AbstractThe centralargument of this paper is that the process of explanation as defined by the covering law model of science contains stringent criteria which often cannot be met by communication scientists and that an alternative model for explanation, less powerful but more obtainable‐the systems paradigm‐ought to be adopted. Four types of explanation are reviewed to provide a context for a discussion of the systems paradigm alternative: Scientific explanations, What‐explanations, Mental concept explanations, and Reason‐giving explanations.The covering law and system paradigms are compared and five criteria are established for distinguishing the two explanatory genres. Three major advantages in using the system paradigm are discussed. These include a shift in the particular sets of variables which are selected for study, an increase in the complexity of analysis which may be employed, and the ability to integrate current research into a wider perspective.The article concludes with a suggestive example of one application of theory construction utilizing the system paradigm. Propositions in small group communication are combined into a system of equations the solution of which shows the dependence of each variable on all of the other variables in the