Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 985–1002 | Cite as

An analysis on communication theory and discipline

  • Chung Joo Chung
  • George A. Barnett
  • Kitae Kim
  • Derek Lackaff
Article

Abstract

This research explores the structure and status of theories used in Communication as an alternative for Communication discipline identity research and characteristics evaluation. This research assumes that communication theories are not only ongoing practices of intellectual communities, but also discourse about how theory can address a range of channels, transcend specific technologies and bridge levels of analysis. It examines widely-cited theoretical contentions among academic articles and the connections among these theories. Network analysis suggests that framing theory is the most influential of the identified theories (ranking first in frequency and degree, closeness, betweenness and eigenvector centrality) and serves to link other communication theories and theory groups. While mass communication and technology theories exhibited the highest centrality, interpersonal, persuasion and organization communication theories were grouped together, integrating sub-theories of each group. Framing theory was the most popular and influential communication theory bridging not only mass communication theories, but also interpersonal, technology, information system, health, gender, inter-cultural and organizational communication theories.

Keywords

Communication discipline Identity Theory network Network analysis 

References

  1. Anderson, J. A. (1996). Communication theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ayish, M. I. (2003). Beyond Western-oriented communication theories: a normative Arab-Islamic perspective. Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 10, 79–92.Google Scholar
  3. Barge, J. K., & Craig, R. T. (2009). Practical theory in applied communication scholarship. In R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Applied Communication Research (pp. 55–78). New York: Routledge, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, G. A., & Danowski, J. A. (1992). The structure of communication: a network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 19, 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, G. A., Huh, C., Kim, Y., & Park, H. W. (2011). Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis. Scientometrics, 88, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (1987). The study of communication as a science. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 15-19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, C., & Chaffee, S. (1988). Bridging the communication gap. Human Communication Research, 15, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2005). Ucinet 6 for Windows. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  10. Chung, C., Lee, S., Barnett, G. A., & Kim, J. (2009). A comparative network analysis of KSJCS and ICA in the era of hybridization. Asian Journal of Communication, 19, 170–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craig, R.T. (1993). Why are there so many communication theories? Journal of Communication, 43, 26–33.Google Scholar
  12. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.Google Scholar
  13. Craig, R. T. (2003). Discursive origins of a communication discipline. Miami Beach, FL, USA: Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  14. D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: a response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doerfel, M. L., & Barnett, G. A. (1999). A semantic network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 25, 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feeley, T. H. (2008). A bibliometric analysis of communication journals from 2002 to 2005. Human Communication Research, 34, 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Funkhouser, E. T. (1996). The evaluative use of citation analysis for communication journals. Human Communication Research, 22, 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halloran, J. D. (1983). A case for critical eclecticism. Journal of Communication, 33, 270–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanneman, R., & Riddle, R. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman.
  22. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research (4th edn.). New York: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, H. J., & Barnett, G. A. (2008). Social network analysis using author co-citation data. Toronto, ON, Canada: Proceedings of the fourteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, S. J., & Barnett, G. A. (2006). The structural change in Communication between 1991 and 2005: A social and semantic network analysis of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany: Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association.Google Scholar
  25. Levine, T. R. (2010). Ranking and trends in citation patterns of communication journals. Communication Education, 59, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation. Scientometrics, 43, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Matthes, J. (2007). Beyond accessibility? toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects. Communications, 32, 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theory of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. O’Sullivan, P. (1999). Bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. Human Communication Research, 25, 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reardon, K. K., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Interpersonal versus mass media communication: a false dichotomy. Human Communication Research, 15, 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, R. (1988). Citation networks of communication journals, 1977–1985: cliques and positions, citations made and citations received. Human Communication Research, 15, 256–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers, E. M. (1994). A history of communication study: a biographical approach. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, E. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1983). Communication as an academic discipline: a dialogue. Journal of Communication, 33, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sarkar, J. (2002). Technological diffusion: alternative theories and historical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12, 131–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiemann, J. M., Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1988). Fragmentation in the field and the movement toward integration in communication science. Human Communication Research, 15, 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Woelfel, J., & Fink, E. L. (1980). The measurement of communication processes: Galileo theory and methods. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chung Joo Chung
    • 1
  • George A. Barnett
    • 2
  • Kitae Kim
    • 3
  • Derek Lackaff
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Journalism and Mass CommunicationKyungpook National UniversityDaeguSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Department of CommunicationState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  4. 4.School of CommunicationsElon UniversityElonUSA

Personalised recommendations