Communication Research Opportunities

[rogue]

I'm in a kind of interesting situation, and I'm hoping some of the communication-oriented forumites can help me out. I've been accepted to several good programs that offer very different opportunities, and I'm trying to decide where to go. The sticky part of the issue is, I applied to all sociology programs except one--an excellent communication program where I was just accepted, and which part of me feels I'd be an idiot to turn down. I'm very familiar with the program and my opportunities there; I have less of a handle on my opportunities once I've graduated.

A little about me: my background is actually in comm (BA in comm, MBA w/ marketing concentration, lots of work experience in various fields including PR, advertising and new media). My research interests are in gender and sexuality, especially identity formation, visibility, community/social networks and marginalization. I feel like I can tackle this research from a communication or sociology angle, but I'm wondering if sociology would really be preferable in the long run.

I guess my question is, would I be limiting the sort of topics I can tackle down the road if I get a Ph.D. in communication rather than sociology? It seems like I can approach communication topics through a sociology lens fairly well, but I'm not sure if the reverse is true. Any thoughts on this?

Edited February 25, 2010 by rogue

[mediahistory]

I guess my question is, would I be limiting the sort of topics I can tackle down the road if I get a Ph.D. in communication rather than sociology? It seems like I can approach communication topics through a sociology lens fairly well, but I'm not sure if the reverse is true. Any thoughts on this?

It sounds to me like you would be very much able to focus on your research area through a communication department, given your research interests and the overlap between the two fields. I have to admit though that most of my knowledge about sociology comes through a communication filter.

Perhaps you could contact the schools you've been accepted to, and ask about the placement of their graduate students once they graduate? If you're referring to the dept I'm thinking of, which was addressed in another thread, their placement rate after graduation is very, very good. Think professorship placement or, at very worst, a postdoc at another top tier school.

One thing you will find in communication departments in general though, is some tension between quantitative and qualitative methods. There's room in communication departments for PR practitioners as well as critical theorists, so that tension is sort of present at conferences and so forth. Is that the case in sociology as well?

To an extent, I think it comes down to the fundamental commitments of communication departments versus sociology departments (or the sub-paradigms of each discipline, I'm not sure if this holds true for sociology but communication scholars range from quantitative post-positivism to qualitative and philosophical approaches which have more in common with anthropology and/or literary criticism). Does one align more closely with your intellectual positions than the other?

I think the question of future opportunities for research depends to an extent on your intellectual positions. If you argue that meaning is made intersubjectively, comm is going to facilitate your studies better than if you wish to look at areas not so focused on "meanings made between people."

Good luck and congratulations to you, in whichever program is lucky enough to have you!

Edited for typo

Edited February 25, 2010 by mediahistory

[socialcomm]

I've applied to both comm and soc programs as well. I think you'd be able to look at soc topics through a comm lens... but perhaps look at articles/professors who are working on topics you're interested in and see if the topics are still what you're looking for. Talk to the profs you want to work with in your Comm program.

I think part of what you have to figure out also is what you ultimately want to do and where you want to work. If you want to go into academia, what department do you want to work in? Comm? Soc? Most likely they'll be in completely different schools in the university. Is salary an issue? You might want to look up salaries for soc versus comm profs. Of course, if you don't want to go into academia, those might be less important.

Good luck with your decision! It's a good problem to have!

[red_crayons]

Well, I know nothing about Comm, even though I was accepted to a Comm department.

I learned (yesterday) that faculty in the department I plan to join run the range from social psych/quantitative folks, to historians/ethnographers/qualitative folks. It's anecdotal, but encouraging for your case.

I don't care what my degree says. My undergrad degree is a mish mash of all kinds of stuff, but I've been able to apply my education and previous work to a number of pseudo-academic jobs. I then crafted a believable narrative about how my education led to my work experiences, and how work has inspired me to continue my academics. The degree is arbitrary; the story you can tell with it, or alongside it, is much more important, IMO.

I don't believe in disciplines or fields or subfields. They mostly serve to create arbitrary divisions between people who are applying similar ideas to different problems, and produce different terminology to help perpetuate these divisions. Case in point: professor tries to write about performativity. Since he is a Social Scientist, he refuses to use the word, instead opting for phrases like, "performing but not really believing what they are performing". The prose is wooden anyway, and the phrasing of this idea just makes it even more unpleasant. Why not just say performativity? Because it's from critical/cultural theory and you're scared of theory?

Why worry about arbitrary disciplines? If you can pursue the same ideas in comm as well as, or better than, at a social psych program, and the programs are similar in prestige/recognition/faculty in their areas, why not go for comm?

More background: I originally applied in science and technology studies (history/sociology/philosophy of science) at Cornell, where I got accepted. The STS people said, "apply to comm!" and the comm people said, "apply to STS!" I also applied to a couple journalism programs with the same idea pitched as a plan for (basically) a book-length manuscript. I got accepted to one of those, too. I'm a believer in ideas being more important than classifications, and my application process has confirmed my point of view so far.

[yourfavoritedylansong]

I recommend that anyone and everyone involved in the communication field read "Communication Theory as a Field" by R.T. Craig.

In response to the OP's question, communication studies is an enormously broad discipline. Many of our core traditions share significant commonalities with other social sciences, especially sociology. At times, I think the discipline is too broad, thus leading to counterproductive fragments of scholars who believe what they believe and do so absolutely. For example, you'll find that departments like UCSB ( sociopyschological + quant) have little regard for the work being done by departments such as UCSD ( critical + qual).

That said, most places are trending towards a more encompassing outlook on the study of communication. I think, previously, you'd find that scholars tended to be six inches long and six feet deep (so to speak), but new media and new media delivery systems (amongst other things) are dictating new perspectives.

Always - as in any discipline - you'll find purists. That's not necessarily a bad thing. For example, while I'm interested in quantitative research, I'm never going to be the type of person who spends years deconstructing factor analysis. At the same time, I DO use those findings to determine best practices.

In the end, I think communication is an extremely flexible academic genre. Sure, you may face people who question the value of your work. But that's just life in general. As long as your work is methodologically sound, you'll be fine.

As a final note, I'm very open-minded when it comes to research, but I do find a number of research approaches and departments (including some highly ranked by the NCA) to be uselessly arrogant scholarship with little intellectual utility. But, I'll keep those opinions to myself.

Edited February 25, 2010 by yourfavoritedylansong

[rogue]

Thanks, everyone, for your insightful responses. This is all excellent food for thought. Keep it coming!

Someone asked about whether I intend to go into academia. Yes, absolutely. That's my goal. I'm not sure which department I'd rather be in when I'm (I hope, anyway) a professor; that's sort of the point of this exercise, I guess. Where am I going to feel most at home, and free to pursue the research I want?

[mediahistory]

Thanks, everyone, for your insightful responses. This is all excellent food for thought. Keep it coming!

Someone asked about whether I intend to go into academia. Yes, absolutely. That's my goal. I'm not sure which department I'd rather be in when I'm (I hope, anyway) a professor; that's sort of the point of this exercise, I guess. Where am I going to feel most at home, and free to pursue the research I want?

This is off the top of my head, but here's another way to frame the question: If you had to teach an intro class, would you rather teach Communication 101 or Sociology 101?

Also, there may be a bit of flexibility in terms of where you end up. Communication faculty sometimes have degrees in related fields like English, Rhetoric, History and so forth. I wonder if perhaps your specific research interests are more predictive of where you'd end up than your nominal department. Again, a caveat- I'm much more familiar with Communication than Sociology so this may not hold true in both directions, especially considering the innate interdisciplinarity of communication departments.

[rogue]

This is off the top of my head, but here's another way to frame the question: If you had to teach an intro class, would you rather teach Communication 101 or Sociology 101?

Also, there may be a bit of flexibility in terms of where you end up. Communication faculty sometimes have degrees in related fields like English, Rhetoric, History and so forth. I wonder if perhaps your specific research interests are more predictive of where you'd end up than your nominal department. Again, a caveat- I'm much more familiar with Communication than Sociology so this may not hold true in both directions, especially considering the innate interdisciplinarity of communication departments.

Good point. I think I'd be equally happy teaching either. I'm not so worried about the teaching part, but more about the research part. Like, is someone going to say at some point down the road, "oh, you can't do that--what's that got to do with communication?" ("That" not really being my current interests so much as some nebulous, as-yet-unidentified future interest.) I guess that becomes less of an issue if all interactions among people can be framed as communication, which is what some of you seem to be pointing out (but correct me if I'm wrong here).

[mediahistory]

To give a really basic definition, communication scholars study human symbolic practices. Another definition that gets a lot of play is Harold Lasswell's: "Who says what, to whom, in what channel, with what effect." Raymond Williams would add, "with what intent." As yourfavoritedylansong says, that creates an incredibly broad field of inquiry. I think there is plenty of room in those formulations to talk about gender and sexuality, identity, community, marginalization and so forth.

It might help to familiarize yourself with how Comm scholars categorize their work. Here's the list of divisions for NCA: http://www.natcom.or...ex.asp?bid=5067 and for ICA: http://www.icahdq.or...tions/index.asp

[rogue]

To give a really basic definition, communication scholars study human symbolic practices. Another definition that gets a lot of play is Harold Lasswell's: "Who says what, to whom, in what channel, with what effect." Raymond Williams would add, "with what intent." As yourfavoritedylansong says, that creates an incredibly broad field of inquiry. I think there is plenty of room in those formulations to talk about gender and sexuality, identity, community, marginalization and so forth.

It might help to familiarize yourself with how Comm scholars categorize their work. Here's the list of divisions for NCA: http://www.natcom.or...ex.asp?bid=5067 and for ICA: http://www.icahdq.or...tions/index.asp

Definitely helpful. Thank you!