La relación que tienen los niños y sus concepciones con lo natural

Transmission models of communication concentrate on the communication process and the paths that information, understanding and thoughts travel along (Lewis & Slade, 1994). Transmission models stem from early mechanical theories of communication and use a generally linear structure to explain the communication process. Early transmission models broke the communication process onto five simple components: sender, message, medium, receiver, and function (Dance, 1970). Many writers criticise transmission or process theories for oversimplifying communication, and lacking in the appreciation of the richness and dynamics of the process (Covey, 1992; Craig, 2000; Grunig & Hunt, 1984). However, transmission theories remain appropriate for communication planners to consider when looking at how consultation information moves out into the community. Lewis and Slade (1994, p. 11) defend traditional transmission theories saying “the clarity and power of the transmission model has meant that it has dominated the way that communication–

communications–are conceptualised by government, media and communicators”.

O’Hair, Freidrich, and Dixon (2008) agree, noting that the complexity and influence of each step in the transmission model reveals its relevancy. For example, a review of channels or media used to convey messages and the selection of channels have an important influence on the communication and the perceptions of a receiver. Channels can be lean or rich, formal or informal, permanent or transient, one, two way or multidirectional, synchronous or

asynchronous, traditional or new. Each channel characteristic can influence the receiver’s perception, and media is never neutral as messages are transformed by the delivery channel.

Network theory is a transmission theory that recognises social influences in the

communication process, and reflects the complexity and dynamics of communication in a community context (Windahl, Signitzer, & Olson, 1992). Rogers (1983) describes a communication network as individuals who are interconnected by flows of patterned

communication. From the perspective of a communication planner, the presence of networks is pervasive with all citizens being part of one or several networks. However, the network

exchange and normative networks (Schenk, 1985, cited by Windahl et al., 1992) which are discussed further in Section 3.2.3. Further, network theory has had an influence in theories on social capital and communications climate (Lowndes & Sullivan, 2004).

One of the most enduring transmission theories and a paradigm of mass communication, the two-step model of communication describes how people gain their information through the mass media and/or opinion leaders (Foulger, 2011; Gitlin, 1978, as cited by Windahl et al., 1992). The two-step model also describes different outcomes at each step of the

communication process. It posits that communication through mass media generally results in the transfer of information, whereas the communication between opinion leader and

individual is more likely to include the transfer of influences (Rogers, 1983). Matei (2011) observes the two-step model is particularly relevant to the consideration of the flows of communication in social media.

Windahl et al. (1992) say that the two-step flow model and networking theories point to the strength of personal communications over mass communication channels. Rogers and Bhowmik (1970) made an early contribution to network theory with the principle of

homophily, which suggested that people are more likely to be influenced by someone who is similar to them. Nevertheless, Chaffee and Metzger (2001) disagree. They take direction from situational theory to suggest that different scenarios dictate different levels of influence, e.g. newspapers may be seen as more credible than interpersonal channels in some scenarios. Windahl et al. (1992) point out that there are weaknesses with the two-step model approach, specifically being able to control opinion leaders’ contributions. The usefulness of the model also hinges on the ability to identify and communicate with opinion leaders.

Himstreet and Baty’s (1984) simple hierarchy of communication levels supports the contention that interpersonal communication is more influential than mediated

communication. Using a transmission approach to communication, Himstreet and Baty observe the most effective communication is two-way, face-to-face interaction with verbal, nonverbal communication and symbols, and language that is clear to participants. The second most effective level is interactive two-way communication that is not face-to face. The lowest level of communication in terms of effectiveness, and one common in council

communication, relies on written messages (e.g. letters and reports) without the assistance of instant feedback or nonverbal cues.

Windahl et al. believe that the two-step flow model makes one other important assumption that more than one channel is necessary in planned communication. Windahl et al.

(1992, p. 53) argue that communication effectiveness often requires many steps and that “the implication for the communication planners is to look outside routine mass communication boundaries for communication solutions.”

Chaffee and Metzger (2001) question the future of mass communication in the new media environment. The very role and definition of mass communications is under threat as information technologies confuse the theoretical boundaries. The defining features of mass communication: mass production, lack of individual control, and finite in available channels, are not true today. Contemporary media (e.g. cell phones, the internet) has essentially ‘de- massified’ mass communications.

Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Another transmission or process theory of importance for communication planners because it replicates a communications campaign is Rogers’ (1983) Diffusion of Innovations Theory. Rogers’ five-step model is orientated toward supporting an outcome of change and combines the mechanistic views of communication with information gaps, with theories of influence on attitudinal change, the two-step information flow and networking, to investigate how change in behaviour and attitude can be influenced (Windahl et al., 1992).

The first in the five-phase process is knowledge. Rogers’ (1983) says there are three types of knowledge: how-to knowledge (e.g. how to go about making a submission, how to speak at hearings); software knowledge (e.g. awareness and explanation of the consultation issue); and principles-based knowledge (e.g. the general democratic approach to consultation). Windahl et al. (1992) note that how-to knowledge is often overlooked by communication planners in their attempts to focus on awareness and explanation. Persuasion is the second step in the Rogers’ model, where the individual forms an opinion, for instance about consultation.

According to Windahl et al. (1992), the effort in communication campaigns is often aimed at the first two stages of the process. However, the later stages are vitally important. In the decision stage, an individual may either adopts or reject the innovation (in the context of this, to make a submission). According to Rogers’ (1983) providing practical assistance is useful in this stage. The implementation stage is where the new action or product is attempted, and all systems that support the process must be in place to enable it. For submitters a case in point would be difficulty with an online from when making a submission, or promised submission forms not being available at libraries as promised.

In the final confirmation stage, people will look for confirmation or reinforcement of their effort. For the submitter, this stage would include the feedback letters from council post submission, and the decision made by council itself.

Importantly the diffusion of innovations theory identifies the roles of different types of information in the communication process. Windahl et al. (1992) say information and knowledge is typically conveyed by mass media at the start of the communication process, whereas the subsequent decision to take action is influenced more strongly by interpersonal communication.

Rogers (1983) also defined categories of people in respect of their likelihood to adopt a new ‘innovation’. He placed them in a bell curve to identify the relative size of each adoption segment as a targeting option, as below.

Innovators >> Early adopters>> Early majority >> Late majority >> Laggards

The relevance of this model to the process of consultation lies in the ability for

communication efforts to influence the laggards and late majority to participate. These two groups typically make up around half the community and are characterised by a reluctance to change, being sceptical or suspicious of new things (Rogers, 1987, as cited in Windahl et al., 1992). Importantly, Chaffee (1986) notes that late adopters may rely more on interpersonally transmitted information and different types of messages and arguments work with different groups of innovators. There are strong links between Rogers’ (1983) model and those of the public relations theorists (to be discussed in Section 3.2.2).

Technology in process theory

The de-massifying of mass communication was touched on earlier in the discussion. Other theorists have identified the evolving influence of technology when identifying barriers and breakdowns in the communication process (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000; Littlejohn, 2002). Foley and Duck (2006) draw attention to the Lievrouw and Finn systems model of

communication to reflect on the contribution of technology in the communication process, recognising that communication is not confined to person-to-person flows.

Using a three dimensional matrix, Lievrouw and Finn identify that all communication is in some way mediated, through technological means or in the case of face-to-face

communication mediated through the five senses. The Lievrouw and Finn model analyses the characteristics of various communication channels according to the strength of involvement between participants, specifically the physical and psychological distance both between sender and receiver, the control of the message and temporality of presentation (Eunson, 2008). This model also attests to the interactivity of communication and is particularly pertinent when considering council communication because of the requirements of the LGA 2002 legislation (see Chapter Two) demands at least summaries, advertising and hearings.

Davis Foulger’s (2004) ecological model, like Lievrouw and Finn’s matrix, also seeks to bridge the early mechanistic models with the theories of interpersonal, organisational, and mass media perspectives. The Foulger model, shown in Figure 2 takes a social constructionist approach and adds the layers of language and media, in the context of evolving relationships and perception. It very clearly points to the dynamism of the communication and perception context showing that communication is proactive, not passive.

Chaffee (1986) comments that, as organisations communicate, a system of pathways is developed through which messages flow within and between the organisation and its publics. Those pathways and the content of the messages develop into a profile of organisational communication. However, this is an oversimplification and Chaffee and Metzger (2001) and Eunson (2008) point out many later studies showed the context, type and gravity of the story to have a major effect on influence.

Figure 2: Foulger's Ecological Model of Communication

Source: Davis Foulger (2004) in An Ecological Model of the Communication Process, www.davisfoulger.info