Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Retrospective Information

In regards to my topic of interdisciplinary tensions between communication and psychology, I believe that using an academic blog is extremely beneficial for a few reasons:

Firstly, procrastination can sometimes take priority when researching for a paper. By incorporating an academic blog, however, as I find pieces of evidence I believe are relevant to my topic, I post them and reflect on how it contributes to my paper. By the time the actual piece has to be written, I have an entire collection of thoughts, ideas, and analysis that have already been documented. With this method, I will not scramble at the last minute to try and find legitimate research and analyze the information based on a due date. I take time in gathering research I think is appropriate to prove my topic for a paper, and I truly believe that is because I use a blog.

Secondly, I really enjoy looking at other peoples' blogs to see their topics and ideas. I have typically found in previous writing classes that everybody seems to just "show up," listen to the Professor lecture, and turn in a stapled packet every couple of weeks. If students do interact, it is for brief amounts of time in the classroom. With the academic blog, however, I felt a a new feeling of interaction with my fellow classmates outside of the classroom; by commenting and suggesting possible research ideas, I was able to give and receive useful input.

I think that academic blogs are definitely beneficial and I recommend them to any upper-division writing classes!

Monday, December 3, 2007

Why Are There So Few Communication Theories?

Just when I thought my research was complete regarding the interdisciplinary tensions between psychology and communication, I found an interesting article by communication scholar Charles Berger. In "Communication Theories and Other Curios (Chataqua: Why Are There So Few Communication Theories?)", he offers reasons regarding the scarcity of communication theory because of historical legacies, methodological fixations, risk aversion, and self-selection.

Similar to previous blog posts and articles I have found, Charles believes that smaller numbers of communication theory exist because of "influences emanating from several other disciplines" (103). On a different note, however, he mentions specific reasons regarding graduate studies: "students being socialized in the field of communication are strongly encouraged to take course work in 'relevant' cognate areas... what has been sorely neglected is recognition of these interdisciplinary forays into home-grown theories of communication" (103-04). Furthermore, like Gary Radford's viewpoint concerning communication as an applied science, "if one views the communication research enterprise merely as an application, then there is no necessity for researchers to develop their own theories of communication" (103-04). If no individuality or unique ideas exist within communication, and it is only being used to support other disciplines, how will new information be discovered? It does not seem likely that relevant information will blossom. In addition to communication not being recognized as an independent discipline, the concern is also motivation to actively research.

In addition to historical reasons mentioned above, Berger also explains that even though a methodological approach of "evaluating someone else's hypotheses" has been examined within communication research, "[it] does not necessarily produce insights about communication that are commensurate with the levels of hyperbole demonstrated by their advocates" (105). Even more, "to become a well educated communication researcher is to familiarize one's self with the appropriate body of theory in related disciplines to to learn to use methodological techniques well" (106). The standards of furthering academic knowledge and research within communication seem less committed and require methods that don't institute unique individual ideas. This contributes to communication not being recognized as an independent, respectable discipline; if ideas from other subjects are being used as sole support and evidence for another subject, the point of incorporating new ideas is pointless. They are not original and barely introduce relevant information that could further academic knowledge.

Besides historical legacies and methodological reasoning, risk aversion is another reason that communication has been disregarded as a legitimate area of study. Berger explains that "the construction of a theory is a high risk venture" due to the "potential for presentation that [can] undermine one's theoretical thinking, especially in the public of domain of journals and books" (107). In terms of methodological reasoning, "it is less risky to base a research career on testing others' theories than it is to create, disseminate, and test one's own theory" (107). Communication scholars may be more concerned with their reputation and ego rather than their contribution to academic study; case in point, if communication researchers are not willing to take risks in discovering new academic avenues, recognition as a true, independent discipline will still be out of reach.

The last reason why communication theories are limited in number is due to self-selection. Berger claims that "persons who select themselves into graduate communication programs are generally those who are not motivated to develop communication theory... [they] see their education primarily as a pathway to enterprises such as teaching, organizational consulting activities, and becoming market researchers" (108). In addition to communication researchers methodologically using other theories as primary reasoning and support for their own theories, the fact that many students are hesitant to explore limitless possibilities of knowledge through theory contributes to reasons why communication is still disregarded as an accredited subject. Many students believe that the purpose of attending college is to earn the necessary skills within their discipline to eventually get a job that provides a comfortable standard of living. The small number of graduates who do choose to study theory have attitudes and educational methods that do not seem to be successfully progressive in furthering knowledge, so the entire process seems deferred.

Since beginning my research, I believe that psychology should not be to "blame" for the lack of recognition that communication has received. Instead, however, some aspects and approaches to communication theory need to be changed in order for the future of academic knowledge to really take flight. Instead of using methodological methods for support, communication theorists should resist the fears of taking chances and publish their ideas regardless. I truly believe that if we do not risk anything, we risk even more by not knowing what could have happened. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for research in communication theory!