Media (other than), film, and communication (whatever that is)

ABSTRACT

In this paper, the author explores the idea that the academic study of communication is impeded by a number of institutional and professional practices. While the paper commences with a satirical sendup of one such practice, the general thrust of the paper is an earnest attempt to invite others to join in a campaign to shift how we name, speak of, and place the study of communication within academe. As is explained below, the status quo holds negative consequences for the theoretical richness, conceptual coherence, and ultimately, the practical import of communication research. In sum, the author explores key theoretical and practical consequences of our field’s basic conceptual understanding of its subject and organises his remarks by proffering a sustained plea to articulate what a medium is, in general, and to explain, also in general terms, how a medium is made within ever expanding arcs of communication.

KEYWORDS:

• Communication theory
• communication research
• University teaching

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Adam Muir as well as the reviewers of CRP for their editorial comments. A brief, draft version of this paper was delivered as an oral presentation at ANZCA 2015, Queenstown.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Throughout this paper, I use a capital ‘C’ to refer to the discipline of Communication. The lower case ‘c’ denotes communication – the ongoing production of meaningful behaviour – itself (Sigman, 1987).

2. We encounter similar problems with the term ‘mobile media’. This term excludes the most ubiquitous of portable media – the book – a technology and early form of telecommunication. Postman (1985) reminds us that books are not only the oldest, but perhaps the most successful form of, distance education.

3. The term infracommunication was coined by Birdwhistell (1970) to refer to components or pieces which sit below the overarching function of communication or communication systems.

4. I have taken care to not put forth a uniform conceptualisation of medium in the present article. While one may readily be drawn from combining Birdwhistell (1970) with Sigman (1987) and Cronen (2009), I have resisted doing do at this juncture. Our field will need to grapple with this issue as an inherent piece of the study of communication – regardless of the infracommunication entry point into its study. Moreover, forming a new, basic concept of medium will be a social accomplishment – one carried forward with multiple parties interested in placing communication first.

5. Schegloff (1997) goes even further in his critique of the role of critical studies as a means to focus exclusively upon moment-to-moment coordination inherent in communication. He suggests that scholars such as Foucault, Habermas, and Derrida have little if any substantive input on the actual ordering processes instantiated in the moment-by-moment coordination inherent in communication. Schegloff reminds readers that none of these scholars produced work based upon empirically situated analyses. And as he underscores, each of these three scholars worked in the realm of hypotheticals. While communication features in their work, it is not the subject of their work. If the subject of our work is going to be communication, we require a radical realignment of its basic concepts and practices back towards communication itself.

6. Sigman (1987) and Birdwhistell (1970) are clear to remind us that these areas are not forms or levels of communication. They are vistas into the process of communication created by our chosen points of entry into sustained observation and/or analysis. See my related comments below about ‘science communication’.

7. The department continues to offer a different way of approaching communication. In its ‘about communication’ statement, it states the following:

Communication as a field of study develops answers to three main questions:

why people communicate,

what happens as a result of communicating, and

how does communication itself get accomplished?

The University at Albany Department of Communication is unusual for giving primary emphasis to the third concern (emphasis mine).

Retrieved from: http://www.albany.edu/communication/about_communication.php

8. Taking this large number of papers is typical in a US-style academic doctorate. Having now completed a PhD structured in a very different manner, I am qualified to speak about the comparative advantages and disadvantages of these competing PhD programme structures – but that is another essay for another time. Suffice it to say that in the course of completing my coursework, examinations, and research proposal writing I engaged a concerted and deep study of my subject. I gather that I wrote, and was assessed by the postgraduate faculty, in producing more than 125,000 words across my time at Albany.

9. Cronen’s (1998) essay summarises the unsuitability of Psychology as a foundation upon which to build contemporary communication theory.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David Paterno

David Paterno is a Research Fellow within the School of Property, Construction and Project Management at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is the 2016 recipient of the Harold Innis award for outstanding thesis in the field of Media Ecology, awarded by the Media Ecology Association (USA).