Mapping Communication Theories: Agency–Structure × Functional–Critical

Hai Liang · School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong · hailiang@cuhk.edu.hk · drhailiang.com

Color by

Horizontal axis: locus of explanation (−5 agency, +5 structure). Vertical axis: knowledge interest (−5 functional, +5 critical). Hollow points joined by dashed lines mark alternative positions under a different reading of the same theory. Click a legend pill to filter by category.

Selected theory

Reading the two axes

Agency ↔ Structure: where does explanatory power sit?

Agency pole. Outcomes are explained by properties of individual actors, such as cognitions, motives, needs, strategies, and interpretations. This pole includes automatic cognitive processes (e.g., CASA, priming), so agency here means methodological individualism, not free will.

Structure pole. Outcomes are explained by supra-individual entities, such as institutions, media systems, economic relations, discourse, language, and infrastructures, that precede and constrain actors.

Center (duality). Theories that treat structure and action as mutually constitutive, such as structuration, ANT, CCO, and social construction of reality.

Functional ↔ Critical: what is knowledge for?

Functional pole. The aim is to explain, predict, and improve communication within existing social arrangements, i.e., Lazarsfeld's administrative research and Habermas's technical knowledge interest.

Critical pole. The aim is to expose how communication sustains domination and to support emancipation, i.e., Habermas's emancipatory interest.

Middle. Interpretive theories (symbolic interactionism, CMM, ethnomethodology) seek understanding, which Habermas calls the practical interest. They are neither administrative nor emancipatory, so they cluster near zero rather than forming a third pole.

Four quadrants and the center

Structuration, ANT, CCO, social construction of reality, CMM, and RDT 2.0 refuse the dualism that the horizontal axis presupposes. In a seminar, they are best taught as arguments about the map itself rather than as points on it. Archer's critique of central conflation, i.e., the charge that Giddens fuses agency and structure so that neither can be analyzed separately, is a useful counterpoint.

Teaching notes for a doctoral seminar

The vertical axis is not a method axisThe propaganda model and the knowledge gap hypothesis use quantitative designs, yet they serve critical ends. Many qualitative studies (e.g., interpretive organizational culture) are not critical. Students often conflate quantitative with functional, and this map can be used to break that equation.
Theories travel across the mapCultivation, framing, mediatization, and relational dialectics each have two readings that sit in different quadrants. Toggle the contested readings and ask students what was gained and lost when a theory was operationalized for hypothesis testing.
Relation to Burrell and Morgan (1979)Burrell and Morgan crossed subjective–objective with regulation–radical change. The present map replaces the ontological axis with agency–structure, which is only one of their four sub-assumptions (voluntarism versus determinism). Ontology and epistemology are therefore collapsed, and a third axis (e.g., realist versus constructionist) would be needed to separate interpretive from postpositivist work.
The empty corners are informativeFew communication theories are strongly agentic and strongly critical, and few are strongly structural and functional outside sociology. The sparse regions indicate where the field has not theorized, e.g., critical theories of individual cognition or functional theories of platform infrastructure.

Discussion prompts

1. Choose one theory and argue that it belongs in a different quadrant. Which textual evidence from the original source supports the move?

2. Lazarsfeld (1941) distinguished administrative from critical research. Does computational communication science inherit the administrative orientation by default, or can it be critical?

3. Where would your dissertation's guiding theory sit? Does your operationalization move it toward the agency-functional corner?

4. Design a study that combines a theory from the agency × functional quadrant with one from the structure × critical quadrant. What would a multilevel model of that combination look like?

Full inventory

Click a theory name to read its introduction, the rationale for its classification, and a key reading. Click a column header to sort.

Sources for the framework: Burrell & Morgan (1979), Craig (1999) "Communication theory as a field", Giddens (1984), Habermas (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests, Lazarsfeld (1941) "Remarks on administrative and critical communications research". Placements are interpretive scores for teaching purposes and should be revised through seminar discussion.