194:601
Fall
2004
Tuesdays,
Course readings and other material will be made available online, via
email, or through the electronic reserve through
Instructors
Paul Kantor (LIS)
Office hours: T Th
Office:
email: phdd@scils.rutgers.edu
tel: 732 932 7500 x 8216
Bill Solomon
Office hours: W 2:30 - 4:00
Office: Room 101, DeWitt House
email: wsolomon@scils.rutgers.edu
tel: 732 932 7500 x 8618
Mark Aakhus (
Office hours: Th 3-4 p.m. and by appt.
Office: CIL 215
email: aakhus@scils.rutgers.edu
tel: 732 932 7500 x 8110
Course Objectives
This course aims to accomplish four goals:
We aim to provide introduction into communication, information and media processes that will encourage reflection and identification of problems and areas of concentration students seek to address in their doctoral preparation. We also aim to address concerns with the relationships among theory, research and method in the study of communication, information and media processes and issues and how these relate to the three areas of the Ph.D. Program: Communication Processes; Library and Information Science; Media Studies.
Organization of the Course
The course is organized into four multi-week sections. The first four weeks are devoted to an introduction to the course and a three-week OVERVIEW that attempts to frame communication, information and media concerns within the context of a set of broader issues in the social and human sciences. The readings for the OVERVIEW include selections by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, and a physicist.
The next three sections of three weeks each are each devoted to one of the
three Areas of the Ph.D. Program. The goal in these sessions is to introduce
formative conceptualizations and issues in each of these areas. Aakhus will lead the section on COMMUNICATION
PROCESSES; Kantor will lead the section on LIBRARY AND
Each class meeting will be divided into two parts: an introduction to the topic by the faculty member leading the section and general class discussion of the readings for that week, based upon questions or topics set by the instructor.
The final two sessions of the course will be devoted to final presentations.
Assignments
Each student will be asked to complete four papers in this course, one for
each of the four sections, and a final presentation for the course as a whole.
[DISREGARD THIS PARGRAPH, -paul]Each of the four section-based papers will discuss the readings in that section, and leading questions or suggestions for the paper will be provided with the syllabus for each section. These papers will be about five pages long, and each will count for 20% of the final grade. Each of these papers is due one week after the section’s meetings end.
The final presentation will be an integrative, critical summary of the course readings and discussions and their impact upon the students research interest, and an operationalization of that interest as a proposal for a research project. This work, if written up, will be about five pages long, and will be the basis for an eight -minute presentation to the class. The presentation will count for 20% of the final grade.
All papers are to be submitted according to the format specified in the Style Manual of the American Psychological Association, and are expected to be in grammatically, syntactically and lexically correct English. The four "sectional" papers are to be submitted no later than the week after that section ends; the final presentation must be given during the semester.
Academic integrity. Please always
bear in mind that while another author may have expressed your ideas better
than you can (at least today) the work that you submit must be your own
expression of those ideas. Any material
taken from a source (such as the Internet) must be properly footnoted, and must
be set off either by “quotation marks” or by special indentation,
so that any reader will know that it is a quotation, and not your own original
expression. This is extremely
important (pardon us for shouting).
Students (and faculty) are expected to be active contributors to the discussions at each meeting, and participation in discussion will be a mediating factor in the final grade. Here at SCILS we encourage wide-ranging and insightful debate, and we always bear in mind that critiquing the ideas of a colleague is often the most positive and helpful contribution that one can make. But we are always mindful of the fact that criticism, however much it helps, is always somewhat unpleasant to hear, and should be done in a polite fashion.
Reading Assignments
Students are expected to have completed the assigned readings prior to each class. Required materials for the OVERVIEW section are identified in the Course Schedule below. Additional readings for each of the other sections will be identified in the syllabi for each section.
This link should lead to the online reserve readings. http://www.iris.rutgers.edu/
The click [RESERVE]
Type in the word “Solomon” (no quotation marks)
Click the little cloud that says Instructor
Then click on the name Solomon, William, which leads all the rest.
-paul
Course Schedule and
|
Date |
Section, readings, assignments |
|
9/7 |
Introduction to course. |
|
9/14 |
|
|
9/21 |
Overview III. The idea of communication & some puzzles for research practice 1. Peters, J. (1999). “Introduction: The problem of
communication” (pp 1-32) and “History of an error: The
spiritualist tradition” (pp. 63-108). Speaking into the air: A
history of the idea of communication. 2. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony
(Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp.
284-324). a. Axley, S. (1984). Managerial and
organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. 3. Parks, M. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the
couch and into the world. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearkbook
5 (pp. 79-107). 4. Craig, R. (1999). Required = Numbered articles Recommended = Lettered articles Leader: Aakhus |
|
9/28 . |
Overview II. Information, Humans, and Nature Leader: Kantor |
|
10/5 |
For class be prepared to discuss the emergence of the field of Communication and to: a. Explain one of the implications for communication research that Berger sees in his development of the covering law perspective. (Note: simply explain do not critique.) b. Summarize Miller’s view that communication is a process. 1.
Delia, J. (1987). Twentieth-century
communication research: An historical perspective. In C. Berger & S.
Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of
communication science (pp. 20-98). a. Smith, D. (1954). Origin and development of departments of speech. In
K. R. Wallace (ed.), History of speech
education in b. Barnett, G. & Danowski, J. The
Structure of c. Craig, R. & Carlone, D. (1998). Growth
and transformation of communication studies in 2. Berger, C. (1977). The covering law perspective as a theoretical
basis for the study of human communication. a. Watson, J. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist sees it. Psychological review, 20, 158-177. b. Hempel, C. (1980). Logical analysis of
psychology. In N. Block (ed.), 3. Weaver, W. (1949). Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of
communication. In C. Shannon and W. Weaver (Eds.), The mathematical theory of communication (pp. 1-28). 4. Miller, G. (1966). Speech
communication: A behavioral approach. a. Berlo, D. (1960). The process of communication. Required Recommended Assignment 1 (Overall) due. |
|
10/12 |
For this unit be prepared to discuss the emergence of new orientations toward theory and method and to: a. Explain one of the implications for communication research that O’Keefe sees in his criticism of logical empiricism. (Note: simply explain do not critique.) b. Summarize Scheidel & Brooks’ and Smith’s arguments that Berlo and Miller’s research orientatations do not embody a process view of communication. 1. O’Keefe, D. (1975). Logical empiricism and the study of human communication. Speech Monographs, 42, 169-183. a. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58. 2. Smith, D. (1972). a. Brooks, R. & Scheidel, T. (1968). Speech as process: A case study. Speech Monographs, 55, 1-7. 3. Pearce, W. B. (1985). Scientific research methods in communication
studies and their implications for theory and research. In T. Benson (ed.), Speech communication in the 20th
century (pp. 255-281). 4. Craig, R. (1983). Galilean rhetoric and practical theory. 5. Required Recommended |
|
10/19 |
For this unit be prepared to discuss the different ideas about communication and approaches to communication research within at least two of the following topics. The following list does not claim to be representative of research in the field but it does claim to represent differences in the way communication is theorized and researched within the contemporary field of communication. You will have to look these articles up for yourself in the library or online. Most, if not all, of the following articles are available online via the Rutgers University Library. Unit 4
|
|
10/26 |
LIS I 1. Classical/User Centered Librarianship a. Ranganathan SR (1957) The Five Laws of Library Science.
The Ranganathan moved from the idea of a library as an orderly warehouse of valuable books to the idea that the library exists to serve some particular set of individuals – its readers. As you read the 5 Laws, challenge yourself to ask: how are these laws transmuted, invalidated, or preserved as we move form libraries with books of paper to digital libraries and the World Wide Web. What needs ot be changed? What remains the same in his view. 2. “Sociological Librarianship” a.
Shera JH (1970) Sociological Foundations of
Librarianship. Shera was an early proponent of the idea that Libraries (now called Information Systems) are to be, in part at least, understood as Sociological entities. In doing this he draws on what he knew of sociology at the time that he wrote. To what extent is this merely putting fancy clothing onto a perfectly serviceable work horse? To what extent does it have significant implications for either the management of libraries, or their regulation as part of a larger society? As the fashions in sociology change, how can we, in the more “applied” areas decide which of the old concepts to keep and which to discard? What should be our criteria for giving up a view that once added value? Is it enough to simply follow the fashions? Can the applied sciences contribute to the social and behavioral sciences? If so, how? If not, why should we be in the faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities? 3. Information Systems as Socio-Technical Systems a. Krogstie J Sølvberg A. Information Systems Engineering. (2000). This is apparently an updated version of several earlier books, and was found only on the Web. K and S provide a rather comprehensive look (based on several
dissertations by Sølvberg’s students) of the problems of
applying contemporary theories of engineering and computer science to
information systems, of which libraries are one example. This work, at In particular, graphical representations play an important part, as
researchers seek to capture the essential relations among the several
concepts or entities that they discuss. Some portions of this are not easy to
read, but you should be able to extract meaning. The only terms that will not
be explained by reference to an ordinary dictionary are,
I think “digraph” and “state”. If you know Greek, you might think that
digraph somehow refers to a “double graph”. But actually it is an
English neologism meaning “directed graph”. The connectivity of ordinary streets can be
represented as a graph. [Graph theory
was invented in the study of the great A “state” is an abstraction, representing the condition of an individual an organization, or an entire system. When you see the word “state” used, you have to dig carefully to understand whether it is the state of an individual, or something larger. Thus we might say “John is happy” or “the class is happy” or “SCILS has a happy morale”. These ascribe states to 3 very different “systems”. Those are, of course, not “the same state”, even though they are all described by the same word. As a help to understanding K&S, think of some information system that you use from time to time, such as an ATM system, and try to model it in one or another of the frameworks that they discuss. these readings may all be found at http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kantor/601/Readings2004/Week1/ 4. A cultural bonbon a. Geertz M. Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. [All previous classes of 601, for some time have read this, so it is included for “micro-cultural literacy”. Although he never uses a short word when a long one would do, the author writes very very well.] Assignment 2 (Comm)
due. |
|
|
LIS II. |
|
11/9 |
LIS III. Please divide into three groups by the following scheme. If you are born in Month 1,4,7,10 Please read (r3) Scriven http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kantor/601/Readings2004/Week3/r3.PDF Month 2,5,8,11 Please read van Fraassen http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kantor/601/Readings2004/Week3/r2.PDF Month 3,6,9,12 Please read Kitcher http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kantor/601/Readings2004/Week3/r1.PDF [Jan=1, etc… Dec = 12] Be prepared to lead a discussion by (1) summarizing what the author says, and (2) how it relates to what the more specific discussions either by people concerned with practice (Shera, Ranganathan) or with theory (the others) have been saying. I will try to allow more time for your presentations this week, so that you can really discuss the issues. About the philosophers. Van Fraasen is best known for his work on Quantum Mechanics. But this essay is not about that. It begins with a “story” which may be confusing at first, which is intended to illustrate the different kinds of meaning that the word “explanation” might have. As far as I know, he was not the guest at a country estate, and the story he tells is not true. These works together give us a pretty good view of what the notion of explanation might mean to philosophers who hear us use that word. At a meta-level, we might ask whether we should “care” what the philosophers think. My own view is that they are moved to think more deeply about these things than most of us, so it cannot hurt to listen to them. On the other hand, like the sociologists of science (such as Bourdieu) they are necessarily looking at the practice “from the outside”, and may miss some essentials of the culture of science. This is much the same as the problem of an anthropologist who seeks to understand another culture. Even “running from the police” is still not the same as being part of the culture. Watching other people do laboratory experiments cannot possible be the same experience as doing those experiments yourself. Interviewing cancer patients cannot be the same as having cancer yourself, etc. [Question FOR DISCUSSION –
what event in a research project might provoke the same cultural insights as Geertz’ flight from the police in ============================================================================== Consider that a library, in its context, might be represented by various entities (nodes) in a diagram based on this figure http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kantor/601/Readings2004/Week3/rLIS_Paper.PDF . Now, someone might want to study a library (or an information system) from many different perspectives. For each perspective, one would concentrate on some of the components, and their interactions with each other. After deciding which components to concentrate on, one would then decide which kinds of interactions among them are interesting for this particular research. So, after making those decisions, one would have a diagram to serve as a point of reference for a discussion. Please use this approach in writing the LIS paper. Now, what is the paper about? We provide a common setting: (I will use the word “library” here to mean both. So, for these purposes we could say that Google is a kind of library). A Library or information service exists to serve some set of social, cultural and individual purposes. Whether we are building it, managing, evaluating it, or attacking it, we should refer to those purposes in our discussion and our analysis. However, what we think the purposes of the library to be may depend on our larger perspective about the role of social science, and the nature of the relation between individuals and culture. Choose one of the three perspectives below, and write a paper about how to tell whether a library is good. In the beginning of your paper pay particular attention to the difference between your axioms, which are principles that you insist to be true, and have no intention of testing, and your hypotheses, models, theories or laws. These 4 things are ideas which you use as a basis for reasoning. But (in the sense of Berger) you are prepared to see them fail or be refuted. If that happens, you would move on to other ideas. With regard some idea that you see as an axiom (for example, you might take it as an axiom that every individual acts so as to optimize his or her own personal welfare, or that individuals as a reflection of their societies), try to take one step back and ask whether it is possible in some way to test that axiom. [For some axioms, such as “people differ” it may not be possible to make a test.] Please pick one of these three options, and write your paper on it. Be sure to tell me which option you have picked, in case your spirit wanders too much while you are writing the paper J. Perspective 1. The library exists to realize the full potential of those who work within it, as managers, as staff, as computer operators, etc. 1. Which ideas from the readings make it possible to adopt this point of view? 2. How do they support that point of view? 3. What does this imply for deciding whether the library is good. 4. Finally, J, if you were actually hired by a library to do a study to find out whether it is good, (from this perspective) what kinds of methods would you use (draw on what you learn in 602, and anywhere else, for answering this.) Perspective 2. The library exists to serve the needs, perceived or unperceived, of its users, perhaps as employees, as individuals, as members of families or as citizens. 1. Which ideas from the readings make it possible to adopt this point of view? 2. How do they support that point of view? 3. What does this imply for deciding whether the library is good. 4. Finally, J, if you were actually hired by a library to do a study to find out whether it is good, (from this perspective) what kinds of methods would you use (draw on what you learn in 602, and anywhere else, for answering this.) Perspective 3. The library exists to reproduce the constraints and limitations of the dominant culture. It serves to keep its staff, and its patrons, from straying outside limits which have been judged “safe” by those who exert and unperceived hegemonic control over the life of the society (or organization) in which the library exists. 1. Which ideas from the readings make it possible to adopt this point of view? 2. How do they support that point of view? 3. What does this imply for deciding whether the library is good. 4. Finally, J, if you were actually hired by a library to do a study to find out whether it is good, (from this perspective) what kinds of methods would you use (draw on what you learn in 602, and anywhere else, for answering this.) Please write a focused paper on the perspective you chose. Be sure to answer each of the questions in a section with a label (1,2,3,4) , so I know that it is intended to be the answer. Cite in APA style, and cite at least 6 of the papers in this course (even if some of them are cited as opposing the perspective that you adopt). Pls write 6-8 pages, including the diagram with a caption that may be as much as half a page long. The paper will have these parts: A. Diagram; B. Caption; C. discussion of perspective, axioms and models etc., D. the answers to questions (D1,D2,D3,D4) and E. references. You may put them in another order if you like. |
|
11/16 |
Media Studies I |
|
11/23 |
|
|
11/30 |
(pick any two) "Encoding/Decoding," by Stuart Hall. Chapter 10 in Culture, Media, Language, edited by Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis. New York: Routledge, 1992, pp. 128-138. "Beyond the Screen: History, Class, and the Movies," by Steven J. Ross. Chapter 2 in The Hidden Foundation: Cinema and the Question of Class, edited by David E. James and Rick Berg. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996, pp. 26-55. "Unveiling Imperialism: Media, Gender, and the War on Afghanistan," Carol Stabile and Deepa Kumar, Media, Culture and Society, forthcoming "Trust No One (on the Internet): The CIA-Crack-Contra Conspiracy Theory and Professional Journalism," by Jack Zeljko Bratich, Television & New Media, Vol. 5, No. 2, May 2004, pp. 109-139. "Global Media Events in India: Contest over Beauty, Gender, and Nation," by Radhika Parameswaran. paper presented at the annual meetings of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, July 31-August 3, 2003.
Written Assignment:Critique one of the readings from weeks II or III, by discussing how persuasive you find the essay to be. Examine its thesis, its use of other works, and its methodology. What do you conclude? |
|
12/7 |
Presentations of final papers. Assignment 4. (Media Studies) due. |
|
12/14 |
|
Assignment 1. Please write a paper no longer than 5 pages, in APA style, which addresses the question “Is Social science more driven by ideas, or by technologies?” Support your argument with specific examples of major changes in some field, and clarify your argument by reference to specific points in the readings of the first part of this course.
Communication Units Assignment: Compare the articles within one of the Unit III topical areas. Write a position paper that answers the following question: How do the authors differ over (1) their conceptualization of communication as a researchable phenomenon and (2) what counts as a successful empirical claim about communication? In drawing these contrasts, your purpose is to explain not to critique. A successful answer will make a clear, convincing argument that integrates readings and discussion from the 4 units on Communication this semester. Your paper can be no more than 5 -double-spaced, 1-inch margin, 12 point New Times Roman font – pages. This should follow APA format (title page, abstract, references, tables, figures, and appendices to not count toward the 5 page limit).
Assignment 3. Write a paper based on the LIS perspectives.
Assignment 5. Prepare a persuasive case that presents an integrative, critical summary of the course readings and discussions from this semester. The presentation may be supported by slides or a paper that you read to the class. You will have 8 minutes for the presentation. Your classmates will all be asked to pay careful attention to your presentation, and to assess it on dimensions such as clarity of exposition, rigor of the reasoning, and persuasiveness of any argumentation. Your presentation must answer one of the following questions:
What are the intellectual challenges in creating and sustaining a coherent and relevant research enterprise that addresses the aspects of society represented by the terms communication, information, and media?
or
How are the areas of communication, information, and media unique disciplinary areas and yet complementary and coherent fields of research?