An analysis on communication theory and discipline

This research explores the structure and status of theories used in Communication as an alternative for Communication discipline identity research and characteristics evaluation. This research assumes that communication theories are not only ongoing practices of intellectual communities, but also discourse about how theory can address a range of channels, transcend specific technologies and bridge levels of analysis. It examines widely-cited theoretical contentions among academic articles and the connections among these theories. Network analysis suggests that framing theory is the most influential of the identified theories (ranking first in frequency and degree, closeness, betweenness and eigenvector centrality) and serves to link other communication theories and theory groups. While mass communication and technology theories exhibited the highest centrality, interpersonal, persuasion and organization communication theories were grouped together, integrating sub-theories of each group. Framing theory was the most popular and influential communication theory bridging not only mass communication theories, but also interpersonal, technology, information system, health, gender, inter-cultural and organizational communication theories.

[1]  Sue Paxton,et al.  Bridging the communication gap. , 2009, Nursing older people.

[2]  George A. Barnett,et al.  Social Network Analysis Using Author Co-Citation Data , 2008, AMCIS.

[3]  P. Bonacich.  Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification , 1972 .

[4]  Youngju Kim,et al.  Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis , 2011, Scientometrics.

[5]  Muhammad I. Ayish,et al.  Beyond Western-Oriented Communication Theories A Normative Arab-Islamic Perspective , 2003 .

[6]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[7]  Charles R. Berger,et al.  The handbook of communication science , 1987 .

[8]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research , 1980 .

[9]  E. Funkhouser.  The Evaluative Use of Citation Analysis for Communication Journals , 1996 .

[10]  Edward L. Fink,et al.  The measurement of communication processes : Galileo theory and method , 1982 .

[11]  J. Kevin Barge,et al.  Practical Theory in Applied Communication Scholarship , 2009 .

[12]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach , 1994 .

[13]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Theories of citation? , 1998, Scientometrics.

[14]  E. Rogers,et al.  Interpersonal Versus Mass Media Communication A False Dichotomy , 1988 .

[15]  Robert P. Hawkins,et al.  Fragmentation in the Field—and the Movement Toward Integration in Communication Science , 1988 .

[16]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[17]  James D. Halloran.  A Case for Critical Eclecticism , 1983 .

[18]  Charles R. Berger,et al.  On Bridging the Communication Gap , 1988 .

[19]  Howard B. Lee,et al.  Foundations of Behavioral Research , 1973 .

[20]  George A. Barnett,et al.  The Structure of Communication: A Network Analysis of the International Communication Association. , 1992 .

[21]  Paul D'Angelo,et al.  News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A Response to Entman , 2002 .

[22]  Patrick B. O'Sullivan.  Bridging the Mass-Interpersonal Divide Synthesis Scholarship in HCR , 1999 .

[23]  George A. Barnett,et al.  A comparative network analysis of the Korean Society of Journalism and Communication Studies (KSJCS) and the International Communication Association (ICA) in the era of hybridization , 2009 .

[24]  R. Hanneman.  Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[25]  C. Borgman,et al.  Citation Networks of Communication Journals, 1977–1985 Cliques and Positions, Citations Made and Citations Received , 1988 .

[26]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  Communication as an Academic Discipline: A Dialogue. , 1983 .

[27]  Stephen W. Littlejohn,et al.  Encyclopedia of communication theory , 2009 .

[28]  Timothy R. Levine,et al.  Rankings and Trends in Citation Patterns of Communication Journals , 2010 .

[29]  Robert T. Craig.  Why Are There So Many Communication Theories , 1993 .

[30]  Lawrence R. Frey,et al.  Routledge Handbook of Applied Communication Research , 2009 .

[31]  Jörg Matthes,et al.  Beyond accessibility? Toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects , 2007 .

[32]  E. Edwards..  Communication theory. , 1967, Ergonomics.

[33]  George A. Barnett,et al.  Structural Change in Communication Between 1991 and 2005: A Social and Semantic Network Analysis of the International Communication Association , 2006 .

[34]  Maleq Khan,et al.  Theory of communication networks , 2010 .

[35]  Netzwerke Datenkommunikation,et al.  Communication Theory as a Field , 2011 .

[36]  J. Sarkar.  Technological Diffusion: Alternative Theories and Historical Evidence , 2002 .

[37]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals , 2009, Scientometrics.

[38]  Marya L. Doerfel,et al.  A Semantic Network Analysis of the International Communication Association , 1999 .

[39]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[40]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  A Bibliometric Analysis of Communication Journals from 2002 to 2005 , 2008 .