Against dullness: on what it means to be interesting in communication research

References

• Alvesson, M. (2015). The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education, and work organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., & Gabriel, Y. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 245–263. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing research questions: Doing interesting research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bacon, F. (1988). El avance del saber. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
   Google Scholar
• Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.20785494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Bunge, M. (2015). Crítica de la nueva sociología de la ciencia. Pamplona: Laetoli.
   Google Scholar
• Bunz, U. (2005). Publish or perish: A limited author analysis of ICA and NCA journals. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 703–720. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03018.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial Times 40. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 627–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00701.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calhoun, C. (2011). Communication as social science (and more). International Journal of Communication, 5, 1479–1496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caulley, D. N. (2008). Making qualitative research reports less boring: The techniques of writing creative nonfiction. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(3), 424–449. doi: 10.1177/1077800407311961
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, A. F. (2013). ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada ciencia? Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344. doi: 10.1177/004839317100100211
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 321–329. doi: 10.1177/1056492605276850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donsbach, W. (2006). The identity of communication research. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 437–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00294.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echeverría, J. (1995). Filosofía de la ciencia. Madrid: Akal.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhart, M. (2002). The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little? Research in Science Education, 32(2), 241–255. doi: 10.1023/A:1016082229411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esser, F. (2014). Methodological challenges in comparative communication research: Advancing cross-national research in times of globalization. In M. J. Canel & K. Voltner (Eds.), Comparing political communication across time and space (pp. 15–30). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gabriel, Y. (2010). Organization studies: A space for ideas, identities and agonies. Organization Studies, 31(6), 757–775. doi: 10.1177/0170840610372574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goyanes, M. (2015). Hacia una investigación estandarizada. Observatorio (OBS), 9(3), 85–99.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, J., & Lotz, A. D. (2013). A robust and dynamic field. Media, Culture & Society, 35(8), 1019–1022. doi: 10.1177/0163443713508703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2013). Six guidelines for interesting research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5), 549–553. doi: 10.1177/1745691613497967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grey, C. (2010). Organizing studies: Publications, politics and polemic. Organization Studies, 31(6), 677–694. doi: 10.1177/0170840610372575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, L. (2012). Fastening our seatbelts: Turning crisis into opportunity. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 919–931. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01679.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harzing, A. W., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach. Management International Review, 53(2), 169–187. doi: 10.1007/s11575-011-0124-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kramer, M. W., Hess, J. A., & Reid, L. D. (2007). Trends in communication scholarship: An analysis of four representative NCA and ICA journals over the last 70 years. Review of Communication, 7(3), 229–240. doi: 10.1080/15358590701482024
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lagoze, C., Edwards, P., Sandvig, C., & Plantin, J. C. (2015). Should I stay or should I go? Alternative infrastructures in scholarly publishing. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1052–1071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, A. (2013). Discipline in crisis? The shifting paradigm of mass communication research. Communication Theory, 23(1), 10–24. doi: 10.1111/comt.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingstone, S. (2011). If everything is mediated, what is distinctive about the field of communication? International Journal of Communication, 5, 1472–1475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Metz, I., & Harzing, A. W. (2009). Gender diversity in editorial boards of management journals. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 540–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyrowitz, J. (2008). Power, pleasure, patterns: Intersecting narratives of media influence. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 641–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00406.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman, W. R., Davidson, R., Joo, S. H., Park, Y. J., & Williams, A. E. (2008). The seven deadly sins of communication research. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 220–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00382.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noonan, C., & Lohmeier, C. (2017). From cultural studies to impact factor: Media and communication research in the United Kingdom. In S. Averbeck-Lietz (Ed.), Kommunikationswissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 33–52). Bremen: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Perloff, R. M. (2013). Progress, paradigms, and a discipline engaged: A response to Lang and reflections on media effects research. Communication Theory, 23(4), 317–333. doi: 10.1111/comt.12024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, J. (2017). How innovative are editors? Evidence across journals and disciplines. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 256–268. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvx015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, L. (2016). Epistemological (ïm)possibilities and the play of power: Effects of the fragmentation and weak institutionalisation of communication studies in Europe. International Journal of Communication, 10, 689–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, W. J., Cooper, R., & Dupagne, M. (1993). The three paradigms of mass media research in mainstream communication journals. Communication Theory, 3(4), 317–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00077.x
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, L. L. (2001). Shifting voices, oppositional discourse, and new visions for communication studies. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 38–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02871.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosengren, K. E. (1993). From field to frog ponds. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 6–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01271.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvato, C., & Aldrich, H. E. (2012). “That’s interesting!” in family business research. Family Business Review, 25(2), 125–135. doi: 10.1177/0894486512446327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest – The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 57–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00548.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. doi: 10.1177/0956797614567341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. London: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tellis, G. J. (2017). Interesting and impactful research: On phenomena, theory, and writing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 1–6. doi: 10.1007/s11747-016-0499-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vorderer, P. (2016). Communication and the good life: Why and how our discipline should make a difference. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserman, H., & Richards, I. (2015). On the factory floor of the knowledge production plant: Editors’ perspectives on publishing in academic journals. Critical Arts, 29(6), 725–745. doi: 10.1080/02560046.2015.1151109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodford, F. P. (1969). Improving the communication of scientific information. Bioscience, 19(7), 625–627. doi: 10.2307/1294939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar