Our precise definition allows us to include phenomena as well as to exclude
phenomena. A definition (such as ours) of a phenomenon central to a discipline
such as communication may diminish or exclude some phenomena in two ways:
by saying that something isn’t the concept being defined, or that a characteristic
isn’t an intrinsic part of the phenomena being defined, decreasing its importance
to the definition and to the field, while not excluding it. A precise definition may
not explicitly include a number of phenomena of potential interest to communication
scholars, while being consistent with less inclusive definitions often used
in the field of Communications. Unlike some other definitions, our model suggests
that a wide range of phenomena can be viewed as part of a communicative
system, but are not necessarily part of communication. For example, given the
characteristics of communication described above, this page does not communicate
with the reader, but we might say that the author is communicating with the
reader. Characteristics of communication, such as intention, aren’t included directly
in the proposed definition; it isn’t excluded, but it isn’t explicitly included
either. The definition discussed here is more inclusive than most other definitions,
while at the same time having more rigor than most. This increases our understanding
of communication, and can lead to a more stable foundation for the art and science underlying the information and communication professions, including
librarianship.