NCA argues for inclusion of Communication in NRC study of research doctorates
By Jim Gaudino, NCA Executive Director
November 2002
(Reprinted here by permission of NCA)
The National Communication Association (NCA), in cooperation with the Council of Communication Associations (CCA), has been working with the staff at the National Research Council (NRC) to advocate for the inclusion of Communication in the next study of research doctorates. The NRC project has formed a Methodology Committee charged with making recommendations on various methodological aspects of the next study, including issues like the inclusion of disciplines.
An invited presentation
Communication was invited to meet with the Methodology Committee on September 30, 2002. Linda Putman, CCA President, developed a presentation in cooperation with a committee of CCA representatives. Scott Poole, NCA’s Research Board Chair, and Bill Balthrop, NCA President, played major roles in the development of the content for the presentation.
Unfortunately, Linda Putnam was unable to attend the NRC meeting because of illness of a family member. Bill finalized the presentation with the assistance of Scott, Linda, and me. The PowerPoint slides that accompanied the presentation are available at www.natcom.org/research.
Also given to the committee was a list of 109 doctoral programs compiled by Scott from lists supplied by CCA member societies, a list of federal granting agencies from which communication scholars have received support, and a description of funding of exemplary communication programs.
Attending the meeting with me were Bill, Scott, and Ellen Wartella. Bill delivered the briefing and Scott, Ellen, and I assisted him with responses to questions from the committee members.
The purposes of the briefing were to 1) establish us as a research (rather than a professional) discipline, and 2) respond to issues raised by the methodology of the study regarding how their metrics might be applied to Communication.
Our joint “read of the room” suggested the presentation was well received. I was, for example, seated next to a representative of the National Science Foundation who several times indicated to me that he was very impressed with the presentation and that he was gaining a much better understanding of and appreciation for our field.
Questions and answers
Only one question from the committee appeared to address the misperception that our doctoral degrees are professional in nature. One member commented on the data presented that shows that most graduating with a Ph.D. in Communication Ph.D. go directly into academic research positions by asking if it were not also the case that most communication faculty hold full time jobs outside the academy and teach in part-time roles. Of course, our response was that such was not the case.
Questions dealing with metrics fell into two broad categories. One set dealt with the relationships between some areas of Communication and other disciplinary structures (e.g., Information Management, Library Science; Theatre; Cinema Studies, English, etc.). The committee seemed satisfied with our answers.
One or four
The second type of question centered on the separate areas of study within Communication. In the presentation, we provide descriptions of the four categories developed by CCA last year for inclusion in the Classification of Instructional Program codes. Those areas are:
Communication Studies: Scientific and critical research on human communication, including interpersonal, organizational, public, and intercultural communication and communication in various social, cultural, and political contexts;
Mass Communication and Media Studies: Research on media institutions, media texts, media effects, and how media are used to produce and transform culture;
Speech and Rhetorical Studies: Research focused on political and social rhetoric, audience analysis, argumentation, rhetorical criticism, and rhetorical theory; and
Telecommunication Studies: Research on the development, use, regulation, and effects of telecommunication technologies, including radio, television, telephony, and the internet
Those attending the meeting agreed that the Methodology Committee seems to be concerned about whether they can do one survey for the entire field of Communication or if four are required for the distinct areas presented. While it is likely that most reading this summary would endorse the study of sub fields, with even more categories, a prudent course of action is probably to advocate for one survey for Communication.
Four surveys for the subareas would result in relatively small sample sizes (maximum 60 per area by Scott’s count) and this is an important issue for the methodology committee. Communication would be better off going with a single survey.
Cost is another consideration. NRC must raise funds for to conduct the study. The more fields that are included, the more costly the data collection and analysis.
Simplicity also appears to be an issue for the Methodology Committee. In view of the fact that complex fields such as Political Science, Anthropology, and Sociology all have just the single survey, Communication is again probably better off advocating for that option, since our argument is premised, in part, on establishing our similarity to these fields that are included in the survey in terms of size and research orientation.
Like these fields, Communication will have to figure out how to interpret the results later on. This should not be too much of a problem, since the upcoming survey is most likely to be reported in terms of a set of metrics, such as number of articles per capita, awards per capita, etc, rather than just a global ranking based on one criterion.
Also presenting at the meeting were representatives from theatre, microbiology, and business. The committee also listened a presentation from representatives of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions regarding issues of diversity.
Decision soon
The committee indicated that they plan to make their decision soon (they suggested by the end of October). I will, of course, keep you posted.
Finally, I want to thank Bill, Linda, Scott and Ellen for their work on this important project and for helping me prepare this summary. I also want to thank the members of the CCA committee, especially James Applegate and Steve Lacy, who with Linda and Scott, headed the CCA effort to collect much of the data that was used in the presentation.
