By James Gaudino, NCA
Executive Director
NCA, in cooperation with the Council of Communication Associations (CCA) has been working with the staff at the National Research Council (NRC) to advocate for the inclusion of Communication in the next study of research doctorates. The NRC project has formed a Methodology Committee charged with making recommendations on various methodological aspects of the next study, including issues like the inclusion of disciplines.
Communication was invited to make a presentation to the Methodology Committee on September 30. Linda Putnam, CCA President, developed a presentation in cooperation with a committee of CCA representatives. Scott Poole, NCA's Research Board Chair, and Bill Balthrop, NCA President, played major roles in the development of the content for the presentation.
Unfortunately, Linda Putnam was unable to attend the NRC meeting due to illness of a family member. Bill finalized the presentation with the assistance of Scott, Linda, and me.
Also given to the committee was a list of 109 doctoral programs compiled by Scott from lists supplied by CCA member societies, a list of federal granting agencies from which communication scholars have received support, and a description of funding of exemplary communication programs.
Attending the meeting with me were Bill, Scott, and Ellen Wartella. Bill delivered the briefing and Scott, Ellen, and I assisted him with responses to questions from the committee members.
The purposes of the briefing were to 1) establish us as a research (rather than a professional) discipline, and 2) respond to issues raised by the methodology of the study regarding how their metrics might be applied to Communication.
Our joint "read of the room" suggested the presentation was well received. I, for example, was seated next to a representative of the National Science Foundation who indicated to me several times that he was very impressed with the presentation and that he was gaining a much better understanding of and appreciation for our field.
Only one question from the committee appeared to address the misperception that our doctoral degrees are professional in nature. One member commented on the data showing that most students graduating with a Ph.D. in Communication go directly into academic research positions, asking if it were not also the case that most communication faculty hold full time jobs outside the academy and teach in part-time roles. Of course, our response was that such is not the case.
Questions dealing with metrics fell into two broad categories. One set dealt with the relationships between some areas of Communication and other disciplinary structures (e.g., Information Management, Library Science; Theatre; Cinema Studies, English, etc.). The committee seemed satisfied with our answers.
The second type of question centered on distinctions in the study of Communication. In the presentation, we provided descriptions of the four categories developed by CCA last year for inclusion in the Classification of Instructional Program codes from the Department of Education. Those areas are:
Communication Studies: Scientific and critical research on human communication, including interpersonal, organizational, public, and intercultural communication and communication in various social, cultural, and political contexts;
Mass Communication and Media Studies: Research on media institutions, media texts, media effects, and how media are used to produce and transform culture;
Speech and Rhetorical Studies: Research focused on political and social rhetoric, audience analysis, argumentation, rhetorical criticism, and rhetorical theory; and
Telecommunication Studies: Research on the
development, use, regulation, and effects of telecommunication technologies,
including radio, television, telephony, and the Internet.
Those attending the meeting agreed that the Methodology Committee seems to be concerned about whether they can do one survey for the entire field of Communication or whether four are required for the distinct areas presented. While most reading this summary would perhaps endorse the study of sub fields, maybe with even more categories, a more prudent course of action seems to advocate for one survey for Communication.
Four surveys for the sub areas would result in relatively small sample sizes for each (maximum 60 per area by Scott's count) and the number of doctoral programs in each category surveyed seems an important issue for the methodology committee. If this is the case, then Communication would be better off going with a single survey.
Cost is another consideration. NRC must raise funds to conduct the study. The more fields included, the more costly the data collection and analysis.
Simplicity also appears to be an issue for the Methodology Committee. In view of the fact that complex fields such as Political Science, Anthropology, and Sociology all have just the single survey, Communication is again probably better off advocating for that option, since our argument is premised, in part, on establishing our similarity to these fields that are included in the survey in terms of size and research orientation.
Like these fields, Communication will have to figure out how to interpret the results later This should not be too difficult, since the upcoming survey is most likely to be reported in terms of a set of metrics, such as number of articles per capita, awards per capita, etc, rather than just a global ranking based on one criterion.
Also presenting at the meeting were representatives from theatre, microbiology, and business. The committee also listened to a presentation from representatives of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions regarding issues of diversity.
Based on the committee’s indications, they plan to make their decision soon (they suggested by the end of October). I will, of course, keep you posted.
Finally, I want to thank Bill, Linda, Scott and Ellen for their work on this important project and for helping me prepare this summary. I also want to thank the members of the CCA committee, especially James Applegate and Steve Lacy, who with Linda and Scott, headed the CCA effort to collect much of the data that was used in the presentation.