMGCs Effective Writing Center
at https://youtu.be/2IUZWZX4OGI .
(*Remember, if you are not employed or cannot discuss your workplace, you should
be using a communication problem from another organizational setting in which
you are involved for your final project, such as school, church, or a community
group.)
Steps:
Begin by reviewing the list of communication theories in the Week 1, Overview
1.1, Introduction to Theory, Theory Building, and Communication Theories.
Click on the links for any theories that you think may address your workplace*
communication problem. The links will take you to entries about that theory in
the < Encyclopedia of Communication Theory >.
Once you have reviewed the theories, select a communication theory that
appears to be related to your papers research question. Then click on Resources
> Library in the navigation bar acros
