International Communication

Topics: Communication, Sociology, International Communication Association Pages: 21 (6561 words) Published: June 20, 2013
Communication As a Field and Discipline

Robert T. Craig
University of Colorado at Boulder
Robert.Craig@Colorado.edu

Word Count: 6,121 (A+ Length)

The editorial structure of the International Encyclopedia of Communication offers one view on the present state of communication as an academic field. The 29 editorial areas range in scope from micro-analysis of individual behavior (e.g., (Information Processing and Cognition) to macro-analysis of communication institutions on societal and international scales (e.g., (International Communication). Editorial areas also range across modes of inquiry including those of quantitative social science (e.g., (Media Effects), interpretive social science (e.g., (Language and Social Interaction), critical and cultural studies (e.g. (Feminist and Gender Studies), humanities (e.g., (Rhetorical Studies), applied professions (e.g., (Journalism), and such varied other inter-disciplines as (media history, (media economics, and communication and media law and policy. As these examples suggest, the field of communication is highly diverse in methods, theories, and objects of study. What, if anything, unites the field as a coherent entity? What warrants bringing together such an apparently eclectic group of topics and approaches in a single reference work? Presumably, as the encyclopedia’s title indicates, the common focus is on ‘communication.’ But what is the nature of that common focus? Is communication merely a nominal theme that loosely connects a series of otherwise unrelated disciplines and professions? Is communication truly an interdisciplinary field in which progress in knowledge is only possible through close cooperation and synergy among several distinct disciplines composing the field? Is communication actually (despite its apparent fragmentation), or at least potentially, the object of a distinct intellectual discipline in its own right? Might each of these interpretations of the field be true in some respects? Three editorial areas overview the field as a whole and are, therefore, potentially helpful for illuminating its disciplinary identity and coherence: (Communication Theory and Philosophy, (Research Methods, and the subject of the present entry, Communication as a Field and Discipline. Whereas the first two editorial areas examine, respectively, theories and methods, Communication as a Field and Discipline is concerned with the historical development and academic-professional institutionalization of communication studies. It includes entries covering the history of the field, professional organizations and issues, and the current state of communication research and education in geographical regions around the globe. Where the question of communication’s disciplinary coherence is concerned, these institutional and professional aspects of the communication field also touch on matters of theory and methodology.

History of the Communication Field
The English word communication derives from Latin and originally referred to acts of sharing or making common but without the distinctively modern emphasis on communication as a process of sharing symbols, information and meaning. Those modern senses of the word can be traced back through a long “spiritualist” tradition (Peters 1999) to ancient and early Christian eras in the West but emerged toward their current prominence in ordinary English discourse only from the late nineteenth century. Around the same time, academic studies of communication began to appear on scattered topics such as transportation systems, crowd behavior, community, and newspapers, with important work being done in Germany, France, and the USA. By the post-World War II period in which communication research began to be recognized as a distinct academic field, the ordinary concept of communication had evolved rich connotations related to semantics, therapy and human relations, interaction and social influence, mass communication, and...

References: Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, England & Bristol, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Beniger, J. R. (1988). Information and communication. Communication Research, 15, 198-218.
Beniger, J. R. (1990). Who are the most important communication theorists? Communication Research, 17, 698-715.
Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119-161.
Craig, R. T. (2007). Pragmatism in the field of communication theory. Communication Theory, 17(2), 125-145.
Craig, R. T., & Carlone, D. A. (1998). Growth and transformation of communication studies in U.S. higher education: Towards reinterpretation. Communication Education, 47(1), 67-81.
Deetz, S. A. (1994). Future of the discipline: The challenges, the research, and the social contribution. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 17 (pp. 565-600). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dervin, B. (Ed.). (2006). The strengths of our methodological divides: Five navigators, their struggles and successes [special issue]. Keio Communication Review, 28, 5-52.
Dervin, B., Grossberg, L., O 'Keefe, B. J., & Wartella, E. (Eds.). (1989). Rethinking communication (2 volumes). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Donsbach, W. (2006). The identity of communication research. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 437-448.
Gerbner, G. (Ed.). (1983, Summer). Ferment in the field [special issue]. Journal of Communication, 33(3), 1-368.
Hawkins, R. P., Wiemann, J. M., & Pingree, S. (Eds.). (1988). Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leung, K. W. Y., Kenny, J., & Lee, P. S. N. (Eds.). (2006). Global trends in communication education and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Levy, M. R., & Gurevitch, M. (Eds.). (1993). The future of the field--Between fragmentation and cohesion [special issues]. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 1-238 and 43(4), 1-190.
Machlup, F. (1982). Knowledge: Its creation, distribution, and economic significance. Volume II: The branches of learning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McMahan, D. T. (2004). What we have here is a failure to communicate: Linking interpersonal communication and mass communication. Review of Communication, 4, 33-56.
Paisley, W. (1984). Communication in the communication sciences. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 5) (pp. 1-43). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Peters, J. D. (1986). Institutional sources of intellectual poverty in communication research. Communication Research, 13, 527-559.
Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Putnam, L. L. (2001). Shifting voices, oppositional discourse, and new visions for communication studies. Communication Theory, 51, 38-51.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • International Communication Association Essay
  • Varying Definitions of Online Communication Essay
  • health communication by Shiromoni Bhuyan Essay
  • Essay about Development Communication
  • Mobile Communication in Romantic Relationships Essay
  • Book Review: Human Communication as Narration (by Walter Fisher) Essay
  • Master of Arts in Global Communication Essay
  • Essay on Nonverbal Communication

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free