The disclosure or concealment of information could lead to varied outcomes some of which are positive, while others are negative. However, the nature of the information and its perceived importance on the part of the disclosee determines the kind of impact. To ensure that the discloser’s interests are protected, privacy boundaries are established. The recipient of private information is granted a co-ownership status but is required to refrain from disclosure. In this regard, the disclosee enjoys protection from, for instance, manipulation through blackmail or defaming, in the event that private information is revealed. The communication privacy management (CPM) theory addresses such situations whereby individuals have the advantage of determining the delicate nature of disclosed information in turn controlling when and how it should be revealed, if ever. However, an inconsistency with privacy boundaries, as the core principle of CPM, is that they might prevent disclosure of vital information which could have catastrophic outcomes if not revealed. Such a scenario raises questions about when privacy boundaries should be established and if, based on context, are legitimate. A scenario could involve a situation whereby an individual has a contagious disease and shares the knowledge with a family member or friend. In such a case, disclosing such information could lead to the individual being stigmatized or discriminated against. However, concealing could expose others to the risk of contamination in the event they come into contact with the infected individual. Nevertheless, a discussion of CPM theory demonstrates that its applicability is context-based. The paper discusses the application of CPM theory in information management focusing on its implications depending on context.
Theoretical Discussion
CPM theory falls under the interpretive/ constructivist research paradigm. Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) explained that under the said paradigm, “Every effort is made to try to understand the viewpoint of the subject being observed, rather than the viewpoint of the observer. Emphasis is placed on understanding the individual and their interpretation of the world around them” (p. 33). To justify that CPM theory falls within the interpretive/constructivist paradigm, there is a need to look at its key features. Elaborating on CPM theory, Hooper (2017) noted that it contains five components. The first component is that an individual defines his or her private and personal information. In this respect, one has a sense of ownership. Secondly, one has the right to regulate the information thereby deciding whether it should be disclosed or not. Thus, one can notice that CPM theory focuses on the subjective experience of the disclosee whereby emphasis is placed on what information one considers private. In this regard, the interpretive/constructive paradigm is likely to help understand how different contexts influence individuals in terms of distinguishing private from public information based on their own subjective experiences.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Chennamaneni and Taneja (2015) corroborated the second component explaining that individuals are accorded the right to regulate their information to protect themselves from various risks such as exploitation by others. They noted that “Because of the inherent risk involved in disclosure, individuals weigh both costs and benefits of disclosure and erect boundaries around what information they consider private or public” (Chennamaneni & Taneja, 2015, p. 2). Therefore, regulating acts as a safeguard for those who do not want their private information disclosed. The third component is that individuals control their own private information through establishing privacy rules which are used to manage or prohibit the co-owner of similar information from disclosing it to another party. The implication is that the primary owner of the information sets the conditions that control how particular private information will be handled (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2019). Thus far, these components demonstrate the overbearing authority that the discloser of information has towards ensuring that his or her private information is protected from disclosure.
Fourthly, CPM implies that a shared privacy boundary exists between the disclosee and the recipient of disclosed information. Consequently, both parties claim ownership of the shared privacy boundaries thereby demanding mutual management of whatever information the disclosee wants concealed (Hooper, 2017). The privacy boundaries function as control elements which manage both communication and dissemination of information through the development of communication guidelines. Lastly, the fifth component under CPM theory is that in the event of shared boundaries, information and communication are managed through coordination of boundaries (Hooper, 2017). Based on information gathered, the key terms of CPM are: disclosure, private information, co-ownership, privacy boundaries, and regulation.
Additionally, an exploration of the theory’s axiological, ontological, and epistemological assumptions could help reveal its strengths and weaknesses. Axiologically, CPM assumes that the discloser’s subjective experience is true and that ontologically, individuals form reality based on experience. Thus, the ontological assumption is that the discloser can narrate his or her experience thereby shaping the recipient’s perception of reality. Epistemologically, CPM implies that the recipient knows information based on the discloser’s narrative. The strength is that CPM allows for the discloser the opportunity to tell his or her experiences without influence thereby managing external control (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2019). However, a major weakness is that the narrated experience could be manipulated. There is no way to ascertain the discloser’s credibility when it comes to ensuring that information given is true and hence requiring protection based on its supposed privacy. Thus, the assumptions demonstrate that human communication is the outcome of individual influence whereby one determines what and how information should be disclosed. Consequently, the recipient’s experience is based on the discloser’s appeal to the truth in disclosed information, but this cannot be ascertained.
Synthesis of Scholarship
The comparison and contrast organizing scheme is appropriate for the topic in question. Based on information given above, one can notice that the truth or lack thereof of information is context contingent. Therefore, a more informed analysis of the implications of CPM theory on communication will be effective through comparing and contrasting situations. The aim is to determine how different contexts influence the need for establishing privacy boundaries or deciding that they are not needed at all. The idea is to demonstrate whether the truth, under CPM theory and as a vital element in human communication, is context specific or not. Researchers Petronio and Venetis (2017) discussed CPM theory focusing on two factors, health and risk messaging. The authors explained that in the healthcare setting, physicians alongside other medical staff might find themselves in issues regarding their duty protect patient information. A risk might arise from a patient’s expectations of the co-ownership of information shared with healthcare providers. Due to the kind of closeness shared between patients and physicians, some physicians are likely to “… blur the co-ownership of privacy boundary lines with patients and experience privacy management predicaments” (Petronio & Venetis, 2017, p. 14). Expanding on this particular issue, Petronio, Helft and Child (2013) focused on the disclosure of error in the healthcare setting. The authors noted that “… there may be an ethical conflict between how a personal privacy boundary is drawn and how the clinician’s professional, co-owned patient privacy boundary is drawn” (Petroni, Helft & Child, 2013, p. 176). Their finding demonstrates that physicians find difficulty in defining their obligations as co-owners of the privacy boundaries with patients. Thus, in the context of healthcare, the implication is that the patient’s expectation of the physician’s responsibility to remain loyal to the co-ownership of information can undermine the latter party’s professional obligations.
In a different context, Herman and Tenzek (2017) discussed how communication privacy management is used in revelation and concealment of eating disorders in an online community. The authors explored various themes one of them being that communication choices are contingent on an individual’s desire to satisfy face-to-face needs and experience positive fulfillment when interacting online. Additionally, the authors also focused on personal ownership and control addressing methods that individuals use to maintain control (Herman & Tenzek, 2017). Based on the nature of the themes in question, one can notice that individuals disclose information with certain pre-set expectations. Fulfilment of face-to-face needs and positive online experiences are some of the conditions that individuals have. Expanding the discussion at hand, Lee and Song (2016) evaluated the user’s intention in managing privacy in online social networks. One of the findings was that some respondents were unwilling to communicate while others were willing to disclose information. They explained that unwillingness to communicate was associated with two key factors which are reward and approach-avoidance (Lee & Song, 2016). Accordingly, their research implies that a user’s decision to communicate was contingent on the potential reward that one would receive. In contrast, approach-avoidance refers to an individual’s fear of interpersonal interactions due to uncertainty and anxiety. The finding supports both themes that Herman and Tenzek (2017) addressed in their article. One can notice that the motivation to disclose is contingent on what reward one is likely to receive as well as the desire to maintain control of what information is made accessible to others.
The literature discussed above represents two contexts, one is the healthcare setting, while the other is communication via online social platforms. Petronio and Venetris (2017) explained that patients tend to have an overbearing expectation on physicians when it comes to confidentiality. They expect physicians to remain protective of any health information that one might consider private and would not want disclosed. However, while physicians are co-owners of shared privacy boundaries, their role is somewhat limited. They face various issues especially when a patient’s health information demands one, for instance, to discuss it with a family member. Some diseases require healthcare providers to assess the client’s family history to identify where it is based on genetics or if some other factor caused it. Doing so would help the physician make better treatment decisions. However, under CPM theory, the patient might not wish to have the physician discuss his or her condition with a family member or close relative. While it is the obligation of the responsibility to provide safe and quality care, the patient’s expectations in managing their private health information undermines such kind of obligation. Therefore, even if the physician discloses the patient’s information, he or she would not be sued for violation of confidentiality. However, when it comes to online social networks, the individual has the power to determine privacy of information. Unlike in healthcare settings, online users can manipulate information determining which is private and which is not. As Lee and Kong (2016) explained, online users disclose information based on what kind of reward they are likely to realize as well as how revealing the information will affect one’s online experience.
Conclusion
Communication plays a vital role in the society as it provides individuals with an opportunity to exchange views. However, a discussion of CPM theory demonstrates that individuals have the ability to manipulate the reality when they determine what information is private thus preventing disclosure. In this regard, they influence the recipient’s experience of reality as one is not certain whether disclosed information is true or not. Nonetheless, the context within which one is in determines how information will be managed. In the healthcare setting, the patient might not have full control of information as the physician, based on professional responsibility, might be required to disclose it. However, when it comes to online interactions, a user is able to control what information he or she considers private and hence not eligible for disclosure.
References
Chennamaneni, A. & Tanjea, A. (2015). Communication privacy management and self-disclosure on social media: A case of Facebook . Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ef3/0b61775be10b973ac4f31d9b85bc2b4d4a22.pdf
Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2019). A first look at communication theory . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Herman, A. R., & Tenzek, K. E. (2017). Communication privacy management: a thematic analysis of revealing and concealing eating disorders in an online community. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication,18 (1), 54-63. doi:10.1080/17459435.2017.1294617
Hooper, A. (2017). An investigation of the role communication privacy management theory has in the development of social media policies. The Sport Journal . Retrieved from https://thesportjournal.org/article/an-investigation-of-the-role-communication-privacy-management-theory-has-in-the-development-of-social-media-policies/
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education,6 (5), 26. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
Lee, K., & Song, I. (n.d.). Exploring the relationship between user’s intention to manage privacy in OSN and the factors of communication under distress. IConference 2016 Proceedings . doi:10.9776/16302
Petronio, S., Helft, P. R., & Child, J. T. (2013). A case of error disclosure: a communication privacy management analysis. Journal of public health research , 2 (3), e30. doi:10.4081/jphr.2013.e30
Petronio, S., & Venetis, M. K. (2017). Communication Privacy Management Theory and Health and Risk Messaging. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication . doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.513
