Advertisement

Faulty Reception: The Institutional Roots of U.S. Communication Research’s Neglect of Public Sphere Scholarship

  • Jefferson PooleyEmail author
  • Christian Schwarzenegger
Chapter
Part of the Medien • Kultur • Kommunikation book series (MKK)

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Besonderheiten der Rezeption des Öffentlichkeitskonzepts (Public Sphere) von Habermas in der US-amerikanischen Communication Research anhand wissenssoziologischer Faktoren. Dabei heben wir zwei zusammenwirkende Faktoren hervor, die für die verspätete und insbesondere unvollständige Rezeption der habermasschen Ideen mitverantwortlich zeichnen: (1) Die nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg stattfindende Institutionalisierung der angehenden Wissenschaftsdisziplin „Kommunikation“ aus bis dahin bestehenden Journalism Schools und auf Rhetorik spezialisierten Speech Departments heraus; sowie (2) den spezifischen Verlauf der Übersetzung und der transnationalen Aneignung des Public-Sphere-Konzepts von Habermas in den 1990er Jahren. Wir argumentieren, dass das institutionelle Fundament der Kommunikationswissenschaft in den USA mit dazu beigetragen hat eine grundständige Auseinandersetzung mit „public sphere“ durch KommunikationswissenschaftlerInnen zu verhindern oder zumindest zu verzögern. Unsere hier nur teilweise getestete Hypothese lautet, dass das relativ zu den Nachbardisziplinen gesehen niedrige Prestige der Kommunikationswissenschaft innerhalb der amerikanischen Universitätskultur für die Art und Form, wie Ideen und Konzepte in der Disziplin aufgenommen, dort verarbeitet und aus dieser wieder exportiert werden, mitverantwortlich ist. Im Fall der Public Sphere nehmen wir an, dass Habermas‘ Arbeit zuerst von amerikanischen Geschichtswissenschaftlern und Vertretern der traditionellen Social Sciences aufgenommen worden ist und erst dann, in einem zweiten Schritt aus solchen Disziplinen mit höherem Prestige an die Kommunikationswissenschaft gewissermaßen „weitergereicht“ worden ist. Die Public Sphere ist, so unsere Annahme, in der US-Kommunikationswissenschaft, in Anlehnung an das bekannte Modell von Lazarsfeld und Katz (1955) gesprochen, in einem Two-Step-Flow angekommen. Aufgrund des in der Geschichte ihrer Institutionalisierung wurzelnden anhaltend niedrigen Prestiges der Kommunikationswissenschaft erwarteten wir für die Rezeption des Public Sphere Konzepts, dass diese charakterisiert sein würde durch eine insgesamt „leichtere“ Auseinandersetzung, eine verzögerte Übernahme, ein einseitiges Zitationsmuster (Kommunikationswissenschaftler zitieren, aber werden nicht zitiert) und wenige „Botschafter“ des Konzepts innerhalb des Feldes, denen eine Schlüsselrolle für die Rezeption und künftige Deutung des Konzepts innerhalb der Disziplin zukommt. Um unsere Annahme zu testen, wurde eine vergleichende Analyse von Journalbeiträgen, die Habermas und die Public Sphere (HPS) zitieren, im Zeitverlauf unternommen. Dafür haben wir zehn Communication Journals aus den USA mit zehn (bezüglich Relevanz und Status in der Disziplin) vergleichbaren Journals aus drei anderen US-Disziplinen verglichen: der Politikwissenschaft, Soziologie und Geschichte. Auf Basis von Volltext, Titel/Abstract und Keyword-Suchen wurden der Zeitverlauf, die Häufigkeit und die Wechselseitigkeit von HPS-Referenzen untersucht. Die Journal-Analyse bestätigte unsere ursprüngliche Annahme, was die Rolle von Botschaftern und Übersetzungspionieren innerhalb des Feldes betraf: Die entsprechenden kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Beiträge erschienen später und in geringerer Häufigkeit. Zudem bestätigte sich, dass Zitationen von kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Beiträgen wesentlich seltener waren, als das umgekehrte Zitationsmuster, also Zitationen von Historikern, Politikwissenschaftlern und Soziologen durch KommunikationswissenschaftlerInnen. Generell wurden die kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Artikel deutlich weniger zitiert als jene aus den benachbarten Disziplinen. Wir folgern daraus, dass die Legitimationsprobleme der Disziplin in den USA intellektuelle Konsequenzen haben. Im untersuchten Fall zeigt sich dies darin, dass zwar Ideen und Konzepte in die Disziplin einreisen, aber es kaum einen Rückreiseverkehr und Wiederexport aus der Kommunikationswissenschaft gibt. Das Beispiel von Habermas und der Public Sphere kann, so nehmen wir an, stellvertretend für eine grundsätzlich bestehende Situation gelesen werden.

Abstract

This chapter focuses on sociology-of-knowledge factors to help explain the peculiar reception of the public sphere concept within U.S. American communication research. We emphasize two overarching factors: (1) The institutional emergence of a polyglot, would-be discipline of “communication” from journalism schools and speech departments in the decades after World War II; and (2) the sociology of cross-national academic translation of the public-sphere scholarship of Jürgen Habermas in the 1990s. The chapter argues that these two factors interacted over time to shape the late—and notably partial—uptake of Habermas’s ideas. That is, the U.S. discipline’s institutional underpinnings helped to produce the intellectual conditions that prevented, or at least delayed, a robust engagement with the public sphere by communication researchers. In part because of the intellectual coordinates they inherited from the discipline’s institutional arrangements, U.S researchers were unequipped to absorb the European import. Our hypothesis, only partly tested in the chapter, is that U.S. communication’s low prestige relative to neighboring disciplines helped to shape the flow of ideas into and out of the discipline. In the public sphere case, we suggest, Habermas’s ideas were picked up first by U.S. scholars in history and the traditional social sciences, who then passed the concept along to communication researchers. For reasons rooted in its institutional history, U.S. communication research is a low-status discipline relegated to the margins of the university. This persistent and self-reinforcing prestige gap, relative to adjacent fields, led us to expect a patterned reception of the public sphere concept, including lighter engagement, a delayed uptake, a one-way citation pattern, and a key role for in-field ambassadors. As a test of our hypothesis, we conducted a comparative analysis of journal articles citing Habermas and the public sphere (HPS) over time. We selected ten U.S. communication journals, and compared these to ten more-or-less analogous journals in three other U.S. disciplines: political science, sociology and history. Using full-text and title/abstract keyword searches, we measured the timing, frequency and reciprocity of HPS references in the twenty journals. With the exception of the hypothesized role for in-field “translators” the journal analysis supported our initial expectations. Communication literature appeared later and less frequently. Scholars outside communication research were far less likely to cite articles by communication scholars than the reverse pattern—references to communication scholars by historians, political scientists, and sociologists. The communication articles, moreover, were significantly under-cited relative to their counterpart papers in the other disciplines. We conclude that the U.S. American discipline’s legitimacy problems have intellectual consequences. In particular, ideas flow in from the outside, but the field’s own ideas tend not to travel back. The Habermas/public sphere-case, we suggest, provides tentative support for this broader claim. The German “public sphere” concept arrived late, and seems to have passed through other, higher-prestige U.S. disciplines first.

Bibliography

  1. Abbott, A. (2010). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge, M., & Evetts, J. (2003). Rethinking the concept of professionalism: The case of journalism. British Journal of Sociology, 54(4), 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, S. (2010). Professionalism: Journalism without professional journalists? In L. Steiner & C. Christians (eds.), Key concepts in critical cultural studies (pp. 145–157). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  4. Backhouse, R. E., & Fontaine, P. (eds.). (2010). The unsocial social science? Economics and neighboring disciplines since 1945. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bartmanski, D. (2012). How to become an iconic social thinker: The intellectual pursuits of Malinowski and Foucault. European Journal of Social Theory, 15(4), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of discipline (2. ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beebee, T. O. (2002). The Öffentlichkeit of Jürgen Habermas: The Frankfurt School’s most influential concept. In J. T. Nealon & C. Irr (eds.), Rethinking the Frankfurt School: Alternative legacies of cultural critique (pp. 187–204). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berger, C. R. (1991). Communication theories and other curios. Communication Monographs, 58(1), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bielsa, E. (2011). Some remarks on the sociology of translation: A reflection on the global production and circulation of sociological works. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(2), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1997). Passport to duke. Metaphilosophy, 28(4), 449–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1999). On television. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  13. Buxton, W. J. (1994). The political economy of communications research. In R. E. Babe (ed.), Information and communication in economics (pp. 147–175). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calhoun, C. (1992a). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1–48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Calhoun, C. (ed.). (1992b). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Calhoun, C. (1992c). Sociology, other disciplines, and the project of a general understanding of social life. In T. C. Halliday & M. Janowitz (eds.), Sociology and its publics: The forms and fates of disciplinary organization (pp. 137–198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cartier, J. M. (1988). Wilbur Schramm and the beginnings of American communication theory: A history of ideas [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
  18. Casanova, P. (2004). The world republic of letters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chaffee, S., & Rogers, E. (1997). The establishment of communication study in America. In S. Chaffee & E. Rogers (eds.), The beginnings of communication study in America: A personal memoir (pp. 125–180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Converse, J. (2009). Survey research in the United States: Roots and emergence 1890–1960 (Transaction ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Corner, J. (2013). Is there a ‘field’ of media research? The ‘fragmentation’ issue revisited. Media, Culture and Society, 35(8), 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Craig, R. T. (1990). The speech tradition. Communication Monographs, 57, 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Craig, R. T. (1995). [Review of the book A History of communication study: A biographical approach, by E. M. Rogers, and the book The history of speech communication: The emergence of a discipline 1914–1945, by H. Cohen]. Communication Theory, 5, 178–184.Google Scholar
  24. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. I. (2008). The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crowther-Heyck, H. (2006). Patrons of the revolution: Ideals and institutions in postwar behavioral science. Isis, 97, 420–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dahlberg, L. (2005). The Habermasian public sphere: Taking difference seriously? Theory and Society, 34(2), 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Delia, J. (1987). Communication research: A history. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 20–98). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Dickson, T. (1999). Mass media education in transition: Preparing for the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Dooley, P. L. (2000). Taking their political place: Journalists and the making of an occupation. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  31. Downey, D. J., Wagner, W. E., III, Hohm, C. F., & Dodson, C. J. (2008). The status of sociology within the academy: Where we are, why we’re there, and how to change it. The American Sociologist, 39(2–3), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fish, M. J. (1984). A study of mass communication research and scholarship [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas at Austin, Austin.Google Scholar
  33. Funkhouser, E. T. (1996). The evaluative use of citation analysis for communication journals. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galison, P. L. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Garnham, N. (1992). The media and the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere (S. 359–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Gary, B. (1996). Communication research, the Rockefeller Foundation, and mobilization for the war on words. Journal of Communication, 46(3), 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gemperle, M. (2009). The double character of the German ‘Bourdieu’. On the twofold use of Pierre Bourdieu’s Work in the German-speaking social sciences. Sociologica, 3(1).Google Scholar
  38. Glander, T. (2000). Origins of mass communications research during the American Cold War. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Goodnight, G. T. (1992). Habermas, the public sphere and controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuwied, Germany: H. Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  41. Habermas, J. (1972 [1968]). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique, 3, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Habermas, J. (1984/1987 [1981]). The theory of communicative action (Vols. 1–2). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Habermas, J. (1989 [1962]). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421–461). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Habermas, J. (1996 [1992]). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Habermas, J. (2006a). Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Habermas, J. (2006b). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hacking, I. (1996). The looping effects of human kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 351–383). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Haskell, T. L. (1977). The emergence of professional social science: The American Social Science Association and the nineteenth-century crisis of authority. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hauser, G. A. (1987). Features of the public sphere. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4(4), 437–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Isaac, J. (2012). Working knowledge: Making the human sciences from Parsons to Kuhn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. King, L. J. (1990). A history of the department of communication at the University of Oklahoma: A case study in the history of the discipline [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Oklahoma, Norman.Google Scholar
  55. Koopmans, R. (2004). Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society, 33(3/4), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lee, T.-T. (2005). Media effects on political disengagement revisited: A multiple-media approach. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 416–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leydesdorff, L., & Probst, C. (2009). The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set: The case of communication studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1709–1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Löblich, M., & Scheu, A. M. (2011). Writing the history of communication studies: A sociology of science approach. Communication Theory, 21(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Macke, F. J. (1991). Communication left speechless: A critical examination of the evolution of speech communication as an academic discipline. Communication Education, 40, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marchand, R. (1985). Advertising the American dream: Making way for modernity, 1920–1940. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  61. McLaughlin, N. (1998). How to become a forgotten intellectual: Intellectual movements and the rise and fall of Erich Fromm. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McLuskie, E. (1977). Technical rationality and the public realm: A critical theory of responsibility as mass communication theory and practice. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 3(1), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McLuskie, E. (1993). Against transformations of communication into control: Continuities in the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Meyen, M. (2012). The founding parents of communication: 57 interviews with ICA Fellows. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1451–1459.Google Scholar
  65. Meyen, M., & Löblich, M. (2007). “Ich habe dieses Fach erfunden”: Wie die Kommunikationswissenschaft an die deutschsprachigen Universitäten kam. Köln: Herbert von Halem.Google Scholar
  66. Nelson, H. (1987). Founding father: Willard Grosvener Bleyer, 1873–1935. Journalism Monographs, 104, 5–6.Google Scholar
  67. Ostriker, J. P., & Kuh, C. V. (eds.). (2003). Assessing research-doctorate programs: A methodology study. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  68. Peters, J. D. (1986). Institutional sources of intellectual poverty in communication research. Communication Research, 13(4), 527–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Peters, J. D. (1993). Distrust of representation: Habermas on the public sphere. Media, Culture and Society, 15(4), 541–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Platt, J. (1995). The United States reception of Durkheim’s ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’. Sociological Perspectives, 38(1), 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pooley, J. (2006). An accident of memory: Edward Shils, Paul Lazarsfeld and the history of American mass communication research [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University, New York City.Google Scholar
  72. Pooley, J. (2008). The new history of mass communication research. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (pp. 43–69). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  73. Pooley, J. (2011). Another plea for the university tradition: The institutional roots of intellectual compromise. International Journal of Communication, 5, 1442–1457.Google Scholar
  74. Pooley, J., & Katz, E. (2008). Further notes on why American sociology abandoned mass communication research. Journal of Communication, 58, 767–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pooley, J., & Solovey, M. (2010). Marginal to the revolution: The curious relationship between economics and the behavioral sciences movement in mid-twentieth-century America. History of Political Economy, 42(Suppl 1), 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ratner-Rosenhagen, J. (2011). American Nietzsche: A history of an icon and his ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reeves, B., & Borgman, C. L. (1983). A bibliometric evaluation of core journals in communication research. Human Communication Research, 10(1), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reid, R. F. (1959). The Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory, 1806–1904: A case study in changing conceptions of rhetoric and pedagogy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, B. (1988). Citation networks of communication journals, 1977–1985: Cliques and positions, citations made and citations received. Human Communication Research, 15(2), 256–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rice, R. E., Chapin, J., Pressman, R., Park, S., & Funkhouser, E. (1996). What’s in a name? Bibliometric analysis of 40 years of the Journal of Broadcasting (and Electronic Media). Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40(4), 511–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Roach, H. F. (1950). History of speech education at Columbia College, 1754–1940. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  82. Robbins, D. (2008). French production and English reception: The international transfer of the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Sociologica, 2(2).Google Scholar
  83. Rogers, E. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1994). Communication and journalism from “Daddy” Bleyer to Wilbur Schramm: A palimpsest. Journalism Monographs, 148.Google Scholar
  84. Ross, D. K. (1957). Willard G. Bleyer and journalism education. Journalism Quarterly, 34(3), 94–127.Google Scholar
  85. Santoro, M. (2009). How “not” to become a dominant French sociologist: Bourdieu in Italy, 1966–2009. Sociologica, 3(2/3).Google Scholar
  86. Scaff, L. A. (2011). Max Weber in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Scheu, A. M., & Wiedemann, T. (2008). Kommunikationswissenschaft als Gesellschaftskritik. Die Ablehnung linker Theorien in der deutschen Kommunikationswissenschaft am Beispiel Horst Holzer. Medien and Zeit, 23(4), 9–17.Google Scholar
  88. Schudson, M. (1992). Was there ever a public sphere? If so, when? Reflections on the American case. In C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 143–163). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  89. Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion: Communication research and psychological warfare, 1945–1960. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. So, C. Y. (1988). Citation patterns of core communication journals: An assessment of the developmental status of communication. Human Communication Research, 15(2), 236–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Somers, M. R. (1993). Citizenship and the place of the public sphere: Law, community, and political culture in the transition to democracy. American Sociological Review, 58(5), 587–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sproule, J. M. (1987). Propaganda studies in American social science: The rise and fall of the critical paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sproule, J. M. (2008). “Communication”: From concept to field to discipline. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (164–178). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  95. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Strum, A. (1994). A bibliography of the concept Öffentlichkeit. New German Critique, 61, 161–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tunstall, J. (1983). The trouble with U.S. communication research. Journal of Communication, 33(3), 92–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Turner, C. (2009). Habermas's Öffentlichkeit: A reception history. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 12(2), 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wacquant, L. (1993). Bourdieu in America: Notes on the transatlantic importation of social theory. In C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, & M. Postone (eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp. 235–262). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Weaver, D. H., & Gray, R. G. (1980). Journalism and mass communication research in the United States. Mass Communication Review Yearbook, 1, 124–151.Google Scholar
  101. Whalen, S. (1993). The dialectic of memory and forgetting in histories of rhetoric. Communication Theory, 3(2), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Woessner, M. V. (2011). Heidegger in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Wolf, M. (2007). Introduction. In M. Wolf & A. Fukari (eds.), Constructing a sociology of translation (pp. 1–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Yan, E., Ding, Y., Cronin, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). A bird’s-eye view of scientific trading: Dependency relations among fields of science. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AllentownUSA
  2. 2.AugsburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations