8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

1/8

8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

2/8

8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

3/8

80

JEFFERSOy

D.

POOLEY

A7’D

H

AiD

V

PARK

CO\IMIJ\1CATIQN

RESEARCH

81

tte itio

devo

cd t North

America

and

western

Fuiope

 764

Our analysis

 f he

published

hi

t

riography

supports their

claims—resoundingly.

Our

procedure

wa s

to

tag

bibliograpf

ic entries

bs

geograp iy.

ii the

location

f the

research

episode. institute

tradition, or

scholar

undei study

wa s specified

or

obvious, lo

merit

a geograph

ic

tue.

the

place-relevance had

t o h e

sustained

and

substantial.

For e\ample.

Thomas

J.

Roach’s

2001 hrief

history

of popular

and

scholarix

fears of

media

potencx

touches on

a number

of

American and

German

examples—inciuding

a

paragraph

on

Elihu

Katz and

Paul I,azarsfeld’s

1955

Decatur. Illinois stud —hut

did not

receive

a

geographic

tag.

By

conttrast. \‘ung-i-lo Im’s

1993

histoty of

critical cornmunjcation

studies

in

 

980s South

Korea

was tagged.

since

its

geographic

context was

unmistakable.

Regional

tags

 like

“Europe”

or “I atm

America”

were

used

when

historians framed

their studies

in these

terms, The

relatively

few

attempts

to

draw

an

international history

of the field

were

tagged

“international,”

We

expected

the

English-language

historiographical

literature to

favor

the

Angiophone

world.

hut

were

not

prepared

for

the dramatic

imbalances

we

found.

Taken

together.

the

United

States and

Lnited

Kingdom

were tagged

more

than

twice as

often

as

the

rest of the

\sorld

com

bined. The

inequality

was

far more pronounced

in

the case of

developing

countries: the United

States

and

United

Kingdom

were tagged

14 limes as often as

the

entire

global South.

Put another

way.

more

than

half

55 percent.

or 906

entriest

of all

studies

focused on

the United

States,

the

United Kingdom.

or both

countries.

If

Canada

and Australia

are

included,

the total

rises

to

1.107

entries, or more

than 60

percent

of the total,

And the global

South?

Less than 4

percent—a

mere

65

entries—covered

historical topics

in

the

developing

world,

The breakdown

by

continent followed

the

same pattern. North America countries

 compris

ing.

foi

our

purposes,

Canada and the United

States were

tagged in

oxer half

 51

percent the

studies.

The

great

bulk of these—756.

in

fact—treated

U.S

topics. Canada’s

relatively high

97

citation count was

dominated by

work on just

two

scholars,

Harold

Adam lnms

and Marshall

McLuhan:

three-quarters

of Canada-tagged

publications

focused on

o ne o r both

of the medium

analysts.

Just

over a fifth 01

percent

of total entries

were

tagged for

European

states

or

Europe as

a

whole.

Europe’s

358

citations paled

relative

t o the

United

States.

hut

still far outpaced

the

rest of

the world. Britain

was

most

frequently

tagged—at

150 studies

 9 percent —and

more

than half

 53 percent,

or 79

entries

dealt

with the country

s cultural

studies tradition.

Germany registered

104

tags

 6

percent .

most

often

paired

 23

times with

Frankfurt School

themes

France trailed

Germany with

just

24 tagged

publications, most

frequently overlapping

 five

times with entries

on film

theory There

was a large

drop-off

after

Austria

 21

entries , with

no single

country top

ping Finland’s six

citations.

Southern and

Eastern

Europe

were relatively

neglected.

meriting

just

  7

citations

in

total.

Latin America

including Mexico.

the

Caribbean.

and

Cemra]

America—was tagged

in

onE

2 percent

of the bihliograph

‘sentries.

About a

fifth of the articles six

entries>

treated

Latin

American

scholars’

prominent roles in

the challenge

to the

prevailing.

US-centric

international

communication

subfield in the

I Q6Os and   970s.

Alejandro

Barranquero 2011 ,

fur

example,

reconstructs a

Latin American

“participatory

communication

paradigni’

first

articulated

in

schol

ars’ published

quarrel with

the reigning

modernization

paradigm. A

number

of other

studies

review the

contributions of

critical

I

atm

American

scholars like

Jesus MartIn-Barhero

Néstor

Garela-Canclmi,

and Ludovico

Silsa

 Berry 2006;

S7urmuk

and Waishord

2011;

Calles-Santil

lana 2006

The

outline of

an

institutional

history of

Latin

American

communication

research

can he stitched

together from

work

by

José de

Melo

 1993 .

Claudio

Mellado

 2011 .

and

Carlos

Gomez-Palacio

Campos

 1989 .

The

history

of Asian communication

research

barely

registers,

garnering

just

over  

percent

of

stud

c.

.Of

the

23

citations,

just eight address pan-Asian themes—  a

fact noted

as well by Chen

Miyaha

a

a d

K’m

in

this

volume

One,

a

book-length,

UNESCO-sponsored report

by Ronny

dhikary’t

 1983 ,

documents the problematic dependence

of

Southeast Asian scholars on

“US-

originated

communication anowledge

—in

part

owing

to

Asian scholars’

U.S.

graduate training.

This

point

 

echoed

in

a

literature review on

Asian

political coinmLinication

research

 Willnat

mid

Ats

200-h. The world’s

  st populous nation

merits

just

six entries, including

a

meta-review

of

Internat

research

 Kluver

and Yang

2005 .

an autobiographic

reflection

on teaching in Hong

Kong

 and Austria

and

Canada Reisenleitner 2002 .

a

memorial essay

on U.S.

scholar Herbert

Schiller

rt’

ith

reflections on

the

Chinese

academy Zhao

2001 .

and

an

important

discussion

of

“academ’c

dependency and the lack

of

theorizing in

research works

from

outside the

Western

world”

 Wang

2011,

1461 .

India

has

just

two entries, including Anup Dhar’s

 2011

fascinating

account

of

institutional f lu x in

the country s communication research

fields, Japan

is

limited

to

a

mere

three

studies, including

Seijiro

Tsukamoto’s  2006

explanation for the placement of jour

nalism

eth,c

within Japanese

legal

studies,

It

is

a

grim

reflection

of Africa’s

global marginality

t ha t t he entire continent warranted just

six

bibliographic

entries—not

even one-half of   percent of

the

entries

in our

bibliography.

Kevan

Tomaselli

 1995

t.

in

one paper,

traces the uptake of

Marxist

cultural theory in the anti-colonial

work

of

scholar-activists like

Frantz

Fanon.

Frank

Ugboajah

 1987 .

in another

study. reviews

and

cnitique

Western

influence

on

African communication

scholars, Ugboajah

points to

the

pau

city

of

natively

trained researchers, poor

funding

prospects, and weak institutional support. “So.

for

communication

researchers

in

Africa,’

he concludes,

“the story

is

one of

despondency and

endle

s

frustration”

 10 .

in

the African case, we

find

the

same

pattern as in

Asia and Latin America—only more so.

How

can

we explain

this gross

imbalance

in historiographical

treatment’? One

explanation. no

doubt.

is language:

by limiting

our

analysis to

English.

we

have cut ourselves

off from the bulk

of

scholarship

in regions that

tend not

to publish

in the

scholarly world’s aspiring lingua franca:

Southern and Eastern Europe. the

Francophone

universe,

and much

of Asia. It is also

true

that

communication

research.

in

its various incarnations,

was earlier and more

widely established in

Europe

and the United

States,

Indeed,

a

substantial proportion

of the

historiograph

coming

out

of the

global

South

is

devoted to

what

might be

termed “intellectual

colonization, alongside

indigenous push-hack.

Still,

disparities

in

age and

institutional

scale between

the

communication

disciplines in

Western

Europe

and

North America,

on the

one hand,

and

the rest

of

the

world,

on the other. cannot

explain the immense width

of

this

historiographical

chasm. We

suspect

that the

e is

also

a

Matthew effect at

work, by

which established

clusters of historical research

attract still

more interest—not least because

certain nan’ative

sign-posts, like Paul Lazarsfeld’s

“limited effects”

findings.

are good to

teach with. Regardless

of the

reasons.

it seems reasonable

to

conclude,

for

now

at

least. that

John Downing’s

claim

about media

theorizing

also applies

to

the

field’s historiography: “an intellectual monologue

within the

mainstream West with

itself’

tl996.

xi. John

Sinclair’s

engagement

with

the

notion of”cultural

imperialism” in this

solume

exphcitix

sets

out to

expand that cons ersation to Latin

America.

India. and China.

FIGURES

The

geographic

disparities we found in

the literature

as a

whole

were.

not

surprisingly,

reflected

in

those

works centered on

o ne o r

more indis

iduals, Over

75

percent—or

177

scholars—were

tagged

with

US

affiliations,

North

American

and West er n

European

scholars.

taken together.

made

up

over 95 percent of

the 229

tagged

names. Only’

nine figures outside the

West received

8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

4/8

82 JEFFERSOs

D.

POOLEY  

DAV1D\\.

PARK

COMMUNICATION

RESEARCH 83

treatment

substantial

enough

to merit

a tag. and

of these

onI. fis e— —Fanon.

Silva.

Martin—Barbero,

Canclini,

and Faut

Firat— hailed from

the developing

world

For

an

entry to

ieceive

a

named tag, the

study needed to

mai

itain

 

preponderant focus on

the

c1iolar in

question In

most

cases, the

individual was

named in the

title, or else

called out

prominently in

the abstract.

Em cxample.

David

Riesiran and

his Lonely

Crowd

 1950

a rc t he

main

focus

of Eugene

Lunn’s

 1990>

discussion

of

the

l950s

mass culture

debate, s o t he entry

va

s

tagged

for   ie

man

But

the tag

was left off

of Abraham Nosnik’s 19561

dis,ertation

on

communication research

and the

philosophy of science, since only passing reference

to

Riesman

is made.

In

most cases, a

scholar

was identified

with

a single nation-state, based

on the setting

of

his

or

her career.

Multiple

national affiliations

were

assigned, however,

if

a

scholar’s principal work

was

produced in

more

than

one

country.

Nazi-era

emigré

Siegfried

Kracauer,

for example, wa s

identified with both

Germany and

the United

States, since he wrote

major film

theory

before

and

after

his emigration.

The

idea here

is not

to

“claim”

scholar’

for one or

more national traditions

in

any

essential

way.

but instead to

measure

relative

geographic

attention i n the

published

history.

Of t he t op twenty-five

most frequently

tagged

figures.

eighteen

were based

in

the

United

States.

Four

of these eighteen

were

also

identified with Germany.

all

interwar

émigrés:

Theodor

Adorno

 13

citations

Kurt Lewin

 1 2 . M ax Horkheimer

 9 , and

Kracauer  16 . The

other

Germany-linked

scholar

in

the

top

25

was Friedrich

Kittler  14 . whose

theory-inflected media

histories

have only

recently attracted

English language attention  e.g.,

Winthrop-Young

2011 .

Canada

was identified

with three

of

the

top twenty-five

most-tagged

figures. Unsuiprisingly,

lnms

 45

citations

and

McLuhan

 43

appeared high

on the list,

in

the

third

and

fourth positions

respectively. Both

scholars

have attracted

multiple book-length

studies,

and

the pair

are invariably

prominent in efforts to

establish

a

putative

“media ecology”

tradition  e.g.. Strate

and Wachtel

2005 . Radical political

economist Dallas

Smythe wa s tagged in

10 publications,

among

them

a

number

of treatmems

of his “audience

commodity”

thesis  e.g.. Caraway

2011 .

Two

British scholars, Raymond

Williams

and Richard Hoggart, were

frequently tagged, and

almost always

in

connection

to

cultural studies.

Published work on

Williams

 18 citations tends

to place the literary

scholar in the

context

of

the

late 1950s

and

1960s

British

New I

eft

 e.g.,

Redal

2008

debates on

culture.

Other

works

place

the stronger

accent

on

Williams as

a

key

first-generation figure

in what became known as “British

cultural studies”

 e.g..

Green

1974 .

Hoggart.

a

founder

of

the

Birmingham

Centre

for Contemporary Cultural Studies

 BCCCS . is

the

subject

of twelve bibliographic

entries. Hoggart’s

Uses

of

Literacy

 1957

Corner

1998 . his

roots

in

adult education

 Steele

1997 . and

the Centre’s

establishment tLee 2003.

ch.

 

have

all

attracted

historiographical attention.

The most frequently tagged

figure

by

far

was

Austrian émigré

Paul

Lazarsfeld. Indeed,

his

ninety-five entries

were

enough

to

account for

10 percent of the individual-tag total. A

large

share

 46

percent or 34 entries

of the

LaLarsfeld-linked

studies examined

his

Columbia-based

Bureau

of

Applied Social Research  e.g.. Barton

2001 .

The

Bureau’s

classic Personal Influence

 1955

study.

co-authored

by

Elihu

Katz

and Lazarsfeid.

was the main

focus

in

fifteen

publications

 many

of

them

collected

in

Simonson

2007 .

A

number

of

studies

revisited

the complex relationship

between

Lazarsfeld and Frankfurt School

scholars

Adorno

and

Horkheirner including Morrison

1978 .

After

Lazarsfeld, James W. Caiey was the most often tagged.

Of his sixty-two citations, over

a

third  23 were memorials published

after

his 2006 death  e.g., Nord

2006 .

A

cluster

of

works

reviewed

Carey’s contributions to

journalism

studies  e.g.. Nerone 2009 ,

and

a number

of

others

explored

his

role

in

establishing an ‘Ameri can” cultural

studies

 among

them Grossberg

2009 .

WilEur

Schramm wa s a substantial

focus

in twenty-eight studies, enough to

place

him

in the

filth

slot

after

McLuhan.

Most of

these

t

19

studicsj emphusiLed his

institution

building at Iov

a.

Illinois,

and/or Stanford

 e.g.,

Hudson 1977 and

a

handful present him

a s t he

field’s

“founder”

 including

Glander

1996 .

A

comparatively

small

number explore his

intellectual legacy

 though

s

e

a

itiei 1988

John Dewey with

25

citations and

Walter

Lippmann

 16

werc tagged

together

12 limes

almost

rlways

in

Lonnecton

vith

the so-callcd

Lippmann-Dewev

debate  e.g..

Carey

1982 .

Superb

rev isiomst ‘aork by

Sue

Curry

Jansen

 2009

has

established

that

the   920s debate

uas

realft more of

an

exchange beteen longtime

allies.

Chicago sociologist Robert Park

 15

citations

is

frequently

grouped with

Dewey

and Charles

Horton

 oo

le as the core

members of

a

“Chicago

School” approach to communication and democracy

 as in

Carey 1996,

though see

Pooley

2007 .

Like so

much

else in the published historiography, the

distribution of

attention

paid

to

individual

scholars

is

markedly

uneven. The

citation

counts—and, for

that matter, the depths

of

scholarly

engagement—are

not aligned with historical

or

intellectual

significance.

No one

could

rogue,

for example. that Lazarsfeid’s contributions

to

the f ield were 95 times

as

important a s h is

colleague

and

former wife Herta

Herzog—who,

along with 123 other figures.

was tagged just

once

 Liebes

2003 .

Indeed, the

case

of female scholars

like

Herzog is

instructive. Just

18

women

were

among the

229 figures tagged, or

10

percent of

the

total.  n

i

a

pair ol’female researchers—

German public

opinion researcher Elisabeth

Noelle-Neumann  6

citations;

e.g.,

Löblich 2007

and British

film

theorist

Laura Mulvey

 3:

e.g., Loshitzky

2003 —even

rose above

two tagged

a

itiles

and then just barely.

No

doubt

the

gender

disparity reflects,

to

some extent, barriers

to

the academic

career

in

place

throughout

most

of the last

century.

We

would

expect.

in

other

words,

the

historiographa

to reflect that discrimination, and yield a gender imbalance. The

inequity is

so

pronounced.

however,

that

past discrimination isn’t

explanation

enough. Likewise, the

gigantic

gap

between

the ‘West and the rest of

the world

in

these

ranks

could

not

survive

a neutral

measure

of scholarly

or

historical

significance.

What’s

going

on here?

A

measure

of unconscious discrimination, we think, along

with the

ch

get-richer dynamic we

identified earlier.

It is

also

possible

that

another

factor is

contributing:

the

presence  or. more t o

the

point, absence

ot

mnemonic

champions. Robert

Park

had

his James

W

Carey. Lazarsfeld his

Elihu

Katz:

figures

committed

t o t he

tending

of their forebears’ legacies

n part through historical tribute. “What gets written

about.”

observed

Jennifer Platt

 1996

in

her

history of sociological research

methods. “ ha s b ee n to a

surprising extent dependent on

the

enthusiasm

of strategically placed individuals” 1996. 6 .

She cites two telling examples:

Lazarsfeld and

the

Chicago

School.

DISCIPLINARY

FRAME

Communication

studies’ relationship with

its

discip

linar

forerunners and

fellow-travelers is

predictably

rn

ess Should interdisciplinary fields l ike f ilm

studies and cultural studies

even

be

counted

xsithin

the wider held? Or

are

they

something

like

cognates?

The fact

that

most

film

studies

scholars would

never

refer

to

themselves

as

“communication

researchers”

certainly

com

plicates matters. Many cultural

studies

scholars

resist the label

too

 c f

Grossberg 1996 .

Then there are the

more

direct

institutional

ancestors: speech

and

rhetoric

in

the United

States, and journalism

in the

United

States

and

elsewhere, In intellectual

terms the family

of

ancestors

is much

larger, and includes not

just

the

core social

sciences—sociology, psychology,

and

political

science especially—but

also

English

and late nineteenth-century

political

economy.

8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

5/8

8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

6/8

in r.

nc gua F

g

is speak sel’olars like us need to engage with the xisting

ii

erature

n

other language rather

than presume its nonexistence.

The

casual

ethnocentricity

of most U.S.

I is onograp[y ecds

to be

challenged

too

cspec ally

to

the

exten

that

its

local

particularities

s uc

ade e ur sersa de”eopma

li e pr ject

to

de

Westernize

o

r

arratis 5

urnishes its

 Wf l justification

given the

bsurdly

s ded hi t r

od

aphica atte   cn to da

c

It s also possible

th

t

nev

and

sewl

engaged

toryt   irg outside the

West will eon

ribute to

a related undertaking

scrutiny of

the  eld’s

disci

pl’nary

aspirations.

The vast

majority

of

published histoiies assume—or,

less

often, proclaim

 

the field’s disciplinary coherence Indeed our historical narratives

have been

serving up some

of

the field’s raie helpings of shared identity

But coheience

is

exactly what should

not be

assumed,

Instead, the field’s disciplinary claims,

as they

have

evolved over

time,

ought

to

command more

of

our historical attention, Such

a

proj

ect requires, to

be

sure, that historians

take

their

stories beyond national

borders, Of particular

importance

arc

comparative

and

trans-national

histories of the kind currently

in

such short

sup

ply

More

work

that

employs

a

mix

of institutional and contextual approaches

will

be

required if

we

hope to outline

a

complex

story

that remains

poorly

understood’

the

spread of departments

of

communication

and

media

studies across

the

world

in

the decades after World

War IT In tell

•ng this

story,

we will

need

to engage with histories

of

the humanities, social

sciences, and the

postwar

university,

as

well

as the

small

but rich

cross-disciplinary

literature

on the

organizational

dis ersity of academic life  e.g

  Whitley

1984;

Becher

and Trowler 2001 ,

There

is,

thankfully,

already a substantial

body of work

on

individual departments, schools

and professional associations—much

of it

in

dissertations,

limited-circulation

reports

and

ou t

ofprint

commemorative

volumes. A

survey of this

work,

with attention paid

to

continuities and

departures, would

help to identify patterns and

the remaining work to

be

done—the first

step of a

long

slog.

Why

expend

the

energy? Supplying

the

field

with

a coherent identity

would

justify the

effort, perhaps,

but

we

have

suggested

that

this

kind of legitimacy work may

clash with rigorous

scholarship.

We can

be of service to the wider field

in other

ways. One

worthy

and useful

project is

to help

recoser

and

clarify forgotten or neglected

research traditions especially

those outside the United

States and Westein

Europe We could,

moreover use new

institutional

histories

to help

jumpstart

in overdue

conversation about the

field’s d sciphnary self-understanding

going forward,

We

can

also make contributions

to the wider literature

on the history and sociology

of

aca

demic knowledge.

We have an exceptional

case

to

study,

after all, with

fascinating

state, industry.

interdisciplinary,

and public entanglements

in addition

to a madcap institutional

story.

There

is

much

lelt to

do, despite the published

plenitude. Right now

the impression we have

is

of

a half-tin’shed

pointillist

painting: from afar

a

few

shapes

are

discernible,

surrounded

by

empty

canvas

NOTES

  [he bibliography

is

maintained

online a t th e Project

tor

thc History

of Communication Research’s

website,

httpi/www

historyofcommunicationresearch.oig. Because

the

bibliography

is

regularly up

datcd, we

base archived the

version t hai t h is analysis

was

based

on at http://www.historyofcommuni

cationresearch.oig/documents/bib-

10-12

pdf

2 We forgo

the

more

familiar

labels-

internalist and

erternalict

to

asoid

the

philosophy of

science

baggage t hat t he

terms sometimes

carry

in

the history

of

science tradition,

See

Shapin

 1992

thr a

rich

treatment of thet erms ’

knotty

backstoiy

REFERENCES

dhikarya,

Ron

iy.

 

983

Knan

led

e

Tran

s/es and

Usage

in

Uommunkatian

Stuches—

the

US-ASEAN

Case,

Singapore Asian

Mass

Communication

Research

and

Information

Ccnter

B

irr’inquero,

Alejandro

2011

‘Rediscovering

the

[atm

American

Roots

of

Participatory

Communicatior

for

Social

Changc

‘ Wc

stminster

Papers

in

Conunumcation

and

Culture

8

 I .

151

177

i ton

Allen

2001,

“Paul

I

aiarsfeld

as Ins

i

utional

Inventor”

International

Join

nat

of

Public

Opinion

Research

13

(3)’

245

269

Beeher,

Tony,

and

Paul

Trowler.

2001,

Academic

Trihe,s

and

Territorie,s:

Intellectual

Enquin

and

the Cut

tures

gfDiscipline,

2nd

ed.

New

York:

Open

University

Press.

Bemelson,

Bernard.

1959.

“Ihe

State

of

Communication

Research.”

Public

Opinion

Quarterly

23

(1):

 

5

Berry, David

2006,

“Popular

Culture

and

Mass

Media

in

Latin

America’

Some

Reflections

on

the

Works

of Jesus

Martin-Barbero

and

Néstor

Garcia

Canclini”

In

Radical

Mass

Media

Criticism:

A

Cultural

Genealogy,

edited

by

David

BetTy and

John

Theobald,

199—211

Tonawanda:

Black

Rose

Books.

‘E”nt

Jennngs,

and

Erika

Prihanic-Smith,

2010

“A

Historical

Overview of

Research

in

Communication

Science,”

In The

Handbook

of

‘ommunication

Science,

edited

by

Charles Berger,

Michael

Roloff,

and

David

Roskos-Essoldsen,

21

36.

Los

Angeles:

Sage.

Br

ton,

William

J.

1999,

‘Reaching

Human

Minds:

Rockefeller

Philanthiopy

and

Communications,

1935

1939.”

In

The

Development

of

the

Social

Sciences

in

the United

States

and

Canada:

The

Role of’

Philanthropy

Policy

Issues

in

Education,

edited

by

Theresa

R.

Richardson

and

Donald Fisher,

 

77—92.

Stamford:

Ablex.

Cilles-Santillana,

Jorge

2006.

“Ludosico

Silva

and

the Move

to

Critical

Stances

in

Latin

American

Com

munication

Studies.”

Javnost-The

Public

13

(3)’

69—80.

C’i

away Brett. 2011. “Audience

Labor

in the New Media

Environment:

A Marxian

Res isiting

of

the

Audi

ence

Commodity.”

Media,

Culture

 

Society

33

(5):

693—708.

 a rt

er

Jacqueline

M. 198 8.

“Wilbur

Schramm

and t he

Beginnings

of

American

Communication

Theory:

A

History

of Ideas”

PhD

diss.,

Univeisity

of Iowa.

Carey

James

W.

1982,

“The

Mass

Media and

Critical

Theory:

An

American

View,”

Communication

Year

book6:

18

33.

1996.

“The

Chicago

School

and

the

History

of Mass

Communication

Research

‘

In

American

Communication

Research:

The

Remembered

Histo,y,

edited

by

Eserette

E.

Dennis

an d

Ellen

Wartella,

2

1—38

Mahwah,

NJ.

Erlhaum.

C

affee,

Steven,

and

Everett

Rogers.

1997

“The

Establishment

of

Communication

Study

in

America,”

In

The

Beginnings

of

Commionc’ation

Study

i n Ames

ica:

A

Personal

Memoir

125—80.

Thousand

Oaks.

Sage.

Cornci

John.

1998,

‘Postscript.”

In

The

Uses of

Literacy, by

Richard

Hoggart,

269—84.

New

Brunswick’

Tr’rnsaction

Publishers

Crag

Robert

r

1995,

“Revie

of

A

Histo

of

omnsu,mication

Study’

A

BiographicalApproach,

by Ever

it

M. Rogers,

and

The

Histcm

of

Speech

C’ommunication, The Emesgenc’e

of

a Discipline

1914—1

945

by

Herbert

Cohen.’

Communic’cition

iheors’

5 178

84

 m

mther-Heyck,

Hunter,

2006,

‘Patrons

of

the

Revolution:

Ideals

and

Institutions

in

Postwar

Behavioral

Science,’

JiB

97’

420—46.

 

M

lo,

Jose,

1993,

“Communication

Research’

New

Challenges

of

the

I atm

American

School.”

Journal

of

Communication

43

(4).

182—90,

D

Im

J

sse

1987.

“Communication

Research:

A History.”

In

Hanclbook

of

Communic

anon

Science, edited

by

Charles

R. Berger

and

Steven

H Chaffèe

20

98. Newbury

Park:

Sage

DIar

 m

up 2011.

“Cultural

Studies

as Labor

of Negotiation

in

Higher

Education.’

Cultural

Studie,s

25

(1)

71

89,

Downing,

John

D.

II.

1996.

Internationalizing

Media

Theory:

Transition,

Posses,

Culture.

‘Ihousand

Oaks:

Sage

I

ngerwan

David

C 2010. “Social

Science

in the

Cold War.’

isis

101

(2):

39300

RSO D

0

 LES

ND

DBVID

r

COMMLNICMION

RESEARCH

87

8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

7/8

88

B

FERSON

D.

POOLI.\ Nf

DAVI )

Vs.

PARK

(sianiei, fnusthr. Oou.

‘Vs thur

Schr_,

‘r

and the

Founding at

Comiaanaa”on Studies.

Ldiu

alinnal

T/a”ar460r373—Ol.

Gcmez—Paiac.o

Camsss

Curios.

1959.

“The

Origiits

and Giosstl

nf

Mass

Cniiimuncaiton

Research

in

I

  tm

America.”

PhD

dis’,   Sranfnrd I

ussr

rsitr

Grces

Michac, 1974.

“Reessund

Willias

IS

and Cuitut

A

Siusles’ It’s-sine

Papcsz ii

Cuban Sitithr

6:

Grr’nbe,

Bruce F,. 2t)00. “Cominunicat’an

Mcdi:.

Mcmssr:,

and Soci l— olitical (‘hanea

in Li a

Hase—

ak,

r

It, Sc:’

Jnurn,iI

si

(“sOa,i’oir

orion S

(is: 34-45.

Grossberz.

Lass

rence.

 

9 .

“Toe,

ard a Gene’ilogv of

the

State

of

Cultural Stnd:es: The Discipline of

Coin

munication

and

the

Reception at

Cultural Studies

in

the United States,

In

Discijslinirirs’

and Dt

vsem

in

(u/ti i’al StiuIb,v, edited by Carv Nelson

sad Dilip

P. Gaonkar,

131 47

Ne

‘turk:

Rouilede.

—

2009

“The

Cons

ersation

ot

Cultural StudiesT Cultural

Sruthe,s

23

(2):

17 7 15 2.

Ha per Nancy

L

1979.

Human (ommunication

Theory: use Histo of

a

Paradigm.

Rochelle Park: Hayden

Book

Co.

Hoggart

Richard. 1957. Ihr

I

ses

o/ Lit

oar v:

Aspects

of

l4drking las,s

Lik,

trith Special

Refeien

e

to

Publications aid Enre,tai i nrnts

London.

Chatto

 

Windus

Hudson,

Robert B 1977.

‘Tb Illinois

Years

In

Communication

Rewarch

A

Ha/f

C flInt’s’ tppraz.sal,

edited

by

Daniel

Lernei

and Lyle

M.

Nelson,

311 16. Honolulu:

University

of Haau Press,

Im, Yung-Ho

1993.

“Critical

Commu Ecation

Studies

in

South Korea

‘ Journal of

(ommunicolion

Inqui

17(1) 108

23.

Isaac

Joel. 2007. “The Human Sriences

in Cold

War

America.” Thi J—fisiorical

Joarnol

50

(3:

725—46.

Jansen,

Sue

Currr.

2009.

“Phantom

Conflict. Lipprnann, Deses.

and

the Fate of the Public in

Modern

So

cietx.”

Csooutunicunon

and

Crinca//Cn’rssrsil

Stud,,’

6

 

3 I: 22

 

--245.

Kati Elihu,

and Paul

F

Lazarsfeid.

1955.

Personal

Influence:

The

Part Pla:ed

by

IS apIs’

in

the

i/oss

pf

C

nnnninu-000,i,s, Glencoe:

Free

Press,

Kluset.

Randolph.

and (‘lien Yang.

2005. “The

Internet in Chma:

A

Meta-Res

iew

of

Research.”

7)te lnfi.o’

m,ti’jt

Societe

21(4):

301

—308.

Lee. Richard

E.

2003.

Li/i’

aiui Time.s

of Cultural

Studies:

The

Politic.s

and TranrJonnarion aft/ic

Sn’uctu,’es

at’

Knni’/ed9c.

Duke

Uni’sersit:

Press.

Liehes.

lamar.

2003. “Hcrzog’s ‘On

Bon’ossed

Experience’:

Its Place

in the Debate oser

the

Actise

Audi

nae.”

in

Ccsisonic

Texts’ i n , 1P

din Re’orch:

.3cc

TIter,

.Itiv

Should

Tiicr

Be7

Host’

Sham

Tlicvc’:

 

dtted

ha

Elihu

Katz.

John I’)

Peas Ta

is,i’

I

tebe 

and Asril Orloff,

39

53

Cambridge:

Polita,

Lhhlich,

Maria.

2007.

“German Publ’,istiks

isseisschal’l

and

its

Shift

from

a

Humanistic

to

an Empirical

Socia

SLentihc

Dsscipline:

Elisabcth

M

dIe-Neumann,

Emil

Dovitat

and the

Publizistik Debate:’

Furopea

i Journal

sf

Communication

22

(1)

69—8S.

oshitiky.

Yoseta

2003.

“Afterthoughts

on Mulvcy’s

‘Visual

Pleasure’ in

the Age

of

Cultural

Studies.

In

Canonic

T rts in Media Research’

Are There

An’,’?

Should

l’here

BsT

How About These’ , edited

by

bhhu

Katz,

John D.

Peters,

lamar

Liebes

and

Avril

Orloff,

248

59. Cambridge.

Polity

Lunn,

Eugene.

1990, “Beyond

‘Mass

Culture’.

The

Lonely

Crowd

the Uses

of literacy

and

the Postwar

Eta,’

lheo,r

and Society

19

(I)’

63 86

Mellado,

Claudia 0l I. ‘Examining

Pin

csstonal

and

Academic

Culture

in Chilean

Journalism

and

Mass

Co nmuntcatton

Education,’

Journalism

Studies 12

(3): 37—9l.

Morr son, Dasid

B, 1978. “Kutrut

and

Culture-

The Case at Theodor

W,

Adorno

and

Paul

F. Laiarsfeld,”

SoalReseoich45:

331 55.

Nerone,

John. 2009,

“To Rescue Journaltsm

F

ram the

Media.”

(“ultural

Star/ic.,

23

(2):

243—58.

\ord,

Das

id Paul. 2006.

“James

Carey’

and Journalism

Historv:A

Remembrance.”

,Journ,tlis,ti History

32

Ut’ 122—127,

Nnrdenstreng,

Kaarle. 2004. “Ferment

tn the Field:

Notes ins

the

F’,’olution

of

Communication Studies

and

its

Disciplinary

NatureT

Jas’nosr-The Public

11

i

3i:

5—18.

Nosnik.

Abraham, 1986.

“Communication’,

and

Rcfutations:

A Rational

Reconstruction

of

Mass Communi

cation

Research:’

PhD

diss,

 

.Stanford

Unix

ersits’.

Passles,

William,

1984.

“Coiismunication

in the

Communication

Sciences,”

In

Pror’re.s  ’ in

the Coooit,oiica—

tioss

Sciences,

edited ha Brenda

Dei’s in

and Mclx

in J.

Voighi.

1—43.

Nor”,

nod,

NJ:

Ablex,

 

COMMUNICATION

RESEARCH

89

peters.

John

Duihers:

s956.

“lnststutsonal Sources

at

intetsectual Pox ertv

is Communication Research.’’

aosouotic

aria,

Re

oat, is  

3

t 4t: 527 559.

Plan,

jennil’er.

1996.

4 Histot’x

of

Socasloç’n

si Rescon’h

Met/toe .’,

ii,

Aiizei’is’st, 1920

1960.

Ness

York: Cam—

h

lee

Unms ersiiy Press.

PonIes.

Jetferson.

20t16,

“Fifteen Pages

that Shook

the Field: Personal

/it

flucro

e.

Edss

ard Shil’, and

the

Re

,“,ierthered

History if

Mass

Cssnttnuajcatiou

Researen,”

,-f,ti,,t/s

of lit,’ ,4,tie,’icott 4cade,tiv

n/Politico

,:s,i

.Socot/ Sclcite

oOS

, Ii:

l

——  

2tJtt7.

“Dame’

Czitn,ni.

James

‘A.

Carey,

and the

Chicago

School.” L’t’iticol

Stssdie.

 s:

Iledia

C’ont

 ‘j55j

mOn

24

i5s:

469—72,

 

—

2005. “[he

New

Ilistory

of Muss Communication Research.” In

I/ic

His’toi-s’

of

‘vledio

aitd

Coot

snnnication

Re

scare/i:

Ccsitl,’.sti

a’

,lleosories,

edited by

Das

id

W,

Park and Jefferson

Pooley,

43—69.

New

York’ Peter

Lang

2(111

  “Another

Plea for

the

University

Tradition.

The Institutional Roots

of Intellectual Compro

nisse.’ htternatio,te,l Jourita/

of

(‘osntntuticettion 5’ 1442 57

Ras

Robert

B,

2000. “Impiessiomsm,

Surrealism,

and Film

Theory,

Path

Dependence,

or

How

a Tradition

i r F ilm

Theory

Gets Lost.” In

fri/ti

Studies’ Critical

Approae’hes

edited by John

Hill

and Pamela

C

Gil’s

a,

65

/4.

Oxt

rd: Oxford

Uttiversity

Press,

Redo’

Vse’idy

W.

200S “Making Sense

of

Social

Change

Studying

Vcdia

and

Culture

in

1960s Britain,”

In

‘[lie

Hist a’, of’Media rote (joounioncatton

Re

seaich   Contested

Memories,

edited

by David W

Park

snd

Jettet son Pooley

269 90.

Ness

York: Peter Lang

Reisenleitner,

Markus

2002 ‘‘Institutionalizing

Cultural Studies in Austria:

A

Viess

from

Afar,”

Cultural

Sits/icy

 

6 Its):

896—907.

Richer

Roherr ‘A’.

t

950),

‘in Search of

the

impertinent Questson:

An

Os cr5 iexs tf Batesor’” theory

at

Cons

nunicatii

In

Ti’c

Ito/is i,ltiof.

C,matn’ioth

‘olin :,

silt

S,scictx:

Essos’s

in .tleiitiss’e of

Greener Bate’

‘,sti.

edited hr Robert

Vs.

Richer,

—3)),

New York: Cambridge

Unix

ersity Press.

Riensan,

Dax

id,

1950.

LoneLy

(‘road:

.1

Studs of ii Chat: ciiig 3m,

i’icoti

C’haracte t: ‘tale

University Press,

Each,

l’h,imas

J.

20th

  “The Paradox

if

Media

Effects:’

In her/ia,

Sm’t.

‘mini,

lice

and [toga

i n i /i c

Global

Is/lays, edited by

Yahva

R.

Kansalipour

and Kuldip R. Rampal.

5—IS,

Lanliam:

Ross

man

 

Littlefield.

Rodries,’,,

Juan M.

1995.

“Con”tructing

Mexico’s

Media: A

Crittcal

AnaL

six

of United State Mass Coin-

mstnicaiinn Re’eer,h,

1945

1994:’ PhD

diss.,

Untversit’,

of

loss

a.

Rs s

rs

Es ei’et i. 199-’ .

.4

Hi.ctor’, isf C’osnoitt,tis’strisnt

Stud”: -i Bin

p’,spltis

Ly

4ppoia’h. “(ca York:

the Free

Sht

:,nm,

‘Wi lb ur 1955 ‘Hoss

Communication

Works In

Fit,’

P,oeec,s

mu

Effect

of iklas s

Cottatttot/ca

:i7 edited

by

Wilbur Sahramtn,

3

2(xU

rbana:

I,’ siversity of Illinois Press.

 

1963.

“Communteato

n Research

tn the

 

nited

States.”

In

TItc

,S,’is’itce

of Human

Communicotiint,

edited by Wilbur

Schramm, I

-Itt. New

Yoik

Basic Books,

Slasptn,

Steven

1992

“Diseipluie

and

Boundtng

The

Histoty

and Soc

ologv

of Science as Seen through tl’c

Lxterr

alism-Internalis

a Debate,” Historr

of

B

once 30

-‘33

6

Si

a

roson

Petet

ed

2007. Pa/irks, Sotal

Nets,oiks, and i/se

History of

Mass

Commrinications Research’

Rs’r’adtnr,’

Personal Influence.

Thtusand

Oaks Sage.

Sininnson,

Peter

and John

D Peters,

2011 . “Communication

and Media

Studies, Histoiy to 1968,’ In

Inter

,s,itis,ta/

Enese Iopedia of

Caoioiu,ncatian,edited

by

Wolfgang

Donshach,

764—71.

MaIden’

Blackwell.

Simpson,

Chostophee

1994. Sc?etu-e’

of

Coe;c’iost, Contntmtuation

Re,se,us

h

asia’

P.s)chological

Warfare,

1945.

1 0 Ne

York. Oxford

Unisersity

Press.

Sprssuie,

J. Michael.

2008,

“‘Communication’: From

Concept

to I ield to

Dtscipline.’ In T he

History

if

sled,,,

,,itd

C’oo’in,i’sicaiis’tt Rs’s,’aty’h:  ‘otttes’t,, hIc’,t’i’ie.s, edited hr

David

\V.

Park and

Jefferson

PonIes,

  64—78.

Ness

\iirk: Peter l,ang,

Steele,

Tom.

1997,

TIm

t’nieyg’?t

e

of

Culnti’al

Studies:

4ltilt

E,lncntiint,

 ti/ntis Politics, mind the

“h’n

hs/s

‘

çioe.snon. Lnndon:

I

ass rence

  Wishart.

Strate,

Lance,

and Edward

Wachtel, eds.

2005.

The

Legace

of

,hl,’f,ulian. New

York: Hampton Press,

Szurnsuk,

MOnica, and

Siivio Waisbord. 2011. “The intellectual

Impasse

ssf

Cultural Studies

of

the Media

in

Latin

America:

How

to

‘thee Forward:’

IIF,sr,uii’ster

Papers in C’o,nittaiiication

and

Culture

 

(1):

7

3)1,

8/9/2019 k) Pooley & Park 2014

8/8

o

IF

FR

P

DA V

RK

Ton

s

Ii,

K

va

09

‘If

e

M

lx i t Legae

ii Media ard Cultu al stud e

4 rut Media Revie 9

(3).

13

  ka

nto

Seij to

2006

‘Social

Re ixnsibili

y

Iheor and the Study

of Journalism

Ftocs in

Japan:’

ni

rim

of

Ala

 

Media Ethic

21

  55

69

iah,

Ira

k

9 Curre tDebar

w

the

i

Id f Ma C

mn mc t o [es reb: n kfria r

View

pa   Af tea Media Reeds   7

ins ErA.

2005. a on

o a

a Studie ir

U ripe 4

Skuteh

of

ti Situa

a round 1955 a,ette

6 6 .495 5 2.

V ig.

Georgette.

2011

Paradigm Shift and the Centra

ity of

Car

ii

sun

anon

DiseiphneT

Jute

national

Journal

of

C

o;rinianieation

5

145K

66.

Web ter,

Frank.

2004.

 ultural Studies

and

Sociology

at,

and

after,

the

Closure of

the

Birmingham

School.”

Comical

Studies

18

f

6)’ 847 62

Whitley. Richard. 1984 . The

Intellectual aad

Social

Organratioo of

die

Sciences

New York:

Clarendon

Pres

Willnat,

Lars , and Annette J. Aw

2004. ‘Political Communicatir n

in

Asia Challenges and OpportunitiesT

In

Handbook of Poliacal

Coinniunicanon Research, edited

by Lynda

L.

Kaid 479

503 Mahwah:

Lrlbaum.

Winthrop

Young Geoffrey. 2011

Kittler

and the

Media,

New York:

Polity

W N cester, Robert. 1987.

“I’he

Internationalizationof Public Opinion Research. Public Opuue

a

Quarterly

51 4 .

S79

S 5.

Zhao

Yuezhi. 2001.

Herbert

Sehiller, the

U.S. Media,

and

Democracy

in China. Television

  Neo

Media

2 l :51

55

I