In this article, the author examines Colin Grant’s recent criticism of the so-called “interaction paradigm” and Jürgen Habermas’s universal pragmatics. Grant’s approach, which is presented as an open challenge to communication theories grounded in philosophical conceptions of communality and dialogue, can be construed as an exemplar of a radical constructivist approach to vital questions of contingency and incommensurability in communication studies. In response, the author outlines a classical pragmatist approach to the problem areas identified by Grant, with the aim of outlining how a pragmatist outlook can offer promising theoretical alternatives to universal pragmatics and radical constructivism. It is argued that moderate Peircean pragmatism, appropriately interpreted, can provide a philosophical platform capable of addressing issues of contingency, uncertainty, and autonomy in communication theory without succumbing to incommensurabilism, traditional objectivism, or nominalistic individualism.

Histories of cybernetics, at least those in the English language, concentrate almost exclusively on its origins in the United States and UK, associated primarily with Norbert Wiener and colleagues, and in particular with the series of Macy conferences from 1946 onwards. Independent work was, however, carried out elsewhere. In Germany, Hermann Schmidt introduced the notion of Allgemeine Regelungskunde [general control theory] in the early 1940s, which bore many similarities to the almost exactly contemporary work of Wiener and colleagues. Schmidt’s work was subsequently largely neglected during the rapid post-war dissemination of cybernetics ideas until it was, to a certain extent, rediscovered in Germany in the 1960s. There Schmidt is often credited, alongside Wiener, as one of the two fathers’ of cybernetics. This article presents the nature and background of Schmidt’s contributions and assesses their significance.

Key words: communication studies, ICTs, politics, cybernetics, Hermann Schmidt, history

During the 1990s, constructivism and its different variants were a much-debated topic in German-speaking Communication Studies, as well as in Gender Studies. Meanwhile, however, constructivist positions seem to be widely accepted. In our paper, we briefly ponder the epistemological consequences of constructivism, and introduce different constructivist positions that have exerted tremendous influence on the development of the field of Gender Studies within Communication Research. We differentiate between social and interactional constructivism – variants that presuppose a social subject – and discursive and poststructuralist positions, which underscore the importance of communicative action and do not assume an intentionally acting subject. Our goal in this paper is to shed light on the question of how constructivism and its different variants have changed and are still changing research and thinking about the interlinkages of communication, media and gender.

Key words: Gender studies, social constructivism, discourse theory, poststructuralism, development of communication research

This paper analyses the paradigm of constructivism, relating it to current theoretical and empirical developments within social science. I am meeting the demand for describing social and cultural phenomena beyond correspondence-theoretical approaches by critically discussing various forms of constructivism and elaborating on the epistemological position of ‘The Social Construction of Reality’ (Berger & Luckmann). I argue that Berger and Luckmann are epistemologically ‘unscrupulously’ and, subsequently, show analytical weaknesses. This critical discussion forms the backdrop of an unfolding of the position of practice theories and a discussion of their innovative potential to social science research. In this context, the question of how to deal with media as artefacts and technologies is evaluated. I discuss this relationship and analyse it from a communication studies point of view, by means of two prominent analysis concepts, namely the ‘actor-network-theory’ of Bruno Latour and the ‘boundary objects’ approach of Susan Leigh Star from the field of science and technology studies. Finally, I outline central theoretical challenges and analytical perspectives for communication and media research.

Key words: Constructivism, practice theory, actor-network-theory, science and technology studies, boundary objects, communication analysis, media analysis

“New Realism” is more than just a catchphrase. It offers the opportunity to reconcile theoretical and methodological standpoints such as realism and constructivism, which have so far been irreconcilable. Ontologically, this occurs through the inclusion of objective reality and observer perspective (‘Sinnfeldontologie’), epistemologically it occurs through the broadening of the concept of empiricism and the reference to the mediality of perception and experience (‘documentality’). This is relevant to journalism and journalism research, because the relevance of reality in journalism is evident. However, this cannot be substantiated adequately through constructivism, although this theory is very popular within Media and Communication Studies. Moreover, the concept of reality is closely related to the concept of truth in journalism; the latter even being standardised by law. A ‘moderate realism’ or ‘soft constructivism’ can, therefore, theoretically substantiate this claim, and thus unify objective factuality and subjectively meant meaning.

Key words: Epistemology, methodology, constructivism, realism, truth

Today, digital media saturate all domains of society. However, what are the consequences of such changing media environments to the construction of social reality? This paper aims at offering a conceptual approach which might be used to answer this question in the light of social constructivism. Our starting point is a discussion of the need for an advancement of constructivist thinking in Media and Communication studies. Drawing on the results of mediatization research, we show that the changes within the media environment have different consequences to each of the social domains. In light of this, a conceptual approach is needed that focuses on the meso level; particularly on issues of collectivity and organizations. In a further step, the main trends of a changing media environment are outlined and discussed with respect to their potential consequences to the construction of social reality. Finally, we introduce the approach of ‘communicative figurations’ in order to investigating these consequences. Hence, the transforming media-related construction of social reality can now be reconstructed empirically as well as theoretically on the meso level.

Key words: Media change, mediatization, social constructivism, figuration, media environment

The present discussion surrounding constructivism in communication studies is characterized especially by three questions: Precisely how does constructivist thinking manifest itself in media and communication research? Which foundation does it offer for empirical research? And in which way does this necessitate a shift in existing perspectives and approaches? These questions are addressed in the introduction to this special issue on ‘Constructivism in Communication Studies’. First, and with reference to the recent media change, it outlines why it is necessary to (re-)open the discussion on constructivism. On this basis, the trajectories of constructivism in German communication studies over the last 50 years are reconstructed and the different articles of this special issue are located in the discussion. Finally, ideas for a constructivist critique are introduced – a critique which becomes necessary in the light of the fundamental and deep character of recent changes in media and communications.

Key words: Constructivism, change of media and communication, transforming communications, critique, empirical media and communication research, mediatization

PR’s roots as research subject in communication studies lie within its recognition as a source of journalism. This may explain why PR is still reduced to ist role as an external communicator of organizations. In this article, I will suggest – on a system-theoretical basis – to regard business self-governance, i.e. the influence on the company’s policies, as equiivalent to external self-governance, i.e. the self-presentation capacity of PR. Furthermore, I will suggest understanding PR as difference management of external governance and business self-governance; while the context governance will always be the preferred aspect.

In contrast with the “positivist” or “naturalistic” paradigm that has shaped science for centuries and still dominates the field of communication, [this chapter] develops an alternative paradigm for communication theory and research. The limitations of the prevalent paradigm – which is based on two main premises, i.e. “observers shall accept only one reality,” and “observers shall not enter their domain of observation” – are exposed through an examination of Russell’s theory of logical types, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and Popper’s falsification criterion as responses to paradigmatic challenges. Krippendorff articulates an alternative around five ultimately ethical imperatives that stress the constructed nature of knowledge, replace representational truth with viability, encourage self-reference, and take otherness to be a central concern for communication studies. These imperatives serve as a guide for the remainder of the book. As the paradigm proposed in the chapter calls for researchers and theorists to include themselves in what they observe and theorize, it follows that ontological concerns should give way to epistemological ones. [Abstract by Fernando Bermejo]

Today algorithms are deemed to have a power similar to that of journalism to produce public spheres and constructions of reality. The debate relating to this proposition allow us to observe how questions, which have formed the core of journalism research, are now being reformulated. Such questions concern the definition of what underpins information in society and in the news, the definition of relevance, the appropriateness of selection processes, the idea of objectivity and how items offered as information relate to ‘reality’. The epistemological challenge of the reality of the mass media (to Communication Studies) has, therefore, waxed virulent again, given the new indexes of the changed conditions for communication in society. We use the possibilities of constructivism when observing the debate about the significance of algorithms for producing a public sphere/reality and propose a view of professional journalism and algorithmically generated information not as two separate sites for constructing reality but as interwoven with and relating to each other.

Key words: algorithms, constructivism, journalism, epistemology, constructivist epistemology, media reality