• In “The Third Way: Scientific Realism and Communication Theory,” Communication Theory 9 (May 1999): 162-88, Charles Pavitt further clarifies—and complicates—the “scientific” approach to communication theory. 
• If you’d like to read more about Em Griffin’s view of communication research, we recommend “Journal of Communication and Religion: A State-of-the-Art Review,” Journal of Communication and Religion 21 (1998): 108-40. 
• For essays on theory and research in interpersonal communication, see Barbara Montgomery and Steve Duck, eds., Studying Interpersonal Interaction (New York: Guilford, 1991). 
• For discussion of the ways in which science is inherently interpretive or rhetorical, see:
  • Alan Gross, Joseph Harmon, and Michael Reidy, Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the Seventeenth Century to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002);
  • Charles Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge: Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988);
  • Alan G. Gross, The Rhetoric of Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990);

Differences between the interpretive and the objective perspectives on communication

• For additional discussion, see Glen McClish’ article, “Humanist and Empiricist Rhetorics: Some Reflections on Rhetorical Sensitivity, Message Design Logics, and Multiple Goal Structures,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 23 (Summer/Fall 1994): 27-45.  Because he tries to offer a way in which interpretive scholars (which he call humanists) can learn from their objective (which he call empiricist) colleagues, you may wish to revisit this article as you prepare to teach the final chapter in the book, which further explores the relationship between the two camps. 

Multiple interpretations of text

• For further discussion, see Leah Ceccarelli, “Polysemy: Multiple Meanings in Rhetorical Criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 84 (November 1998): 395-15. 

Free will and determinism

• One of the finest discussions we know of the debate over free will and determinism is William James's “The Dilemma of Determinism,” The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, 145-83.  James's analogy of the chess game between the novice and the expert demonstrates a kind of resolution or middle ground between the free will argument and the determinist argument (181-82).  The fact that James works religion into the discussion makes his position even more interesting. 

Science and subjectivity

• Two intriguing discussions of science and subjectivity are James Watson's classic expose, The Double Helix (New York: NAL, 1969), and David Raup's The Nemesis Star: A Story of the Death of Dinosaurs and the Ways of Science (New York: Norton, 1986). 

Evidence

• For discussion of the issue of what constitutes appropriate evidence in communication research, see:
  • The symposium “The Dialogue of Evidence: A Topic Revisited,” Western Journal of Communication 58 (1994): 1-71;
  • Stuart J. Sigman, “Question: Evidence of What?  Answer: Communication,” Western Journal of Communication 59 (1995): 79-84;
  • Leslie Baxter and Lee West, “On ‘Whistler's Mother’ and Discourse of the Fourth Kind,” Western Journal of Communication 60 (1996): 92-100.