Talk:Communication studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Media (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Criticism[edit]

Hello. I'd changed the wording from "Some complain..." to "It is frequentyly claimed" because the latter does not appear to have any presuppositions. Reporting that people complain is sort of substantiating their view (that there is something to complain about). The "claim" version reports that they are complaining, but does not assert allegiance towards a POV. What do you reckon? The JPS 17:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, "frequently" (not frequentyly, lol) implies that the claims are made probably more often than they actually are. How about "Some claim"?--csloat 17:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Ooops, typo!! The reason I'm so interested in this is because here in Britain we have just had the annual moral panic over Media studies. I'm working on that article with another academic, and one of the problems raised was that the section (Media_studies#Derogatory_attitudes) was too UK-centric. I wonder if you could cast your eye over it and see how we can develop it to resolve the bias? The JPS 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I did peek at it and I think that article, this one, and cultural studies need to be more clearly integrated. "Cultural studies" and "media studies" in the US are part of communication studies, or at least they intersect communication studies in significant ways (we also see cultural and media studies in departments of philosophy and english as well). I understand in the UK cultural studies grew out of communication studies and literary studies. While all of these disciplines have geographical nuances, I do think we can suggest that there is a "cultural studies" that is broader than merely "British cultural studies" and so forth. I really don't think the sections on "derogatory attitudes" are that important. I guess it's worth mentioning that people make fun of the discipline sometimes but does that really deserve more prominence than much of the important scholarly work going on in these disciplines? --csloat 18:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

publication[edit]

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

you think we should publish an article still recognized as a stub?-csloat 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
no, it should be cleaned up. however, not to featured article status, but Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Standard articles would be good enough. -- Zondor 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


I would suggest taking it over and making a division in the "Communication" entry. In order to avoid replicating in Wikipedia the confounding tendency to regional "confuseologisms" (by which I playfully mean the using one word to refer to very different things).

Communication Arts and Communication Sciences in my PhD program (Purdue) were combined together; whether your Master's degree was a MS or a MA depended on which sort of methodology classes you took. Further, one of the academic journals of the ICA (which is "international" in pretty much name only. . .there is a long and sordid history there) is called "Communication Studies."

Point being, is it possible that we would do a better job of covering the topic by focusing on "Communication" and then including sections doing justice to the various movements and identifying them in the manner of their own choice? We already have quite a bit of overlap/duplication in the various permutations of "Communication" in Wikipedia articles. I suspect that we would save a bunch of work, and a bunch of vitriol, if we were to bring them together under one main banner, and then giving each subsection the respect and authenticity due them.

Part of this urge in me probably comes in that I just spent several hours working toward broadening several articles in the "communication family" to, among other things, remove parts that said there were no University degrees offered in "Communication". {My PhD is in Communication, so I believe there are programs apart from speech pathology offering these degrees. My focus was in Organizational Communication but I had "concentrations" in "Semiotics, "Anthropological Linguistics" and "Philosophy and Communication." (Note that the philosophy department strongly resisted using the word "of" or "in" in any concentration--thus "philosophy of communication" was not allowed. . .sometimes these distinctions run deep.)}

Anyhow, does it make sense to try and pull all these articles together? I would include:

media studies,
cultural studies (the European, not the American variety),
mass communication,
rhetoric,
political communication,
interpersonal communication,
debate/forensics including legal communication which itself includes things like communication law and even jury selection!,
communication theory (including Habermas and his "Ideal Speech Situation") information theory which is founded in systems theory and cybernetics,
public speaking,
speech writing,
public relations,
advertising,
identification/interpellation (from critical theory traditions)
issue management,
dyadic communication,
non-verbal,
constructivist,
activity theory (especially the work of Vygotsky and others from the then-Soviet Union)
speech therapy/pathology,
audiology,
literary,
film and art criticism,
speech act theory,
radio, television and film production,
scriptwriting,
communication research,
communication load,
information sciences,
information management,
zoo-communication (including the dolphin and chimp communication folks),
et al.?

Upon some reflection, perhaps some of these (public speaking, speech writing, public relations, advertising, information management, semiotics, etc.) should be kept separate, but with good ties--not simply a single text reference.

All of a sudden if feels huge. . .

Roy 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge: Communication studies + Media studies + Communication Sciences[edit]

I'm not sure I understand what the difference is. If there is a difference, could the articles please explain what those differences are? Ewlyahoocom 03:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No difference, media studies may be a subcategory, but these really do need to be merged!DMCer 05:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the different categories deals more with what theories have evolved under each section. Nancytobler.com has a breakdown of communication studies in it's various forms. Although the content is absent from the site at the moment I can assure you that each sub-category is populated with different theories and methodologies specific to that area of study.

I'm not sure how wikipedia can accommodate the tree structure created on nancytobler.com, but they are welcome to adopt it if they'd like. Jacob F. Roecker (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Depictions in popular culture[edit]

This whole bit really should be removed; it's not significant or relevant, it's denigrating to Greek organizations, and it has no impact on people trying to figure out what the field is about. It also confuses Communications with Comm. Studies, which is something completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.111.246 (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Why, exactly, did my add of citation needed to this section get reverted? There has to be a citation, even if the section should be left in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.111.246 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and put in the citation needed again. (I posted the above comments). I contend that, whether or not this section is left it, it's not conscionable to include an uncited statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countercharm (talkcontribs) 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ht[edit]

hth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.50.159 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

History section[edit]

No obvious reason to me that the history section is spun off to a separate article... Bring it back in? DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Communication sciences[edit]

I think the topics of communication studies and Communication sciences are identical. The prior discussion suggested media studies are separate, so I am not suggesting merging this; but c. sciences and c. studies seem ripe for merger. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support (but maybe just Delete the other article) - "Communication science," in my experience (and a little looking around on Google seems to support this) is either used interchangeably with Communication studies, perhaps more frequently to those in the more social science-centric kinds of departments, or refers specifically to the biological or psychological aspects of communication that can be studied by science (e.g. communication disorders). The content currently at communication sciences seems to be talking about a particular approach to communication studies practiced by certain individuals or at certain schools. Objectivism and positivism (whether logical positivism or post-positivism) are not commonly applied to communication studies in a general sense. In fact, it seems like the entire communication sciences article is either original research or drawn from that one reference it has. I would support simply deleting the other article rather than incorporating any of it here. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)