“A meeting of the minds,” is a phrase that best captures the heart of this theory. It delineates how communication within a group evolves to create a united vision and then a collective decision (Hirokawa & Poole, 1996, p.36). Just as many theories consist of several parts, symbolic convergence theory is made up of several parts. First, there is the realization of a mutual communication pattern among the group that evolves into a shared group consciousness. Second, consists of a “description of the dynamic tendencies with communication systems,” that explains why group consciousness arises, continues, declines, and disappears, as well as “the effects such group consciousness [has] in terms of meanings, motives, and communication within the group” (p.88).
According to Gudykunst (2001), the word “symbolic” was used because what were being observed were language, communication, fantasy, and symbolic (as opposed to material and social) facts. The word “convergence” was used because the “theory’s basic theorem described the dynamic communicative process of sharing group fantasies as the cause of the union of the particpants’ symbolic world” (p.276).
Developed by Ernest Borman and his team of graduate students at the University of Minnesota in 1972, symbolic convergence theory, as previously stated, describes the communication process by which members of a group come to share a common social reality that is achieved through the sharing of fantasies (Hirokawa & Poole, 1996, p.36). “Fantasy” is not used here by the general interpretation of the word as something that is imagined, make-believe, or not real. Rather, Bormann (1983) states it is used to describe “the creative and imaginative shared interpretation of events that fulfills a group psychological or rhetorical need” (p.434). Group members participate in these fantasies and develop a shared group vision. This concept of fantasy is fourfold. It consists of fantasy theme, fantasy chain, and group fantasy.
Miller (2005) offers a definition to these with the first concept of fantasy theme as a “‘dramatizing message’ that ignites group interaction” (p.243). Miller provides examples of this to be a joke, story, or personal experience. Second, the fantasy chain is “when the group members ‘pick up’ (add to) on a dramatizing message” (p.243). And thirdly, group fantasy, as “once ‘chaining out’ has occurred, a sense of community and shared identities emerge” (p.243). The fourth development of the fantasy, is called fantasy type, “a general scenario that covers several of the more concrete fantasy themes” (p.243). This occurs when the fantasy theme becomes linked with the individuals while interacting in the group.
Beyond this idea, on a more conceptual level, fantasy types can evolve into a rhetorical vision. A rhetorical vision is “a composite drama constructed from fantasy themes and types that have recurred in the history of a group and may have chained out into a larger public through written works, media, and other public formats.
The word rhetorical was selected because “rhetorical imaginative language triggering shared fantasies produced the larger symbolic structures,” and the word vision was chosen because “the rhetorical structures were the scope pf other visions such as the views of large landscapes” (p.277). Miller states that “these rhetorical visions are often referenced as slogans or labels (e.g., referring to a particular group as a ‘cutting-edge committee’ or as ‘just like family’)” (p.243). Rhetorical vision brought about its own methodology called fantasy theme analysis (FTA) which is often used by rhetorical scholars. This shed light on three prominent types of rhetorical visions that exist within social interaction. The first, righteous master analogue, revolves around the concepts of right and wrong, moral and immoral. The second, social master analogue, consists of the concepts of humanity, community, and caring. And third, pragmatic master analogue, promotes the concepts of effectiveness, efficiency, and utility (p.244).
Symbolic Convergence Theory was created and executed through an interpretive (and rhetorical) metatheoretical perspective. The epistemological assumption of this theory is dependent upon observation and an integration of the knower and the known. Scholars of the theory studied groups and organizations and utilized methods of observation, interview, and content analysis. Furthermore, the axiological assumption is value laden.
Now that we have paid homage to the intricate details of the theory and acknowledged its creator, in the next section we will take a look at what Miller (2005) tells graduate students about how to determine the worth of a theory.
Theory Worth and Application
Miller (2005) posts specific criteria for evaluating a theory’s worth (p.44). First, the theory should be accurate. The theory’s conceptual boundaries and empirical observations should be in agreement to the theory’s predictions thus being testable (p.44). Symbolic convergence theory meets this criterion. It has been applied and empirically tested since its birth. Gudykunst (2001) states that a primary aspect of the theory’s development “concerned the discovery, observation, and grounding of its key concepts…Additional research [improved] clarification of those concepts” (p.277). Other researchers presented the same scholarly viewpoint using the same theoretical assumptions and technical concepts from study to study.
Second, Miller claims a theory should be consistent, both internally and externally (2005, p.44). This suggests that the theory should not contradict any part of itself or other accepted theories in that particular field. Symbolic convergence theory does not contradict itself within its assumptions or propositions. Within the theory, according to Gudykunst (2001), developers of merged two avenues of research. The first came from Bales (1950) focus on the “dynamics of groups by means of content analysis of group communication” through implementing a coding system called interaction process analysis, and the second on Bormann’s various techniques for studying these ongoing groups through “content analysis, participant journals and interviews, and voice and video recordings” (Gudykunst, p.275). Bormann then presented a system of analysis for observable communication with small task-oriented groups to understand how some groups come to make decisions while other groups encounter difficulty. He proposes a systematical process that explains how each concept flows or evolves into the next similar to the ripple effect. And like a ripple, symbolic convergence theory does not stop at small group boundaries, but goes beyond into the social world to observe how this group is affected by larger organizations (Frey, 1999). This theory also does not contradict any other theories in its field. Its relationship with the grounded theory, structuration theory, and functional theory along with others has influenced and shaped it and made it into the concise theory it is today.
Thirdly, Miller speculates that the scope should be broad and encompass more (as opposed to few) situations and contexts while maintaining predictability within its boundaries. The scope of this theory is relatively broad. It was rather narrow in its genesis, originating in the small task-group decision making process, but it has since been applied to many rhetorical studies within the mass-media (Miller, p.242). Bormann and his team of researchers found that the fantasy-sharing aspect of this theory could indeed be relevant beyond small task-groups to various parts of the media, other audience and speaker situations, in reading texts, and in historical documents (Gudykunst, 2001, p.277). Since the theory’s approach is a blend of social-scientific and humanistic theoretical assumptions, it offers much useful insight to many aspects of the social world and could quite easily be expanded upon (Frey, p.47).
The fourth assertion by Miller is a theory should be parsimonious (2005, p.44). This means that the theoretical concepts, assumptions, propositions, and any other part of the theory must be clear and understandable. If the theory is not comprehensibly constructed it is difficult to conduct accurate empirical testing and application of it thereby making it useless. Symbolic convergence theory is easy enough to understand even though it may not be very simplistic. The theory has been criticized for using familiar words in unfamiliar ways (Miller, p.243). For example, the term fantasy, as previously described, can be interpreted in many ways that revolve around the idea of imaginary or fictional. Here it is used to mean something entirely different thus scholars (e.g. Bormann) state an individual must interpret the word through the lens of the analytical framework (Miller, 243).
Lastly, Miller states a theory should have heuristic value. This implies that the theory should ignite new research that could lead to new discoveries (Miller, p.44). Symbolic convergence theory has prompted many scholars to delve into its contextual possibilities. Having been inspired by heurism in Bales research, Bormann began his work in hundreds of case studies in Minnesota. According to Gudykunst (2001) nearly 160 published works represent symbolic convergence theory’s research program. Moreover, through this line of research, Geier (1963) discovered an emergent process for natural leadership. Fisher (1968) found similar emergent processes for decision-making. In addition, Bormann (1969) found a general emergent process for all group roles that supported Geier’s findings on leadership. So not only did it inspire more research and fresh findings, it supported them. Within my own research of the theory, I uncovered about 40 articles and books from the dawn of the theoretical concept to this year that test, apply, or critique the theory.
Theory Motivation
To obtain a better understanding of this theory and its heurism, I’ve selected and summarized some unique studies that have taken this approach to new heights. These studies will provide analysis and application of the symbolic convergence theory or it will have tested it, all in a fashion that I found to be unique in nature.
The first study conducted by Stone (2002) focuses on determining how newly admitted graduate students symbolically constructed the rationale behind their decision to enroll in the master’s degree programs of the investigating university. He wanted to understand what fantasy types influenced a student’s decision to enroll in a master’s degree program of the university he was conducting his research at. He also sought to identify any rhetorical visions that came from this as well, then if the participation in these rhetorical visions differed across programs (e.g. Business, Communication, Human Services, etc.). Stone states that this was an exploratory investigation with an interest not in supporting a predetermined set of factors, but rather in determining a more interpretable factor structure…”(p.7).
He sampled fifty newly admitted graduate students from all of the master’s programs offered during the fall semester were randomly selected from a list. The ones selected were invited to participate in a sixty-minute discussion with other graduate students they engaged in a short period of introductions and then shared how they chose their graduate program, their experience during applying to the program, and discuss and anecdotes or stories they heard about the program.
What Stone found from this was a list of 27 fantasy type statements and discovered that it would be valuable for the university to use dramas that would appeal to an individual’s professional pursuits (p.7). The results of the test Stone administered showed variance from program to program also. Thus all of aspects of the symbolic convergence theory that he applied to this context were successful.
Cragan and Shields (1992) took a different direction, away from academia, and implemented this theory in a case study of corporate strategic planning. Their goal was to discover how symbolic convergence theory guided the actions of the company. The company examined was a manufacturer of nationally marketed agricultural feeds. This company became private and the new management made several new changes including firing long-time employees and establishing new departments. The situation had become chaotic and the company had hired Cragan and Sheilds as communication consultants who presented a way of implementing symbolic convergence into their marketing strategies. Rather than having research questions or hypotheses, the team designed objectives: 1. Find a viable corporate name and identity, and adequately position the corporation in the marketplace. 2. Identify and segment American hog producers and determine the segment(s) “Beta” (the masked name of the company) should be targeting. 3. Determine appropriate (pretested) storylines for use in internal and external communication.
The team collected nearly 200 corporate documents of information about the company itself, its people, as well as its products. Personal interviews were conducted with 22 corporate and regional managers, focus group interviews were also executed with 18 regional sales people, 40 independent dealers at various locations throughout the country, and a telephone survey of 100 customers and 100 non-customers. The research team also developed a training program for selling products.
The research indicated that each drama story lacked strong links to any firm reality base (p.11). In fact, negative chaining fantasies consumed the people’s perceptions. For example, the proposed rhetorical vision, slogan “Beta Care,” was meet with the response: “Beta cares – like hell it cares!” (p.11). Then stories depicting the company’s poor products or delivery generally followed. Many parts of the intervention met with limited success. Beta continued to cut staff, negative fantasies in regards to the company persisted, and the goals of the study were not successful enough to make the change the company so desperately needed. However, Cragan & Shields believe this case study was “high” in terms of both its contribution to symbolic convergence theory and its problem-solving contribution to the Beta company (p.17.)
The theory in its application wasn’t extremely successful in a positive outcome for the company. Olufowote (2006) says symbolic convergence theory has “enjoyed popularity in communication studies but, in organizational communication, its appeal has declined, perhaps because of perceptions of its irrelevance to complex and contemporary concerns.”
Preston (2006) takes the symbolic convergence theory and brings it back to a part of academia, a field where it has been most successful, by applying it to the extracurricular activity of debate in higher educational communities to decipher meaning, emotion, and motivation for action that is located in the language argumentation scholars use to discuss and debate what constitutes good argumentation (p.4). The theory is applied to different aspects of debate communities. For example, Preston describes the people (students, judges, etc.) as dramatis personae, specialized intricate analysis within judging as plotlines, and a single debate round including audience as a scene (p.4). Throughout the rest of the essay, Preston continues to apply the symbolic convergence theory concepts to debate communities in order to achieve a new perspective and obtain a better understanding of the activity of debate and its future.
Endres (1997) took the symbolic convergence theory and used it as a spotlight within the interpersonal realm of communication to shine light on father-daughter relationships and how the communication within the dyad influences the daughter’s self concept and, moreover, how she communicates interpersonally with others. Endres uses fantasy theme analysis to identify and analyze popular rhetoric in regards to the relationship. He discovered four popular types through date collection of magazines, television, books, movies, etc. Endres also included forty-five daughters of the age 18 or over, who had lived with their father in the same house for at least the first 18 years of their life and asked them to respond to these dramas (p.322).
Ultimately, the results were positive and supported Endres assumptions. No contradictory types were identified, correlations between the types were low, variance explained was high, and each of the “Q-types” had its base on one of the core rhetorical visions (p.331). Endres explains a benefit of this research as, “This study goes beyond father-daughter typologies found in popular culture” (p.331).
Going back again to the realm of academia, Bullis, Putnam, and Van Hoeven (1991) found another way to apply this theory amongst the faculty and administration verses third-parties, or “outsiders.”. Their study employs symbolic convergence theory to “analyze the stories and rituals that form the shared consciousness of bargaining teams and of labor-management relationships” (p.85). They utilize a case comparison approach to identify analogous and variance within fantasy themes and “bargaining rights of two teachers' negotiation units in two school districts” (p.86). The goal of the researchers is to identify the “emotions, values, and motives” within the fantasy themes, “to ascertain the degree and nature of symbolic convergence within and between teams, and to depict the bargaining rites that characterize negotiation in each district. Finally, to examine the psychodynamic qualities of these symbols, this study makes some inferences about the way bargainers deal with their underlying differences. (p.86).
The researches put together two groups, one from each school district, that consisted of both administration and faculty members. Through observation they discovered both teams shared a common fantasy theme about another third-party. The fantasy themes contained heroes, villains, and a similar plotline. The results indicated that both groups in their respective district assembled fantasy themes that had a positive correlation. Bullis et al. (1991) stated that, “although each group fantasy referred to a different situation and a different villain, these stories contained a similar plot and functioned as fantasy types for both teams” (p.94).
We can see a sample of the few studies that symbolic convergence theory has inspired. The next section will provide a critique of the current state of the theory in regards to its application and testing.
Theory Critique
Since the theory’s birth in the 1970’s, it has evolved from its tests and applications in small group communication to other realms like organizational communication, interpersonal communication, pedagogy, theology, public relations, mass media, and incarceration communication, to name a few. Due to this expansion of symbolic convergence theory, it has become a much more enriched and viable theory. However, Since 1977, critics have made a number of charges about the usefulness of the symbolic convergence theory. Borman et al. (1994) addressed these accusations: “We have collapsed the more frequently mentioned and argued points into four indictments of symbolic convergence theory (SCT). First, SCT's proponents have not clarified the basic presuppositions that undergird the theory; second, SCT is Freudian-based and therefore applies only to small group communication; third, SCT's insights are researcher-dependent not dependent on the theory; and fourth, SCT is a relabeling of old concepts with trivial jargon that lacks precision and clarity.”
Despite these ongoing arguments about symbolic convergence theory, I feel that there is more than enough evidence to support the worth and viability of the theory.
From the classroom to theology, symbolic convergence theory has been sufficiently applied and tested. In spite of Cragan and Shields (1992) unsuccessful results, the study held merit in the application of symbolic convergence theory by testing its limits and discovering that corporate strategic planning may not be the most appropriate context in which to apply this theory. If the scholars had taken a different approach, one in which sought to merely identify the company’s rhetorical vision than change it, perhaps it would have turned out differently. To enter into a contract where an individual is expected to “turn things around” for a specific company in regards to their image and the message perceived by their consumers, other theories may be more applicable than the symbolic convergence theory. Theories like image restoration, or reasoned action would better serve their purpose. Overall, it was a good attempt and an important step for the theory.
Stone (2002), however, was exceptionally successful with applying this to academia in identifying fantasy themes of master’s students. As was Preston (2006) with debate teams, and Bullis et al. (1991) with teachers. Endres (1997) did something spectacular and successfully applied this theory to interpersonal/family communication.
Symbolic convergence theory has indeed been appropriately applied and tested within these contexts, however I think it should be even more expanded over more contexts. Other studies I found implemented this theory in the theology context, which is a unique approach to this theory, however I do not believe it appropriate even if it is applicable. A theory such as this should be kept to live interaction and not the written word. Books and other writing formats have been recorded by a subjective author with one voice and one perception. Despite the number of characters and conflicts within the pages, the theory is best applied in the now where living characters can be observed, not read about. It simply is not enough reliable information to make adequate deductions that would be beneficial to the social world. Symbolic convergence theory is a living, breathing theory and its participants should be alive as well.
Theory’s Future Directions
While this theory has had sufficient testing and application, I think it should have covered more ground considering the theory’s age. Its presence is most prominent in academia and other small group contexts, but I think it should challenge itself and go beyond small groups into larger groups like organizations, universities, and other substantial sized industries. Nearly every establishment, regardless its size, has a mission statement of some kind. I would like to see symbolic convergence theory applied internally amongst the employees and externally amongst the consumers. Furthermore, such a theory as this should have a more detectable presence in public relations and advertising.
Another avenue this theory could venture is non-profit programs, volunteer programs, and other community programs of the like where the theory can be applied to the people who participate and discern what motivated them to engage in the program. This could lead on to organ donations and other free-giving participation efforts. Looking at charities as well could contribute to the theory – a look at who donates to the charities, who works the charities, and who began the charity in identifying why these individuals partake in the charity. Such inquiries of this kind would seek to identify any rhetorical visions of the organizations and thus increase awareness of consumers’ perceptions.
This theory’s application would also be interesting to see in the realm of the media. Symbolic convergence could be identified within television programs, how the characters communicate in groups and come to develop a group consciousness. The theory could also be applied across several different programs, and compare the results against each program to see how these groups evolve, including factors like gender differences, length of time before the group consciousness is created, and other external factors. The theory could also then look at the influence that one or several specific television programs have on viewers and how the viewers identify themselves with a group within the program and how the viewers come to symbolically converge their worlds.
Lastly, this theory should take the direction of lower level academia; for instance elementary school or high school. Especially in high school when individuals are grasping for identities to implement this theory in such a way as to further identify how these individuals came to categorize or label themselves in specific groups.
Symbolic convergence theory has a strong past and bright future. Through continued critique, application, and testing, this theory will become even more enriched and manifest into one of the most salient communication theories.
References
Bormann, E., Craan, J., Sheilds, D. (1994). In defense of symbolic convergence theory: A look at the theory and its criticisms after two decades. Communication Theory, 4, 259.
Bullis, C., Putnam, L., & Van Hoeven, S. (1991). The role of rituals and fantasy themes in teachers’ bargaining. Western Journal of Communication. 55, 85-103.
Cragan, J., & Shields, D. (1992). The use of symbolic convergence theory in corporate strategic planning: A case study. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 199-218.
Endres, T. (1997). Father-daughter dramas: A Q-investigation of rhetorical visions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 317-333.
Frey, L., Gouran, D., & Poole, S. (1999). The handbook of group communication theory and research: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. (2001). Three decades of symbolic convergence theory. In W. Gudykunst (25th ed.), Communication yearbook (p.271-313) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Poole, M. S. (1996). Communication and group decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication Theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Olufowote, J. (2006). Rousing and redirecting a sleeping giant: Symbolic convergence theory and complexities in the communicative constitution of collective action. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 451-192.
Preston, T. (2006). Debating about debate: A symbolic convergence theory meta-analysis of educational reform movements in intercollegiate competitive debate. Forensic, 91, 15-26.
Stone, J. (2002). Using symbolic convergence theory to discern and segment motives for enrolling in professional master’s degree programs. Communication Quarterly, 50, 227-243.
