International Communication
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
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
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.