Axiology has been associated with the field of philosophy, especially as it applies to describing what is valued and prescribing what ought to be valued. The later category brings axiology into the arena of ethics and morality, a traditional subdomain of philosophy.
The study of human communication necessarily includes axiology. J. Gorham wrote:
``If we believe that the study of communication is a practical endeavor -- we cannot ignore the centrality of affective objectives``
(Teaching Communication, Individual Differences in Classroom Dynamics, 1990, 210).
Affective objectives, as traditionally described and studied, focus on the student's values.
As we study the process of perception, we come across the idea that each person has a certain mental map of reality, and this map of reality is variously called a world view, a paradigm, or a perceptual filter. Each of these concepts may be defined in slightly different ways, but they share the commonality of describing a mediating variable in making interpretations about the world. The filter, for example, may be viewed as something more inclusive than a paradigm (a person's mental map of reality), because the filter includes many other factors as well, such as a person's history, educational background, family background, culture, and personal values, beliefs and attitudes. A world view includes all of these elements and more closely resembles the perceptual filter.
The idea of a paradigm was made popular by the work of Thomas Kuhn, who studies paradigms among scolarly communities. Kuhn defined paradigm as ``an implicit, unvoiced and pervasive commitment by a community of scholars to a conceptual framework`` which defines proper ways of asking questions and knowing. (in Shulman, 1986, 4).
Axiology, or the study of values, informs our study of human communication because values are often implicit, unvoiced and pervasive, values drive decision-making processes, and values define proper ways of interacting, questioning, persuing, maintaining and exiting relationships.
Some Concepts of Values
There are a few models for understanding values; the first two described here are educational models, used as taxonomies and learning hierarchies. The third model (Emb, Esp, Ena) is one which I adapted from a cultural model for the purposes of conducting my dissertation research.
The Krathwohl et al model looks at how to classify people's responses to a value based on whether they receive, respond to, value, organize their life and thinking around the value, or characterize their behavior based on a value. See below.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Affective Domain
(Krathwohl, Bloom, Masia.)
1. Receive
2. Respond
3. Value
4. Organize around a value
5. Characterized by a value
The Sydney Simon model is a revision of the Krathwohl et al taxonomy. Simon looked for a model that would be more understandable and functional for the educator, the practitioner who might actually use the taxonomy in the field. Simon has three main divisions: Choosing, Prizing, and Acting, which describe progressive development around the particular value in question. First, the person Chooses the value, then they come to Prize the value, and finally, they Act on that value.
Affective Domain by Sydney Simon:
1. Choose freely
2. Choose among alternatives
3. Choose thoughtfully and reflectively
4. Prizing
5. Publicly affirming
6. Acting
7. Acting repeatedly
Embedded-Espoused-Enacted model by Dan Fox:
This third model comes from the first three rings of the cutlural model represented at http://communication-theory.freeservers.com. This model can be used to look at values, beliefs and attitudes within an individual (as opposed to an entire organization or community). (more to come)
