TY - JOUR
AU1 - Tenenboim-Weinblatt, Keren
AU2 - Lee, Chul-joo
AB - This special issue was conceived with the aim of building original and creative intellectual bridges across multiple subfields of communication. In many ways, our field is thriving: we have strong general and specialized journals that accommodate multiple scholarly interests and approaches, global research networks that produce unprecedented cross-cultural comparative research, various programs that facilitate international exchange of scholars, and vibrant conferences that bring together researchers with increasingly diverse perspectives. The International Communication Association (ICA), for instance, consists of 33 divisions and interest groups, from the oldest Mass Communication division to the most newly born Human-Machine Communication interest group, all represented in its annual conference that constitutes a central professional ritual for many communication scholars. Yet, as most recently diagnosed by Waisbord (2019), the successful institutional structures that glue and sustain the community of communication scholars are not matched by equally strong theoretical and analytical interconnections among its multiple research clusters. Since its inception, the field of communication—mostly for the better, but also for the worse—has been characterized by plurality and lack of an intellectual core, while arguably becoming more fragmented and specialized over the years (see, among others, Berger, 1991; Pfau, 2008; Zelizer, 2016). Consequently, while scholars within ICA’s various divisions and interest groups speak to each other with ever-growing levels of precision and sophistication, they are often oblivious to related developments discussed in the conference rooms of other divisions and interest groups (Vorderer & Weinmann, 2016). Similarly, articles in communication journals tend to discuss conceptual, analytical, and empirical contributions in relation to the state-of-the-art within a specific subfield, but rarely discuss implications to other subfields or develop broader theoretical frameworks (see Holbert, 2019, for an editorial reflection on current trends and deficiencies in theory development efforts, as manifested in journal submissions and publications). This special issue proceeds from the premise that such cross-cutting discussions and integrations are crucial for theoretical innovation, for a fuller and deeper understanding of communication processes and effects, and for the field’s ability to achieve public impact. We agree with Waisbord (2019) that the purpose of such endeavors should not be to unify or discipline the field (which is neither possible nor desirable), but to build intellectual bridges through identification and synthesis of “common threads across the vastness of communication studies” (Waisbord, 2019, p. 151). As demonstrated in psychological research, the ability to integrate different identities and systems of knowledge increases creative performance (e.g. Cheng, Sanchez-Burks & Lee, 2008). In a similar vein, we strongly believe that integration efforts across different communication subfields do not suppress the productive plurality of the field, but rather open novel and creative spaces that are instrumental in moving it forward. At the same time, we are aware that the current trends, conditions, and incentive structures in the field are not conducive to such endeavors. The Journal of Communication (JOC), which continues to be committed to publishing top quality research from all parts of the field with a particular emphasis on ambitious theory development (Holbert, 2019), is a natural venue for such challenging ventures. Indeed, over the past few decades, several JOC special issues have undertaken related challenges. Most have productively focused on meta-discussions related to the past, present, and future of communication research, such as the two “Ferment(s) in the Field” special issues (edited in 1983 by George Gerbner & Marsha Siefert, and in 2018 by Christian Fuchs & Jack Linchuan Qiu), and between them the 1993 consecutive issues exploring “The Future of the Field” (eds., Mark Levy & Michael Gurevitch). Others have usefully discussed the connections between the field of communication and other disciplines (“Epistemological and Disciplinary Intersections,” 2008, ed. Michael Pfau), or explored central problems of shared interest in communication through the juxtaposition of works that addressed these topics from divergent perspectives (“Getting the Discipline in Communication with Itself,” 2016, eds., Peter Vorderer & Carina Weinmann). These various special issue projects usually had a symposium nature, with a relatively large number of short- to medium-length contributions by scholars from across the field. In this special issue, we wanted to try a somewhat different approach with the aim of advancing the actual construction of cross-field bridges and integrative frameworks within each work. Accordingly, the call we issued in December 2018 asked for full-length papers that speak across multiple subfields of communication in rigorous, original, and creative manners. We set the submission deadline to mid July 2019 with the hope that the incentive of a potential JOC publication, together with the relatively long time period between the issue of the call and the submission deadline, would create favorable conditions for developing such works. The 89 full papers we received, representing a staggering richness and quality of work across the field, confirmed the attractiveness and resonance of the call. In the process of talking with scholars during the promotion of the call, replying to inquiries about the special issue, and eventually reading the 89 submissions, however, we realized that we were a bit naïve thinking that communication scholars can simply join the ride and carve out a significant amount of time for such a project. Thus, many scholars who we know deeply care about these issues could not develop a full-length original contribution during this time frame, while a significant share of the submissions we received were either works that were apparently not initiated specifically for the special issue or works that were ideationally on track, but needed much more investment to be developed into full-blown contributions. We desk-rejected 56 submissions and sent out 33 works to external review. Of the latter, we invited revisions for 11 manuscripts and eventually accepted seven works that comprise this special issue. These seven works address the challenge of the special issue through diverse strategies. To use a metaphor from an arena of ongoing creativity and fusion, the cooking world, we can distinguish four main ways of constructing novel bridges across communication subfields: (a) new techniques; (b) new ingredients; (c) new combinations; and (d) new collaborations. Each of the contributions in this special issue predominantly belongs to one of these categories, but often also uses at least one more strategy. A first dominant strategy of building new bridges is the use of techniques that have not been previously available or sufficiently developed. The use of such new methods enables the identification of hitherto unseen interconnections and the (re)construction of new dishes. In communication research, the most notable development over the past decade has been the rise of computational methods, which play a central role in this special issue. The use of computational methods to capture difficult to observe interrelations among different subfields can be found most centrally in this special issue in the two contributions by Song, Eberl, & Eisele, and by Weber, Hopp, & Fisher. Applying topic modeling techniques for mapping topical interconnections among articles published in the field’s top journals over the past decade, Song and his colleagues challenge the fragmentation thesis underlying this special issue. Conducting simulation-based inferences for identifying the topological structure describing subdisciplinary linkage networks in communication, they reveal “a surprisingly encouraging degree of cohesion and reachability across different subfields of communication science research” (p. 327). Using a sophisticated Hidden Markov Model Approach, Weber and his colleagues analyze the dynamic–transactional relationships between news coverage and sociopolitical events within the context of moral intuitions, thereby creating new empirical and theoretical bridges among independently productive subfields of news research. A second dominant strategy is the use of new ingredients that help coalesce seemingly disparate subfields. In this special issue, Huskey and his colleagues propose a biological perspective as a connector that can organize the field around a shared empirical model which addresses the why, what, and how of various communication processes and effects. The strategy of integrating the field around a shared model has a long history in communication scholarship, starting with the Lasswell model (for a useful review of various communication models, see McQuail & Windahl, 1993). However, the biological and neuroscience perspective has not historically been an integral part of communication research. It has only recently gained considerable traction in the field, as manifested for instance in the establishment of the Communication Science & Biology interest group at ICA in 2016. However, as emphasized by Huskey et al., they do not treat the biological perspective as just another subfield, but as an integral component to human communication which helps integrate scholarship across various subfields (to stretch the cooking metaphor, it is like the Umami flavor, which has been discovered late by Western cuisine and is viewed not only as another flavor, but as one that integrates and intensifies the other flavors). It should be noted, however, that Huskey et al. acknowledge that this model might be less applicable to humanistic approaches. Another broad framework that uses new conceptual ingredients is suggested by Ramasubramanian and Banjo who revisit the distinction between critical cultural communication and media effects perspectives. While attempts at combining those perspectives are not new (see for instance George Gerbner’s epilogue to an earlier special issue; Gerbner, 1983), Ramasubramanian and Banjo’s use of an inclusivity and social justice perspective brings new life into this debate. Concepts such as intersectionality, which have not been available in earlier debates on this issue, help them build new theoretical bridges across critical cultural communication and media effects scholarship. A third important way of speaking across communication subfields is through new combinations—that is, bringing together existing ingredients and elements from various subfields to make a cohesive dish that is larger than the sum of its parts. This fusion process is especially useful for developing comprehensive frameworks for concepts that have been studied within various subfields and can benefit from an integrative conceptualization. Two such synthesis efforts are presented in this special issue: one by Boxman-Shabtai on the topic of meaning multiplicity and the other by Afifi, Basinger, and Kam on communal coping. Boxman-Shabtai carefully identifies the gaps in three approaches to meaning multiplicity within communication studies (cognitive, cultural, and speaker-centered approaches), as well as the overlaps among these approaches. Based on this analysis, she develops and empirically demonstrates an integrative analytical framework (Decoding Convergence–Divergence) that aims to bridge the divides between text-audience, denotation-connotation, and individuality-sociability in existing scholarship on meaning multiplicity. The nuanced mixed method approach used for this purpose also lets this article belong to the first category of bridging strategies (new techniques). A similarly thorough integration is offered by Afifi and her colleagues who bring together insights from various subfields—health, interpersonal, family, organizational, intercultural, and small group communication—to create a unifying model of communal coping. The resulting “Extended Theoretical Model of Communal Coping” carefully identifies and integrates the various predictors, moderators, mediators, and outcomes of communal coping, thereby both clarifying the concept and advancing future research. Scholars in subfields outside those originally drawn upon in this model might also be able to use and further develop it. For instance, the notion of communal coping may be relevant also to scholars in political communication who are interested in how communities cope with political crises and upheavals. Finally, the category of new collaborations refers to speaking across subfields not only conceptually, but also by actually bringing to the scholarly kitchen researchers from disparate parts of the field. Such an endeavor is featured in this special issue through the contribution by Walter, Marchant, and Ophir, who present the productive outcomes of collaboration between an ethnographer and two computational scientists. The type of mutual reflexivity that this collaboration has engendered is key to advancing research both within and across subfields. Notably, in this contribution to the special issue, computational science is positioned as a subfield in its own right and not only as a set of methods for bridging other subfields. This corresponds to the recent institutionalization of computational communication research, as manifested, for instance, in the establishment of an ICA interest group in 2016 and a specialized journal in 2019 (see van Atteveldt et al., 2019). Generally, our approach in this special issue was to not impose a predetermined definition and configuration of communication subfields. We chose to accept, on the one hand, the self-organized structure of the field (as seen in communication associations and journals), and, on the other hand, well-argued definitions and structures suggested by the contributors to this special issue. Accordingly, the seven contributions in this special issue offer not only various types of bridges across subfields, but also a variety of more or less explicit definitions and configurations of the subfields themselves (albeit with significant overlaps). Overall, 25 scholars from six countries contributed to this special issue (excluding the co-editors). Throughout the reviewing and decision-making process, we were mindful of structural inequalities shaping both the original set of submissions and those works that successfully went through all stages of the review process. While we believe that this awareness was important in some decision points, we also realize its severe limitations within the conditions and norms structuring the JOC editorial process, as well as our own blind spots. An examination of the diversity of contributing scholars, based on information provided by the authors as part of the submission or on their professional websites, suggests a mixed bag: On the one hand, there is a relatively encouraging level of gender diversity. Women are first authors of three of the seven works, and overall, 56% of the authors are women (14/25). For comparison, in the 1983 JOC special issue “Ferment(s) in the Field,” less than 15% of the contributing authors were women (6/41). On the other hand, contributors still come from a limited geographical range. In line with previous data on the geographical composition of articles published in JOC (Walter, Cody, & Ball-Rokeach, 2018; Waisbord, 2019), only 28% of the authors (7/25) in this special issue are affiliated with non-United States (US) universities (in Austria, Israel, Netherlands, Singapore, and the United Kingdom) and a similar share of the articles (2/7) are first-authored by scholars outside of the US. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that at least 44% of the contributing authors (11/25) have more complex national-geographical identities, involving different nationalities than current academic affiliations, experiences of personal and family migration that have contributed to scholarly identities, and academic degrees from more than one country. The co-editors of this special issue can also be added to this hybrid group, as both of us obtained our PhDs from the US and returned to our countries of origin. From one perspective, this trend can be interpreted as further supporting the colonization critique on the production of knowledge, as some socialization in a US or in a few selected Western European universities seems to substantially increase the chances to publish in journals such as JOC. From another perspective, it can be also argued that such bi-cultural academic identities, when integrated, are particularly conducive for tasks that involve the need to speak across disparate scholarly traditions (see Cheng et al., 2008, on the relationship between identity integration and creative performance). Finally, this special issue would not have been possible without the 88 reviewers who invested their invaluable time and expertise to provide insightful, constructive, and at times repeated assessments, and without the continuous support, guidance and trust of Editor-in-Chief Lance Holbert. We hope this special issue will be worth the effort and trust placed in it by our community by contributing to theory building and stimulating new conversations across its different subfields. References Berger C. R. ( 1991 ). Communication theories and other curios (Chautauqua: Why are there so few communication theories?) . Communication Monographs , 58 ( 1 ), 101 – 113 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Cheng C. Y. , Sanchez-Burks J., & Lee F. ( 2008 ). Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration . Psychological Science , 19 ( 11 ), 1178 – 1184 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Gerbner G. ( 1983 ). The importance of being critical—in one’s own fashion . Journal of Communication , 33 ( 3 ), 355 – 362 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Holbert R. L. ( 2019 ). Editorial vision, goals, processes, and procedures . Journal of Communication , 69 ( 3 ), 237 – 248 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat McQuail D. , & Windahl S. ( 1993 ). Communication models for the study of mass communications (2nd ed.). New York and London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pfau M. ( 2008 ). Epistemological and disciplinary intersections . Journal of Communication , 58 ( 4 ), 597 – 602 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat van Atteveldt W. , Margolin D., Shen C., Trilling D., & Weber R. ( 2019 ). A roadmap for computational communication research . Computational Communication Research , 1 ( 1 ), 1 – 11 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Vorderer P. , & Weinmann C. ( 2016 ). Getting the discipline in communication with itself . Journal of Communication , 66 ( 2 ), 211 – 214 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Waisbord S. ( 2019 ). Communication: A post-discipline . Cambridge : Polity Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Walter N. , Cody M. J., & Ball-Rokeach S. J. ( 2018 ). The ebb and flow of communication research: Seven decades of publication trends and research priorities . Journal of Communication , 68 ( 2 ), 424 – 440 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Zelizer B. ( 2016 ). Communication in the fan of disciplines . Communication Theory , 26 ( 3 ), 213 – 235 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Communication Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Speaking Across Communication Subfields
JF - Journal of Communication
DO - 10.1093/joc/jqaa012
DA - 2020-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/speaking-across-communication-subfields-gH5wJeXn4A
SP - 303
EP - 309
VL - 70
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -