Communication, Information and Media Processes

194:601

Fall 2004

Tuesdays, 3:20 –6:00

Course readings and other material will be made available online, via email, or through the electronic reserve through Rutgers Library.  

Instructors

Paul Kantor  (LIS)

Office hours: T Th 2:30-3:00 . W 1-5

Office: SCILS 312

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 (COMM)

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:

  • underscore the relevance of communication, information and media scholarship to critical issues within contemporary social practice and social thought,  and explore the linkages among these fields of scholarship.
  • identify linkages of concerns within communication, information and media scholarship to enduring issues in the social and human sciences;
  • introduce formative conceptualizations and understandings of communication, information and media; and
  • provide an overview of the foci of scholarly interest and expertise in the study of communication, information and media issues among SCILS faculty.

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 INFORMATION SCIENCE; and Solomon will lead the section on MEDIA STUDIES. Readings for these sections will include readings, all of which will be available online or in electronic reserve, and are primarily from scholarly journals. Syllabi listing required and recommended readings for each of the three sections will be distributed separately.

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.

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 Readings

Date

Section, readings, assignments

9/7

Introduction to course.

9/14

Overview I. Interpretive social science: Speaking of meaning.

Leader: Solomon

Readings:

“Whose Side Are We On?”
Howard S. Becker.
Social Problems, Winter 1967, Vol. 14. pp. 239-247.

The Sane Society
Erich Fromm.
New York: Henry Holt and Company. Chapters 1, 2.

“The Practice of Reflexive Sociology (The Paris Workshop),”
Pierre Bourdieu.
in An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology
Pierre Bourdieu and Loic J.D. Wacquant
University of Chicago Press, 1992. pp. 235-247.

“Introduction to the Revised and Expanded Edition: Thoughts at Age Fifteen,”
in The Mismeasure of Man.
Steven Jay Gould.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co. pp. 19-50.

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. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

2.     Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 284-324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

a.      Axley, S. (1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-437.

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). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

4.     Craig, R. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory 9, 119-161.

 

Required = Numbered articles

Recommended = Lettered articles

Leader: Aakhus

9/28

.

Overview II. Information, Humans, and Nature

Reading: Dyson, F. The Sun, the Genome and the Internet.  These are lectures presented at the New York Public library and are very wide-ranging. 

Leader: Kantor

10/5

Communication Processes I: The emergence and origins of Communication as discipline

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). Beverley Hills: Sage.

a.      Smith, D. (1954). Origin and development of departments of speech. In K. R. Wallace (ed.), History of speech education in America (pp. 447-470). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

b.     Barnett, G. & Danowski, J. The Structure of Communication: A Network Analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 19(2), 264-285.

c.      Craig, R. & Carlone, D. (1998). Growth and transformation of communication studies in U.S. higher education: Towards reinterpretation. Communication Education, 47, 67-81.

2.     Berger, C. (1977). The covering law perspective as a theoretical basis for the study of human communication. Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 7-18.

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.), Readings in the philosophy of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 14-23). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

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). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

4.     Miller, G. (1966). Speech communication: A behavioral approach. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966). (Chs. 1-3).

a.      Berlo, D. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (Chs. 2-4).

Required Readings = Numbered articles

Recommended Reading = Lettered articles

Assignment 1 (Overall) due.

10/12

Communication Processes II: Initial crises and responses to Communication as a behavioral science

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). Communication research and the idea of process. Speech Monographs, 39, 174-182.

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). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

4.     Craig, R. (1983). Galilean rhetoric and practical theory. Communication Monographs, 50, 395-412.

5.     Jackson, S. (1989). Method as argument. In B. Gronbeck (ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 1-8). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Required Readings = Numbered articles

Recommended Reading = Lettered articles

 

 

10/19

Communication III: Exploring ideas about Communication and approaches to research in present day Communication research.

 

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 Readings:

  1. Communicator
    1. Infante, D., Chandler, T., & Rudd, J. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence.  Communication Monographs, 56, 163-177.
    2. Petty, R. et al. (1993). Conceptual and methodological issues in the Elaboration Liklihood Model of persuasion: A reply to the Michigan State critics. Communication Theory, 3, 336-362.
    3. Berger, C., Karol, S., & Jordan, J. (1989). When a Lot of Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing: The Debilitating Effects of Plan Complexity on Verbal Fluency.  Human Communication Research, 16(1), 91-119.
    4. O’Keefe, B. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103.
  2. Message
    1. Miller, G. R., Boster, F., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. (1977). Compliance-gaining message strategies: A typology and some findings concerning effects of situational differences. Communication Monographs, 44, 37-51.
    2. Sanders, R. & Fitch, K. (2001). The actual practice of compliance seeking. Communication Theory, 11, 263-289.
    3. Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9(2), 169-181.
    4. Jones, S. & LeBaron, C. Research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication: Emerging integrations. Journal of Communication, 52, 499-521.
  3. Conversation
    1. Cappella, J. (1979). Talk-silence sequences in informal conversations I. Human Communication Research, 6(1).
    2. Kellerman, K. (1991). The Conversation MOP II: Progression Through Scenes in Discourse. Human Communication Research, 17:3.
    3. Nofsinger, R. (1975). The ‘demand ticket’: A conversational device for getting the floor. Speech Monographs, 42(1), 1-10.
    4. Hopper, R. (1989). Sequential Ambiguity in Telephone Openings: ’What Are You Doin’. Communication Monographs, 56(3), 240-253.
  4. Relationship
    1. Berger, C. & Calabrese, R. (1974) Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
    2. Baxter, L.A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493.
    3. Fitzpatrick, M. (1994). Communication Schemata Within the Family: Multiple Perspectives on Family Interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(3), p. 275-
    4. Cissna, K., Cox, D., & Bochner, A. (1990). The dialectic of marital and parental relationships within the stepfamily. Communication Monographs, 57(1), 44-62.
  5. Group
    1. Fisher, B. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53-60.
    2. Hirokawa, R. Group communication and decision making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14, 487-515.
    3. Poole, M. & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323-356.
    4. Borman, E. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 288-305.
  6. Organization
    1. Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158.
    2. Pollock, T., Whitbred, R. A., & Contractor, N. (2000). Social information processing and job characteristics: A simultaneous test of two theories with implications for job satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 292-330.
    3. Pacanowsky, M. & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance.  Communication Monographs, 50, 129-145.
    4. Taylor, J., Cooren, F., Girouz, N., & Robichaud, D. The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6, 1-39.
  7. Media/Information-Systems
    1. Sproule, M. (1989). Progressive propaganda critics and the magic bullet myth. Critical studies in Mass Communication, 6, 225-246.
    2. Rice, R. (1993). Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional and New Organizational Media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451-
    3. Poole, M. & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel Structuration in Computer-Supported Group Decision Making. Human Communication Research, 19(1).
    4. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The emergence and development of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.
  8. Culture & Society
    1. Philipsen, G. (1975). Speaking ‘Like a Man’ in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61(1), p13-23. 
    2. Grossberg, L. Is there rock after punk? Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 50-73.
    3. Hogan, J. Michael. (1997). George Gallup and the Rhetoric of Scientific Democracy. Communication Monographs, 64(2), 161-180.
    4. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172-199.

10/26

Media Studies I

Assignment 2 (Media Std) due.

11/2

Media Studies II.

11/9

Media Studies  III.

11/16

 LIS I
Assignment 3 (Communication Processes) due.

11/23

 LIS II

11/30

 LIS III

12/7

Presentations of final papers.

Assignment 4. (Library Info Sci) due.

12/14

Presentations.

 

 

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 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?