Coordinated Management of Meaning is one of the few theories to place communication explicitly as a cornerstone in its foundation. Because communication is central to the theory, many scholars have employed the theory in their writings. Among the criteria for evaluating a theory, four seem especially relevant for discussion: scope, parsimony, utility, and heurism.

Scope

It is unclear whether CMM is too broad in scope. Some communication scholars (e.g., Brenders, 1987) suggest that the theory is too abstract and that imprecise definitions exist. Further, Brenders believes that some of the ideas espoused by Pearce and Cronen lack parameters and beg clarification. The introduction of personal language systems, argues Brenders, is problematic and “leaves unexplained the social nature of meaning” (p. 342). Finally, M. Scott Poole (1983), in his review of CMM, notes that the theory may be problematic in that it is difficult to “paint with broad strokes and at the same time give difficult areas the attention they deserve” (p. 224).

Yet CMM theorists contend that such criticisms do not take into account the evolution of the theory and its refinement over the years (Barge & Pearce, 2004). Pearce and Cronen believe that many critics forget that they were trained within the empiricist tradition (see Chapter 4). Therefore, their earlier discussions of the theory were rooted in this heritage. Pearce (1995) candidly admits that during “the first phase of the CMM project, [our writings] were confused because we used the language of interpretive social science. . . . Only as we continued to refine our thinking did we discover . . . that we could not say what we were doing in the language of social science” (pp. 109-110). Therefore, critics should interpret the theory within the spirit of change; even theorists change as they clarify the goals of their theory. Further, Cronen (1995b) admits some early problems with the conceptualization of CMM by indicating that the way he and Pearce discussed the creation of meaning was originally confusing and “wrong-headed.” Pearce, Cronen, and other CMM theorists believe that those who levy indictments regarding the scope of the theory should understand the time period in which the theory was developed.

Parsimony

The scope may be broad, which may suggest that the theory is not parsimonious. J. Kevin Barge and W. Barnett Pearce (2004) underscore the potential difficulty in simplicity by noting that CMM “is better understood as a worldview and open-ended set of concepts and model” (p. 25). They go on to say that “there is no reason why any research method could not be used in CMM research” (p. 25). It’s plausible to suggest, then, that the theory may warrant more attention in order to pass the test of parsimony. One could argue, however, that Pearce and Cronen’s illustration of the hierarchy of meaning is one visual and succinct way of looking at conversations. Therefore, a potentially cumbersome discussion can be avoided.

Utility

The application of this theory to individuals and their conversations is very apparent. The practicality of looking at how people achieve meaning, their potential recurring conflicts, and the influence of the self on the communication process is admirable. CMM is one of the few communication theories that has been identified by both theorists and CMM scholars as a “practical theory” (Barge, 2004).

Heurism

CMM is a very heuristic theory, spanning a number of different content areas, including examining community and municipal groups (Dillon & Galanes, 2002; Pearce & Pearce, 2001), refugee families (Montgomery, 2004), consumer research technology (Buttle, 1994), and the Chinese culture (Jia, 2001). Further, researchers have incorporated the theory and its tenets to understand conflict (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997), managerial leadership (Barge, 2004), domestic violence (Sundarajan & Spano, 2004), and families who have been tortured or persecuted across cultures (Montgomery, 2004).

Thanks in large part to CMM, we have a deeper understanding of how individuals co-create meaning in conversations. Further, the theory has aided us in understanding the importance of rules in social situations. Critics may continue to indict the theory, but few can deny that CMM positioned communication at the core of human experience. That puts the theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning “firmly in the world it describes” (Anderson, 1996, p. 209).