| |
Adam, G. Stuart. “Jim
Carey and the Problem of Journalism Education.”
Cultural Studies 23, no. 2 (2009): 157-66
Added
January 04, 2010
Barker, Michael J.
“The Liberal Foundations of Media Reform? Creating
Sustainable Funding Opportunities for Radical Media
Reform.” Global Media Journal - Australian Edition
2, no. 1 (2008): 1-16
Added
January 04, 2010
Behrens, Peter.
“Psychology Takes to the Airways: American Radio
Psychology Between the Wars, 1926–1939.” The
American Sociologist 40, no. 3 (2009): 214-27
Added
January 04, 2010
Modern American culture
has seen a proliferation of radio and television
personalities associated with talk therapy and
advice-giving within the last 20 years (Epstein
Psychology Today 34:5 2001). The origin of radio
psychology, however, is the late 1920’s, when
radio began to air many promoters of psychology in the
context of “public service” programming.
Among these individuals were Louis Monash, Arthur
Payne, and, perhaps most importantly, Joseph Jastrow.
Traditionally-trained psychologists used the new medium
of radio in the service of education and adjustment.
This article surveys radio psychology, its
personalities, and topics in the inter-war period and
proposes the significant social support role that radio
psychology played during the Great Depression, much as
modern talk radio does today (Ricks 1984).
Bermejo, Fernando.
“Introduction.” In On Communicating, edited
by Klaus Krippendorf, 1-8. New York: Routledge, 2008
Added
January 04, 2010
Boulton, Chris. “Porn
and Me(N): Sexual Morality, Objectification, and Religion
At the Wheelock Anti-Pornography Conference.”
Communication Review 11, no. 3 (2008): 247-73
Added
January 04, 2010
Bryant, Jennings, and Erika
J. Pribanic-Smith. “A Historical Overview of
Research in Communication Science.” In The Handbook
of Communication Science, edited by Charles R. Berger,
Michael E. Roloff, and David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen, 21-36.
Los Angeles: Sage, 2010
Added
January 04, 2010
Carlsson, Ulla. “Media
and Mass Communication Research Past, Present and Future:
Reflections From a Nordic Horizon.” nordicom.gu.se
27 (2007): 223-29
Added
January 04, 2010
Comella, Lynn.
“Looking Backward: Barnard and Its Legacies.”
Communication Review 11, no. 3 (2008): 202-11
Added
January 04, 2010
Corner, John.
“Introduction: The Formation of the Field.”
In Studying Media: Problems of Theory and Method, 1-34.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998
Added
January 04, 2010
Dickson, Tom. Mass Media
Education in Transition: Preparing for the 21st Century.
Vol. LEA's communication series, Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum,
2000
Added
January 04, 2010
Ekecrantz, Jan. “Media
and Communication Studies Going Global.” Nordicom
Review 27 (2007): 169-81
Added
January 04, 2010
Gamson, William A. “On
Teaching the Mass Media and Politics.”
International Journal Of Press/Politics 13, no. 2 (2008):
153-59
Added
January 04, 2010
Haig, Edward. “Media
Studies Education in the UK.” Studies in Language
and Culture [Japan] 26, no. 2 (2005): 127-50
Added
January 04, 2010
Hannan, Jason. “The
Intellectual Legacy of George Herbert Mead.”
Intellectual History Review 18, no. 2 (2008): 207-24
Added
January 04, 2010
Henderson, Lisa. “Slow
Love.” Communication Review 11, no. 3 (2008):
219-24
Added
January 04, 2010
Hill, Richard J., and
Martin, Walter T. “In Memoriam: Harry Alpert,
1912-1977.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (1978):
141-42
Added
January 04, 2010
Hobbs, Renee. “The
Seven Great Debates in the Media Literacy
Movement.” Journal of Communication 48, no. 1
(1998): 16-32
Added
January 04, 2010
Horowitz, Daniel. Vance
Packard & American Social Criticism. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1994
Added
January 04, 2010
Hoyer, Svennik.
“Reminiscence of Intellectual Battles: Bygone in
Communications Research.” Nordicom Review 27
(2007): 183-94
Added
January 04, 2010
Models in communications studies from the 1940s and
1950s depicted mass communication as one-way traffic.
Sender and recipient faced each other almost like two
individuals, yet unknown to each other, sharing a
stream of messages that carried unequivocal contents
with detectable consequences. From this meagre
beginning, many modifications were added and new
theories developed in the ensuing six to seven decades.
In the process, ‘senders’ have become
complex organisations embedded in the power system of
society, ‘messages’ have become a part of
culture more generally and ‘the audience’
is situated within multiple cultural and social
contexts. Models have become more interactive, but have
they changed enough? Perhaps there is still a need for
a review of the state of the art: of what we really
know about personal and social communications and the
white spaces on our maps.
Jansen, Sue Curry.
“Phantom Conflict: Lippmann, Dewey, and the Fate of
the Public in Modern Society.” Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies 6, no. 3 (2009): 221-45
Added
January 04, 2010
Contrary to the
prevailing view in media and cultural studies,
philosopher John Dewey and journalist Walter Lippmann
did not represent different schools of thought. They
were not adversaries in a great public debate about the
fate of the public in modern democracies in the 1920s.
Rather, their exchange about the “phantom”
public was reframed as a conflict in the early 1980s, a
reframing which has achieved broad interdisciplinary
acceptance even though its rests on a casual rhetorical
trope, not historical documentation. The reframing
provides a salutary but inaccurate origin story for
American media and cultural studies, illustrates the
hazards of relying on secondary interpretations of
historical sources, and deflects attention away from
realistic assessment of the problems confronting
democracy today. Dismantling this disciplinary folklore
is essential to the integrity of the emerging
“new history” of media and
communication.
Jensen, Joli. “The
Meaning of Talk: Carey’s Model of and for the
University.” Cultural Studies 23, no. 2 (2009):
215-22
Added
January 04, 2010
Jones, Steve. “A
University, if You Can Keep it: James W. Carey and the
University Tradition.” Cultural Studies 23, no. 2
(2009): 223-36
Added
January 04, 2010
Kraidy, Marwan.
“Scenarios of Global Culture.” In Hybridity,
Or the Cultural Logic of Globalization, 15-44.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2005
Added
January 04, 2010
Krippendorff, Klaus.
“Ross Ashby’s Information Theory: A Bit of
History, Some Solutions to Problems, and What We Face
Today.” International Journal of General Systems
38, no. 2 (2009): 189-212
Added
January 04, 2010
This paper presents a
personal history of one strand of W. Ross Ashby's many
ideas: using information theory to analyse complex
systems empirically. It starts with where I entered the
evolution of the idea as one of his students, points
out a problem that emerged as a consequence of
generalising information measures from simple to
complex systems, i.e. systems with many variables,
shows how this problem was eventually solved, and ends
with how his idea of decomposing complex systems into
smaller interactions reappears in one of the most
complex technologies of our time: cyberspace. While
nobody could anticipate the complexities that developed
since, Ashby's idea of understanding complex systems in
terms of manageable interactions, which I call
electronic artefacts, is actually practised today and
cyberspace is again worth analysing in information
theoretical terms.
Krippendorff, Klaus.
“Cybernetics’s Reflexive Turn.”
Cybernetics And Human Knowing 15, no. 3-4 (2008):
173-84
Added
January 04, 2010
Kuhn, Annette. “Screen
and Screen Theorizing Today.” Screen 50, no. 1
(2009): 1-12
Added
January 04, 2010
Lang, Kurt, and Lang, Gladys
Engel. “Mass Society, Mass Culture, and Mass
Communication: The Meaning of Mass.” International
Journal of Communication 3 (2009): 998-1024
Added
January 04, 2010
The concept of mass goes
back a long way to characterize a society that consists
of people somehow connected by communication while, at
the same time, also dispersed in space and essentially
detached from one another. Mass has also been a
pejorative for critics of modern capitalist society and
its culture. In the years after World War II, this
latter use of the term became the target of a broadside
attack by several highly credentialed scholars, who
questioned its value as an analytic tool. This paper,
starting with Ferdinand Tönnies, offers a brief
overview of both the origins of the concept of mass and
its subsequent refinement by French, German, and
American sociologists into the mid-1930s.
Distinguishing between its ideological connotations and
the analytic use of the term helps us to focus on the
most general and persistent effects of mass
communication: expanding the range of common experience
and making people more responsive to distant events.
This effect is magnified by the ubiquity of mass media;
practically no one, not even those who scorn them, can
altogether escape their influence.
Lievrouw, Leah A. “New
Media, Mediation, and Communication Study.”
Information, Communication & Society 12, no. 3
(2009): 303-25
Added
January 04, 2010
The division of the communication discipline according
to whether people communicate face-to-face or via a
technological medium has shaped the field’s
development from the outset. The divide has been
institutionalized over time in the structures of
academic departments and schools, professional training
and degrees, scholarly societies and publishing, and in
the field’s larger research agendas. However,
critics inside and outside the field have long insisted
that the differences between the two subfields actually
obscure the shifting, contingent nature of
communication in everyday experience, social
formations, and culture. This paper traces efforts to
theorize the intersection of interpersonal and media
communication, and in particular the concept of
mediation, from Lazarsfeld and Katz’s two-step
flow in the 1950s, to the challenge of digital media
technologies in the 1970s and 1980s, to the rise of new
media studies and digital culture scholarship from the
1990s onward.
Lotz, Amanda D.
“Industry-Levei Studies and the Contributions of
Gitlin's Inside Prime Time.” In Production Studies:
Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki
Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell,
25-38. New York: Routledge, 2009
Added
January 04, 2010
Lundby, Knut.
“Interdisciplinarity and Infrastructure: Mediation
and Knotworking in Communication Research.”
Nordicom Review 27 (2007): 195-209
Added
January 04, 2010
In the Nordic region the
field of media and communication research has appeared
fairly coherent despite the underlying broad
interdisciplinarity. The reasons can partly be found in
the support of biennial regional conferences, national
research associations, and the Nordicom documentation
centre. A similar relationship between
interdisciplinarity and infrastructure can be studied
at the single university performing research in this
area. The case is the author’s home base at the
University of Oslo. Units and networks of media and
communication research are analyzed as ‘activity
systems’. To what extent can the concepts of
‘mediation’ and ‘knotworking’
in ‘activity theory’ be useful in analyses
of interdisciplinarity and infrastructure of media and
communication research? How would this apply on a
European level?
Malin, Brenton.
“Mediating Emotion: Technology, Social Science, and
Emotion in the Payne Fund Motion-Picture Studies.”
Technology and Culture 50, no. 2 (2009): 366-90
Added
January 04, 2010
Mayer, Vicki.
“Bringing the Social Back in: Studies of Production
Cultures and Social Theory.” In Production Studies:
Cultural Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki
Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell,
15-24. New York: Routledge, 2009
Added
January 04, 2010
Mulhern, Francis.
“Culture and Society, Then and Now.” New Left
Review (NS 55), no. NS 55 (2009): 31-45
Added
January 04, 2010
Nordenstreng, Kaarle.
“Discipline Or Field?: Soul-Searching in
Communication Research*.” Nordicom Review 27
(2007): 211-22
Added
January 04, 2010
The terms of (mass)
communication research and media studies are widely
used to refer to an academic discipline, usually
established in universities as a major or minor
subject, a department or institute and sometimes even a
school or college. It is implied that this young field
is by now a discipline in its own right alongside such
traditional disciplines as history, literature,
sociology or political science. However, the nature of
the discipline often remains unclear, while its
identity is typically determined by administrative
convenience and market demand rather than analysis of
its historical development and scholarly position
within the system of arts and sciences. This chapter
discusses the nature and terminology of the discipline,
with examples of Finland and other Nordic countries,
and it advocates the need for a continuous
self-assessment of the research community.
Osborne, Thomas, and Rose,
Nikolas. “Do the Social Sciences Create Phenomena?:
The Example of Public Opinion Research.” British
Journal of Sociology 50, no. 3 (1999): 367-96
Added
January 04, 2010
Parry-Giles, Shawn J.
“Propaganda, Effect, and the Cold War: Gauging the
Status of America.” Political Communication 11, no.
2 (1994): 203-13
Added
January 04, 2010
Peters, John Durham.
“Media and Communications.” In The Blackwell
Companion to Sociology, edited by Judith R Blau, 16-29.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004
Added
January 04, 2010
Polan, Dana, and Sturken,
Marita. “Roger and Me(Dia).” International
Journal of Communication 1 (2007): 106-12
Added
January 04, 2010
Pooley, Jefferson, and Katz,
Elihu. “Further Notes on Why American Sociology
Abandoned Mass Communication Research.” Journal of
Communication 58 (2008): 767–86
Added
January 04, 2010
Ross, Susan Mallon.
“Postman, Media Ecology, and Education: From
Teaching as a Subversive Activity Through Amusing
Ourselves to Death to Technopoly.” Review of
Communication 9, no. 2 (2009): 146-56
Added
January 04, 2010
Scannell, Paddy. Media and
Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007
Added
January 04, 2010
Schor, Juliet. “In
Defense of Consumer Critique: Revisiting the Consumption
Debates of the Twentieth Century.” The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611,
no. 1 (2007): 16-29
Added
January 04, 2010
In
the past twenty-five years, the literature on
consumption has gained analytic power by positioning
itself against the consumer critics of the twentieth
century (Veblen, Adorno and Horkheimer, Galbraith,
Baudrillard), arguing that these accounts were
totalizing, theorized consumers as too passive, and
simplified motives. The literature moved to
micro-level, interpretive studies that are often
depoliticized and lack a critical approach to the
subject matter. The author argues that developments
such as the emergence of a global production system,
ecological degradation, and new findings on well-being
warrant a reengagement with the critical tradition and
macro-level critiques. This article considers three
traditions—Veblenian accounts of status seeking,
the Frankfurt School, and Galbraith and the economic
approach to consumer demand— arguing that the
flaws of these models are not necessarily fatal and
that the debate about producer versus consumer
sovereignty should be revisited in light of the
changing political power of transnational
corporations.
Schwoch, James. Global TV:
New Media and the Cold War, 1946-69. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 2009
Added
January 04, 2010
Sjovaag, Helle, and Moe,
Hallvard. “From Fermentation to Maturity?
Reflections on Media and Communication Studies: An
Interview With Todd Gitlin, Jostein Gripsrud &
Michael Schudson.” International Journal of
Communication 3 (2009): 130-39
Added
January 04, 2010
Twenty-six years after
the Journal of Communication published a special issue
entitled "Ferment in the Field,” Professors Todd
Gitlin, Jostein Gripsrud and Michael Schudson reflect
on the state of the field of media and communications
research. They discuss the conflict between critical
and administrative research, the role of the
intellectual in today’s society, and the quality
of current research on new media.
Slater, Don, and Miller,
Daniel. “Moments and Movements in the Study of
Consumer Culture: A Discussion Between Daniel Miller and
Don Slater.” Journal of Consumer Culture 7, no. 1
(2007): 5-23
Added
January 04, 2010
Socolow, Michael. “The
Behaviorist in the Boardroom: The Research of Frank
Stanton, Ph.D.” Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media 52, no. 4 (2008): 526-43
Added
January 04, 2010
In 1946, at the age of
38, Frank Stanton was named President of CBS. While
much of Stanton's work as a corporate executive has
been chronicled, his accomplishments as one of
America's earliest scholars of radio audience
measurement remain neglected in media scholarship. This
article reviews Stanton's research efforts between 1933
and 1942, and in doing so it places his work within the
contexts of contemporaneous social and psychological
media inquiry. Discussions of Stanton's methodological
approach, his innovative dissertation, his scholarship,
and his collaboration with key figures in the history
of communication research are informed by primary and
secondary sources.
Stein, Arlene.
“Introduction to Barnard Special Issue.”
Communication Review 11 (2008): 199-201
Added
January 04, 2010
Sterling, Christopher.
“Developing American Media Audience
Research.” Communication Booknotes Quarterly 40,
no. 3 (2009): 103-22
Added
January 04, 2010
Sturken, Marita.
“Memory, Consumerism and Media: Reflections on the
Emergence of the Field.” Memory Studies 1, no. 1
(2008): 73-78
Added
January 04, 2010
This article situates the
emergence of the field of memory studies in relation to
several areas of study: cultural studies, media
studies, communication and visual culture. It considers
key concepts of those fields — memory practices,
technologies of memory, mediation and consumerism
— in relation to memory studies. Finally, it
reflects on some cautionary aspects of memory studies
as it moves forward as a field of study.
Sullivan, John L. “Leo
C. Rosten's Hollywood: Power, Status, and the Primacy of
Economic and Social Networks in Cultural
Production.” In Production Studies: Cultural
Studies of Media Industries, edited by Vicki Mayer,
Miranda J. Banks, and John Thornton Caldwell, 39-53. New
York: Routledge, 2009
Added
January 04, 2010
Wehmeyer, J. “Critical
Media Studies and the North American Media Literacy
Movement.” Cinema Journal 39, no. 4 (2000):
94-101
Added
January 04, 2010
Yorgason, Ethan. “The
Gospel in Communication: A Conversation With
Communication Theorist John Durham Peters.”
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40, no. 4 (2007):
29-46
Added
January 04, 2010
Zelizer, Barbie. “When
Facts, Truth, and Reality Are God-Terms: On Journalism's
Uneasy Place in Cultural Studies.” Communication
and Critical/Cultural Studies 1, no. 1 (2004):
100-19
Added
January 04, 2010
Zillmann, Dorf.
“Pornography Research, Social Advocacy, and Public
Policy.” In Psychology and Social Policy, edited by
Peter Suedfeld, and Philip E. Tetlock, 165-89. New York:
Hemisphere, 1992
Added
January 04, 2010
Zixue, Tai. “The
Structure of Knowledge and Dynamics of Scholarly
Communication in Agenda Setting Research,
1996–2005.” Journal of Communication 59
(2009): 481-513
Added
January 04, 2010
By conducting a citation
analysis of bibliographic references in combination
with a network analysis of cocitation referencing in 56
journal publications in the area of agenda-setting
research from 1996 to 2005, this paper aims to identify
current exemplary publications and authoritative works
in the knowledge production and dissemination process
and to examine the nature of knowledge-sharing networks
among the community of scholars who contribute to the
growth of common knowledge in the study of agenda
setting. The findings shed light on the intellectual
history of agenda-setting scholarship and offer insight
on subspecialties and intellectual linkages among key
literature in this vigorous and ever-evolving field of
inquiry.
|