Communication studies, disciplination and the ontological stakes of interdisciplinarity: a critical review

Oumar Kane

doi:10.15581/003.29.35825

Oumar Kane e-mail

(Login required)

PDF (

171)

View in DADUN

Published: Jul 1, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.29.35825

How to Cite

Kane, O. (2016). Communication studies, disciplination and the ontological stakes of interdisciplinarity: a critical review. Communication & Society, 29(3), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.29.35825

Authors

Oumar Kane e-mail

(Login required)

Université du Québec à Montréal.

Abstract

265

Building on an in-depth analysis of the core literature grappling with the philosophical problematization of communication, this article examines the oft-asserted interdisciplinary nature of communication studies by assessing some of its underlying presuppositions at the ontological and epistemological levels. The article evaluates the coherence of our fragmented discipline through the articulation of the categories of the One and the Multiple in ontological and epistemological directions. In doing so, the recurrent conception of communication studies as an interdiscipline is criticized while recognizing the importance of undertaking interdisciplinary research within the field. Are especially considered the historical roots of interdisciplinary advocacies, namely the institutional demands for interdisciplinarity that have often resulted in conceptions of communication studies by communication scholars themselves as a crossroads or a service discipline. Building from Ernst Cassirer’s developments regarding the “theory of the concept’’, the author contends in the final section of the paper that the solution to the lack of coherence of the field lies in the necessity for communication studies to discipline themselves in order for the research undertaken within the field to acquire a common framework of intelligibility.

References

Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (Eds.) (2005). American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Anderson, J.A. (1996). Communication Theory. Epistemological Foundations. New York: Guilford.

Anderson, J.A. & Baym, G. (2004). Philosophies and philosophic issues in communication, 1995-2004, Journal of communication 54(4), 589-615. doi: 10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2004.tb02647.x.

Baudrillard, J. (1989). Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilée.

Berelson, B. (1959). The State of Communication Research. Public Opinion Quaterly 23(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1086/266840

Bourdieu, P. (1999). Le fonctionnement du champ intellectuel. Regards Sociologiques 17/18, 5- 27.

Boure, R. (2005). Réflexions autour de l’institutionnalisation des disciplines. Sciences de l’information et de la communication versus économie? Communication 24(1), 9-37. doi: 10.4000/communication.3236

Calhoun, C. (2011). Communication as Social Science (and More). International Journal of Communication 5, 1479–1496.

Cassirer, E. (2003). Substance & Function & Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Trans. William Curtis Swabey and Marie Collins Swabey. Mineola, NY: Dover.

Charaudeau, P. (2010). Pour une interdisciplinarité "focalisée" dans les sciences humaines et sociales. Questions de Communication 17, 195-222. doi:10.4000/questionsdecommunication.385

Craig, R.T. (1999). Communication Theory as a Field. Communication Theory 9(2), 119-161. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x

Craig, R.T. (2009). “Réflexions sur ‘la communication en tant que champ d’études”. Revue internationale de communication sociale et publique 9, 1-6.

Curran, J. (1990). The New Revisionism in Mass Communication Research: A reappraisal. European Journal of Communication 5(2), 135-164. doi: 10.1177/0267323190005002002

Donsbach, W. (2006). The Identity of Communication Research. Journal of Communication 56, 437–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00294.x

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language. Trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon.

Habermas, J. (1987). Théorie de l’agir communicationnel. Rationalité de l’agir et rationalisation de la société. (Tome 1). Paris: Fayard.

Hacking, I. (2010). Disciplinaire et satisfait. In G. Origgi and F. Darbellay (Eds.), Repenser l'interdisciplinarité (pp. 77-84). Genève: Slatkine.

Herbst, S. (2008). History, philosophy, and public opinion research. Journal of Communication 43(4), 140-145. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01314.x

Hofkirchner, W. (2009). How to achieve a unified theory of information. tripleC, 7(2),357-368.

Kane, O. (2010). Institution et légitimation d’une quasi-discipline: le triple destin (sciences, études et champ) de la communication. Revue Internationale de Communication Sociale et Publique 16(2), 87-102.

Kesteman, J.P. (2004). L'Un, le Multiple et le Complexe. L'Université et la transdisciplinarité. A contrario 2, 89-108.

Kimball, B.A. (1986). Orators and philosophers. A History of the Idea of Liberal Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Lincoln, Y.S. (2010). ‘’What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been…‘’: Twenty-five Years of Qualitative and New Paradigm Research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(1), 3-9. doi: 10.1177/1077800409349754

Littlejohn, S.W. (1982). An overview of contributions to human communication theory from other disciplines. In F.E. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory. Comparative essays (pp. 243–286). New York: Harper & Row.

Martino, L.C. (2003). Épistémologie de la communication: scepticisme et intelligibilité du savoir communicationnel. Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication 1, 52-62.

Morley, D. (1989). Changing Paradigms in Audience Studies. In E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, & E.M. Warth (Eds.), Remote Control (pp. 16-43). London: Routledge.

Park D.W., Pooley, J. (2008). The history of media and communication research: Contested memories. New York: Peter Lang.

Pearce, W.B. (1989). Communication and the Human Condition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Pfau, M. (2008). Epistemological and Disciplinary Intersections. Journal of Communication 58(4), 597-602. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00414.x

Pooley, J. & Katz, E. (2008). Further Notes on Why American Sociology Abandoned Mass Communication Research. Journal of Communication 58, 767–786. doi: 10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2008.00413.x

Popper, K.R. (1973). La logique de la découverte scientifique. Paris: Payot.

Rosengren, K.E. (1993). From Field to Frog Ponds. Journal of Communication 43(3), 6-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01271.x

Russell, B. (1964). The principles of mathematics. London: Allen & Unwin.

Shepherd, G.J. (1993). Building a Discipline of Communication. Journal of Communication 43(3), 83-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01279.x

Sperber, D. (2010) Pourquoi repenser l’interdisciplinarité?, In G. Origgi and F. Darbellay (Eds.), Repenser l'interdisciplinarité (pp. 19-31). Geneva: Slatkine.

Swanson, D.L. (1993). Fragmentation, the field, and the future. Journal of Communication 43(4), 163-172. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01317.x

Metrics

Details

Issue

Vol 29 No 3 (2016)

Section

Articles

RIGHTS TRANSFER

By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR exclusively assigns the rights of public communication, reproduction, distribution and sale for commercial exploitation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal term in force -the entire life of the author and seventy years after his death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future edition modalities, both in print and electronic versions.

In the event that the article is not accepted for publication , this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.

The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.

Article Sidebar

Main Article Content