%0 Thesis %1 arcenas_communication_1995 %A Arcenas, Elvira M. %C Philadelphia %D 1995 %K citation-analysis disciplinarity dissertation general historiography institutional internalist iowa journalism minnesota oral-history terminology united-states wisconsin %T 'Communication' in the Making of Academic Communication %X The disciplinary status of communication study (academic communication) has remained a point of contention among scholars, largely for paucity of systematic information on the field's historical institutionalization. The process of gaining academic legitimacy through the granting of doctorates has been complex and often confusing. It involved a variety of labels, departmental sponsorships and resistances, and personal ambitions. This study sought to trace these paths from their identifiable beginnings through the 1980s and thus to contribute to the discussion about and further development of the field. Using a multi-method approach (quantitative content analysis, case histories, career trajectory analysis), this study tracked–through the word communication–the field's natural history from its early linguistic manifestations through its crystallizations in structures and roles. It is composed in three parts. Part I, an analysis of the word communication in the Journalism Quarterly, 1924-1949, presents communication study as emerging from the search by journalism for academic legitimacy. This search went through stages, representing shifts in conceptualizing communication and codified in key phrases–news communication, mass communication, communication research. The "communication research" phase of thinking, in the 1940s, provided the immediate context for the major institutional changes that would accommodate communication study. Part II gives an account of the establishment of the communication Ph.D. and structures for study and research (research centers, institute, department, college) in five pioneering universities (Universities of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan State). Part III, based on interviews with thirty-two selected communication scholars, describes the emergence of a new professional group and discerns patterns in the career trajectories of its members, some of whom became communication scholars by academic employment (the "Settlers" group), others by doctoral training ("New Stock"). The convergence of the popularity of the communication label, of the necessary institutional changes to accommodate the research-oriented label and the people who made it possible, create historic opportunities for major developments in the field. These changes establish the pattern of institutionalization and the progress toward legitimate claim to offer a Ph.D.

@phdthesis{arcenas_communication_1995, abstract = {The disciplinary status of communication study (academic communication) has remained a point of contention among scholars, largely for paucity of systematic information on the field's historical institutionalization. The process of gaining academic legitimacy through the granting of doctorates has been complex and often confusing. It involved a variety of labels, departmental sponsorships and resistances, and personal ambitions. This study sought to trace these paths from their identifiable beginnings through the 1980s and thus to contribute to the discussion about and further development of the field. Using a multi-method approach (quantitative content analysis, case histories, career trajectory analysis), this study tracked\textendash{}through the word communication\textendash{}the field's natural history from its early linguistic manifestations through its crystallizations in structures and roles. It is composed in three parts. Part I, an analysis of the word communication in the Journalism Quarterly, 1924-1949, presents communication study as emerging from the search by journalism for academic legitimacy. This search went through stages, representing shifts in conceptualizing communication and codified in key phrases\textendash{}news communication, mass communication, communication research. The "communication research" phase of thinking, in the 1940s, provided the immediate context for the major institutional changes that would accommodate communication study. Part II gives an account of the establishment of the communication Ph.D. and structures for study and research (research centers, institute, department, college) in five pioneering universities (Universities of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan State). Part III, based on interviews with thirty-two selected communication scholars, describes the emergence of a new professional group and discerns patterns in the career trajectories of its members, some of whom became communication scholars by academic employment (the "Settlers" group), others by doctoral training ("New Stock"). The convergence of the popularity of the communication label, of the necessary institutional changes to accommodate the research-oriented label and the people who made it possible, create historic opportunities for major developments in the field. These changes establish the pattern of institutionalization and the progress toward legitimate claim to offer a Ph.D.}, added-at = {2019-08-29T01:56:31.000+0200}, address = {{Philadelphia}}, author = {Arcenas, Elvira M.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22d98513873e0fbac4bb76a99bd0ce74c/jpooley}, interhash = {0341ae0e6275acb55914968b2435bed4}, intrahash = {2d98513873e0fbac4bb76a99bd0ce74c}, keywords = {citation-analysis disciplinarity dissertation general historiography institutional internalist iowa journalism minnesota oral-history terminology united-states wisconsin}, school = {University of Pennsylvania}, timestamp = {2019-08-29T01:56:31.000+0200}, title = {'{{Communication}}' in the {{Making}} of {{Academic Communication}}}, type = {{{PhD Thesis}}}, year = 1995 }