Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory
General Purpose: The Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory explains communication as a fundamental tool of human life by contending that people in a conversation co-construct their realities and, at the same time, are shaped by the world they create.
Specific Purpose: This theory assumes that communication continues to have an impact even after the encounter is over, because that conversation affects our social realities. CMM expands on constructivism, but is focused on the perspective of communication itself rather than on what drives the creation of our social worlds.
Key terms, concepts, and definitions:
There are four main tenets that describe the Coordinated Management of Meaning. First, the experience of people in conversation is considered the main social process of our lives. This means that communication is not just the way that we describe our experiences, but rather literally shapes our experiences. Second, the manner in which people communicate is considered more crucial than the content of what is said. The way in which communicators speak and their mood and mannerisms often has more of an impact than the words spoken. Third, the behaviors of people communicating are reproduced reflexively as the conversation continues. Reflexivity refers to the process of our words being bounced, or reflected, back and in turn affecting us. Fourth, researchers of CMM view themselves as curious participants in a pluralistic world. This refers to curiosity in the changing conditions of life, being an active part of their research, and understanding that people make their own truths, so there are many of them.
In the Coordinated Management of Meaning, the meaning-making process is considered a hierarchy, with primary concerns at the top and less relevant concerns below. This hierarchy of meaning may affect the meaning-making process negatively if the different conversational partners’ hierarchies do not match up. According to CMM, there is no room for an isolated act of speech, or an element taken out of context, because everything in a conversation is connected to everything else. CMM is interpreted through our uniques stories lived and stories told, which helps us derive meaning from our experiences. The frames in which we view communication also affect how a message is interpreted.
CMM can be interpreted through 2 frames:
1) Episode: A sequence of speech acts with a beginning and an end that are held together by a story. Episodes can have different interpretations based on the relational and content dimensions.
2) Culture: Networks of shared meaning and values that provide specific interpretations of communication.
Stories lived and stories told: Stories lived are our unique life experiences, and we interpret and make sense of them through stories told, or how we talk about what we have experienced.
Frame: The lens through which you perceive a specific communication encounter, such as a cultural frame.
What does the theory do? This theory interprets communication as a vital part of human life, since we define and make meaning of our experiences through conversation. CMM can be interpreted through stories and applied to specific frames. The theory also views the way in which people communicate as often more valuable than the words said.
Where can it be applied? CMM can be applied in all communication interactions that occur in our daily lives. When you converse with another person, you are actively creating and making meaning with your social reality.
Summary source:
Pearce, W.B. (2005) The coordinated management of meaning (CMM). In W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theorizing Communication and Culture (35-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pearce, W.B. (2008) Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Exemplar articles:
Bruss, M.B., J.R. Morris, L.L. Dannison, M.P. Orbe, J.A. Quitugua, and R.T. Palacios. (2005) Food, culture, and family: Exploring the coordinated management of meaning regarding childhood obesity. Health Communication 18 (2), 155-175. doi:
Montgomery, E. (2004) Tortured families: A coordinated management of meaning analysis. Family Process 43 (3), 349-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00027.x
Specific Purpose: This theory assumes that communication continues to have an impact even after the encounter is over, because that conversation affects our social realities. CMM expands on constructivism, but is focused on the perspective of communication itself rather than on what drives the creation of our social worlds.
Key terms, concepts, and definitions:
There are four main tenets that describe the Coordinated Management of Meaning. First, the experience of people in conversation is considered the main social process of our lives. This means that communication is not just the way that we describe our experiences, but rather literally shapes our experiences. Second, the manner in which people communicate is considered more crucial than the content of what is said. The way in which communicators speak and their mood and mannerisms often has more of an impact than the words spoken. Third, the behaviors of people communicating are reproduced reflexively as the conversation continues. Reflexivity refers to the process of our words being bounced, or reflected, back and in turn affecting us. Fourth, researchers of CMM view themselves as curious participants in a pluralistic world. This refers to curiosity in the changing conditions of life, being an active part of their research, and understanding that people make their own truths, so there are many of them.
In the Coordinated Management of Meaning, the meaning-making process is considered a hierarchy, with primary concerns at the top and less relevant concerns below. This hierarchy of meaning may affect the meaning-making process negatively if the different conversational partners’ hierarchies do not match up. According to CMM, there is no room for an isolated act of speech, or an element taken out of context, because everything in a conversation is connected to everything else. CMM is interpreted through our uniques stories lived and stories told, which helps us derive meaning from our experiences. The frames in which we view communication also affect how a message is interpreted.
CMM can be interpreted through 2 frames:
1) Episode: A sequence of speech acts with a beginning and an end that are held together by a story. Episodes can have different interpretations based on the relational and content dimensions.
2) Culture: Networks of shared meaning and values that provide specific interpretations of communication.
Stories lived and stories told: Stories lived are our unique life experiences, and we interpret and make sense of them through stories told, or how we talk about what we have experienced.
Frame: The lens through which you perceive a specific communication encounter, such as a cultural frame.
What does the theory do? This theory interprets communication as a vital part of human life, since we define and make meaning of our experiences through conversation. CMM can be interpreted through stories and applied to specific frames. The theory also views the way in which people communicate as often more valuable than the words said.
Where can it be applied? CMM can be applied in all communication interactions that occur in our daily lives. When you converse with another person, you are actively creating and making meaning with your social reality.
Summary source:
Pearce, W.B. (2005) The coordinated management of meaning (CMM). In W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theorizing Communication and Culture (35-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pearce, W.B. (2008) Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Exemplar articles:
Bruss, M.B., J.R. Morris, L.L. Dannison, M.P. Orbe, J.A. Quitugua, and R.T. Palacios. (2005) Food, culture, and family: Exploring the coordinated management of meaning regarding childhood obesity. Health Communication 18 (2), 155-175. doi:
Montgomery, E. (2004) Tortured families: A coordinated management of meaning analysis. Family Process 43 (3), 349-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00027.x