Talk:Communication studies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

Hello. I'd changed the wording from "Some complain..." to "It is frequentyly claimed" because the latter does not appear to have any presuppositions. Reporting that people complain is sort of substantiating their view (that there is something to complain about). The "claim" version reports that they are complaining, but does not assert allegiance towards a POV. What do you reckon? The JPS 17:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, "frequently" (not frequentyly, lol) implies that the claims are made probably more often than they actually are. How about "Some claim"?--csloat 17:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, typo!! The reason I'm so interested in this is because here in Britain we have just had the annual moral panic over Media studies. I'm working on that article with another academic, and one of the problems raised was that the section (Media_studies#Derogatory_attitudes) was too UK-centric. I wonder if you could cast your eye over it and see how we can develop it to resolve the bias? The JPS 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I did peek at it and I think that article, this one, and cultural studies need to be more clearly integrated. "Cultural studies" and "media studies" in the US are part of communication studies, or at least they intersect communication studies in significant ways (we also see cultural and media studies in departments of philosophy and english as well). I understand in the UK cultural studies grew out of communication studies and literary studies. While all of these disciplines have geographical nuances, I do think we can suggest that there is a "cultural studies" that is broader than merely "British cultural studies" and so forth. I really don't think the sections on "derogatory attitudes" are that important. I guess it's worth mentioning that people make fun of the discipline sometimes but does that really deserve more prominence than much of the important scholarly work going on in these disciplines? --csloat 18:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

you think we should publish an article still recognized as a stub?-csloat 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

no, it should be cleaned up. however, not to featured article status, but Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Standard articles would be good enough. -- Zondor 23:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[untitled]

I would suggest taking it over and making a division in the "Communication" entry. In order to avoid replicating in Wikipedia the confounding tendency to regional "confuseologisms" (by which I playfully mean the using one word to refer to very different things).

Communication Arts and Communication Sciences in my PhD program (Purdue) were combined together; whether your Master's degree was a MS or a MA depended on which sort of methodology classes you took. Further, one of the academic journals of the ICA (which is "international" in pretty much name only. . .there is a long and sordid history there) is called "Communication Studies."

Point being, is it possible that we would do a better job of covering the topic by focusing on "Communication" and then including sections doing justice to the various movements and identifying them in the manner of their own choice? We already have quite a bit of overlap/duplication in the various permutations of "Communication" in Wikipedia articles. I suspect that we would save a bunch of work, and a bunch of vitriol, if we were to bring them together under one main banner, and then giving each subsection the respect and authenticity due them.

Part of this urge in me probably comes in that I just spent several hours working toward broadening several articles in the "communication family" to, among other things, remove parts that said there were no University degrees offered in "Communication". {My PhD is in Communication, so I believe there are programs apart from speech pathology offering these degrees. My focus was in Organizational Communication but I had "concentrations" in "Semiotics, "Anthropological Linguistics" and "Philosophy and Communication." (Note that the philosophy department strongly resisted using the word "of" or "in" in any concentration--thus "philosophy of communication" was not allowed. . .sometimes these distinctions run deep.)}

Anyhow, does it make sense to try and pull all these articles together? I would include:

media studies,
cultural studies (the European, not the American variety),
mass communication,
rhetoric,
political communication,
interpersonal communication,
debate/forensics including legal communication which itself includes things like communication law and even jury selection!,
communication theory (including Habermas and his "Ideal Speech Situation") information theory which is founded in systems theory and cybernetics,
public speaking,
speech writing,
public relations,
advertising,
identification/interpellation (from critical theory traditions)
issue management,
dyadic communication,
non-verbal,
constructivist,
activity theory (especially the work of Vygotsky and others from the then-Soviet Union)
speech therapy/pathology,
audiology,
literary,
film and art criticism,
speech act theory,
radio, television and film production,
scriptwriting,
communication research,
communication load,
information sciences,
information management,
zoo-communication (including the dolphin and chimp communication folks),
et al.?

Upon some reflection, perhaps some of these (public speaking, speech writing, public relations, advertising, information management, semiotics, etc.) should be kept separate, but with good ties--not simply a single text reference.

All of a sudden if feels huge. . .

Roy 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge: Communication studies + Media studies + Communication Sciences

I'm not sure I understand what the difference is. If there is a difference, could the articles please explain what those differences are? Ewlyahoocom 03:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No difference, media studies may be a subcategory, but these really do need to be merged!DMCer 05:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the different categories deals more with what theories have evolved under each section. Nancytobler.com has a breakdown of communication studies in it's various forms. Although the content is absent from the site at the moment I can assure you that each sub-category is populated with different theories and methodologies specific to that area of study.

I'm not sure how wikipedia can accommodate the tree structure created on nancytobler.com, but they are welcome to adopt it if they'd like. Jacob F. Roecker (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Depictions in popular culture

This whole bit really should be removed; it's not significant or relevant, it's denigrating to Greek organizations, and it has no impact on people trying to figure out what the field is about. It also confuses Communications with Comm. Studies, which is something completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.111.246 (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Why, exactly, did my add of citation needed to this section get reverted? There has to be a citation, even if the section should be left in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.111.246 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and put in the citation needed again. (I posted the above comments). I contend that, whether or not this section is left it, it's not conscionable to include an uncited statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countercharm (talk • contribs) 08:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

History section

No obvious reason to me that the history section is spun off to a separate article... Bring it back in? DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Communication sciences

I think the topics of communication studies and Communication sciences are identical. The prior discussion suggested media studies are separate, so I am not suggesting merging this; but c. sciences and c. studies seem ripe for merger. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support (but maybe just Delete the other article) - "Communication science," in my experience (and a little looking around on Google seems to support this) is either used interchangeably with Communication studies, perhaps more frequently to those in the more social science-centric kinds of departments, or refers specifically to the biological or psychological aspects of communication that can be studied by science (e.g. communication disorders). The content currently at communication sciences seems to be talking about a particular approach to communication studies practiced by certain individuals or at certain schools. Objectivism and positivism (whether logical positivism or post-positivism) are not commonly applied to communication studies in a general sense. In fact, it seems like the entire communication sciences article is either original research or drawn from that one reference it has. I would support simply deleting the other article rather than incorporating any of it here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: communication sciences already redirects to communication studies. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbrain (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

[untitled]

I understand the desire for a single term. While I am a scientist, a lot of my Communication Studies department has members that are clearly not scientists. What would happen is that you can use Communication Sciences, but then you need to create a separate term using communication for the nonscientists. The same is true with media issues, a lot of communication scholars do not study media. I recognize that from institution to institution and department to department this changes, the question is how inclusive we wish to be with a general term and then how decisive we want to be by creating boundaries which generates additional terms.

Mike Allen Professor Department of Communication UW-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI, United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemetaallen (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering does paliperidone help/take care of manic aggression behavior? Felicia lyttle (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Course Assignment 2015

I will be searching for a citation for the following passage: Requirements for undergraduate degrees focus on preparing students to ask questions concerning the nature of communication in society and the development of communication as a specific field.[citation needed]

I will also be adding a small amount of additional information with appropriate citations. Oliviabiermann (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed revision of "Other Names" Section

I believe it is important that this wiki makes the distinction between "Communication Studies" and "Communications Studies". Scholars within the field define communication as A systemic process in which people interact with and through symbols to create and interpret meanings. They define Communications as the technology used to facilitate the process of communication. Therefore, "Communications" should be removed from "other names" and a section defining these differences should be created so that the terminology can be properly defined and used. I will include academic sources when creating these sections. GerlachBP (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed section: Geographical Educational Programs in Communication Studies

I found it interesting that only Hong Kong's program was noted here. It would be interesting to be a theme and include other geographical programs as well? Thoughts? Clarebrady (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs More Research

Name of Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_studies from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_disciplines

I have chosen to evaluate this article since I am focusing academically and professionally in communications studies. It will be interesting to see what other users have posted about com studies and fact check what sources are being used.

The lead included, basic information about communication studies in terms of the common types of communication and contextual usage. It doesn't particularly mention major sections of the article. In the lead it talks about basic facts of the study. Then in the actual article, it talks about solely how we study communications in the U.S. vs, how other study it in Canada. It is also unclear why this comparison was used and why just these two countries. The lead is concise but does not support the content below it as much as it should. The content below the lead lacked the detail about the lead.

The content to the article is relevant to some degree, but doesn't get mentioned in the lead. The information is up to date. The country comparison in some cases might not belong initially, but it's an interesting comparison to keep. The content misses unpacking the lead's key points. The overall article could be improved, its extremely short and lacks more details.

The article feels neutral. It might feel one way or another when people read the comparisons of countries, but the remaining pieces are neutral. No claims appear too biased since it generally is lacking depth. Most of it is underrepresented and could be unpacked further. It didn't feel like the author was trying to make any persuasions, but reinforce the general concepts and break down of com studies and where and how it is studied in the U.S. and Canada and in recent publications.

I would argue the statements made are backed up with reliable sources at the bottom. And any quick facts were hyperlinked to define them or generalize them. There could be more facts to explain the history and scope, but since it is such a short article, there are not as many sources cited. Other institutions are cited at the bottom for further research since they conduct work on com studies. The sources are thorough and current, and can be looked up through their DOI's. The links were successful on my end.

There are no images to enhance the understanding of the topic. Respondents say that this article is vague and needs more inclusion of other definitions and countries that study communications. It is not in Wiki-projects. From the way we talked about the wiki in class, this article might be too short to be considered sufficient since this is also lacking more detail and citations, and even pictures or charts.

The overall status of this article is somewhat unfinished. It is published, but it severely lacking more information. The strengths of this article do a great job explaining the surface layer of com studies but the improvements can be made at further unpacking this material. It would have been interesting to see the different types and versions of the study and with supported examples in a bigger amount. It isn't that complete- it feels poorly developed. Amb549 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sections Vague

I found each section to be vague and needed more elaboration. There's an abundance of information on Communication studies where each sub-topic could include more information. It would be great to have a section about various theories in communication and to speak of some of the scholars' findings related to this topic. Paddyiranmanesh (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I also think that including information about what professional associations are would be helpful instead of listing out organizations. Maybe consider changing the heading of scopes and topics as it is unclear to me what that headline means for the information in the body section of the article. Elizabethrudman (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed section: The political economy of Communication

As it seems that political economy is only mentioned in the wiki page on media studies but not communication studies, should it be expected that I write my proposed subsection, "The political economy of communication" (which is more tuned toward mass communication), under media studies and not communication studies, then? Thoughts? Sta90 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "The political economy of communication," is an important topic to add to this article. I did not see this section added to the article. I will research more on this topic to add this section. Vasquezmedia

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vasquezmedia/Evaluate_an_Article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasquezmedia (talk • contribs) 22:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 

Article Evaluation

Communication studies I have chosen this article to evaluate because it relates to my undergraduate studies. The lead includes information about communication theorists which is not discussed in the body of the article. The article is not concise; the definition is too detailed.

The article talks about the history of communication studies, academic disciplines, and professional associations. The article includes a section about the communication studies in the United States and Canada but does not include any citations regarding the information about Canada. The latest citation is from 2014 so there could be more information on communication studies currently. I would say the "scope and topics" section is an unclear heading and does not accurately present the information within it.

Article neutral- My only concern is that it is biased towards the U.S. and Canada since it includes information about communication studies there, and no where else in the world. It sends the message that communication studies is more important than anywhere else. The claims regarding Canada do not include any citations.

Organization

I would say the article is not the easiest to read as the information is not concise. The only section does not make sense is the "scope and topics" section. I don't really understand what the author is trying to present based on that headline.

Article's overall status? The article needs help with citations and does not represent a worldwide view of the topic. It includes information about the topic's history and provides examples as to how communication studies applies to professional settings. The article can explain what professional associations are, include more up-to-date citations, and perhaps include more information about other countries' communication studies. The article is underdeveloped because it is lacking citations and information that would useful to understand the full scope of communication studies. Elizabethrudman (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Link to feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elizabethrudman/Evaluate_an_Article&action=edit&section=1

The links I chose worked but I feel that since the some of the references are dated, there needs to be some careful evaluation of their validity and relevance — Sknk4172 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC) User:Sknk4172 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (PST)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikihustle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 9 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Towers85.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sundance20, KamanaMS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ed.osterberger. Peer reviewers: HaydenD1010, EditsByDave, Bugcruncher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): COzborne. Peer reviewers: Liyahyow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article evaluation

Because my undergraduate major is communication science and sociology, so I choose this article to evaluate.

I think the introduction is a little typeset and difficult for the reader to understand. And it doesn't seem to be related to the subject. Beyond that, its communications research includes only the United States and Canada, giving the impression that the positions are more in favor of those two countries.

我觉得这篇文章的整体布局有点不清楚，资料也太繁琐，难以阅读。W13352466 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article evaluation

I choose this article because it is related to my professional knowledge, so I can know more clearly what I mainly study in my major. My overall impression was that the layout was very clear and I could easily see what I wanted to know.

The content in the article is relevant to the topic of the article, and there is no outdated information. The whole article is explained from a neutral point of view. Links in citations are valid, reliable literature supporting the content of the article. Also, I checked the Talk page and found that this article was rated as an entry-level 5 important article. However, some problems have been raised in the evaluation of this article on the Talk Page. Some of the information in this communication study article is vague, lacking in details and some references. The overall status of the article seems to be incomplete, and it needs to be supplemented with more research.Xchen321 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article evaluation

Which article are you evaluating? Communication studies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) The reason why I choose this article is that it generalizes from multiple perspectives of media. The coverage is comprehensive from origins to business applications. The reason why it is important is that this article can provide a clear understanding for those who want to study the major of media for future employment and study. At the same time, it shows that the media major has a lot of employment space. My first impression of this article is that it is very comprehensive and rich in content. At the end of the quoting link, many examples are given to give readers a professional feeling of the article.

Evaluate the article (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.) This article in general is very important and useful for students majoring in media or those who are interested in it. This kind of comprehensive explanation can greatly make this article useful to more people. The explanation of origins intrigues the reader. And then from the foundation of the subject and the application of the United States to let the reader have more interest. The article describes the media major can be a wide range of employment in the future. In the description of business, the importance of media is illustrated. If there is no good communication, there will be no commercial interaction. So I think it's a very detailed article. Maybe it has some inappropriate examples or references. But overall this article contains a lot of detail.

～～～Haipeng Li — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haipeng Li 888 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Commanication of science

Commanication Of the all sabject of the aur all of thish science of tacnilogay Team of theam off all this 2402:8100:2654:30FA:378:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Media Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Grillo.danielle (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Grillo.danielle (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)