Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. A. (1996). Communication theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Ayish, M. I. (2003). Beyond Western-oriented communication theories: a normative Arab-Islamic perspective. Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, 10, 79–92.
Barge, J. K., & Craig, R. T. (2009). Practical theory in applied communication scholarship. In R. Frey & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Applied Communication Research (pp. 55–78). New York: Routledge, NJ.
Barnett, G. A., & Danowski, J. A. (1992). The structure of communication: a network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 19, 264–285.
Barnett, G. A., Huh, C., Kim, Y., & Park, H. W. (2011). Citations among communication journals and other disciplines: a network analysis. Scientometrics, 88, 449–469.
Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (1987). The study of communication as a science. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 15-19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, C., & Chaffee, S. (1988). Bridging the communication gap. Human Communication Research, 15, 311–318.
Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113–120.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2005). Ucinet 6 for Windows. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Chung, C., Lee, S., Barnett, G. A., & Kim, J. (2009). A comparative network analysis of KSJCS and ICA in the era of hybridization. Asian Journal of Communication, 19, 170–191.
Craig, R.T. (1993). Why are there so many communication theories? Journal of Communication, 43, 26–33.
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.
Craig, R. T. (2003). Discursive origins of a communication discipline. Miami Beach, FL, USA: Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association.
D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: a response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870–888.
Doerfel, M. L., & Barnett, G. A. (1999). A semantic network analysis of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 25, 589–603.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Feeley, T. H. (2008). A bibliometric analysis of communication journals from 2002 to 2005. Human Communication Research, 34, 505–520.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
Funkhouser, E. T. (1996). The evaluative use of citation analysis for communication journals. Human Communication Research, 22, 563–574.
Halloran, J. D. (1983). A case for critical eclecticism. Journal of Communication, 33, 270–278.
Hanneman, R., & Riddle, R. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research (4th edn.). New York: Harcourt College Publishers.
Kim, H. J., & Barnett, G. A. (2008). Social network analysis using author co-citation data. Toronto, ON, Canada: Proceedings of the fourteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems.
Lee, S. J., & Barnett, G. A. (2006). The structural change in Communication between 1991 and 2005: A social and semantic network analysis of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany: Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association.
Levine, T. R. (2010). Ranking and trends in citation patterns of communication journals. Communication Education, 59, 41–51.
Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation. Scientometrics, 43, 5–25.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of communication theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Matthes, J. (2007). Beyond accessibility? toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects. Communications, 32, 51–78.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theory of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
O’Sullivan, P. (1999). Bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. Human Communication Research, 25, 569–588.
Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81, 157–175.
Reardon, K. K., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Interpersonal versus mass media communication: a false dichotomy. Human Communication Research, 15, 284–303.
Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, R. (1988). Citation networks of communication journals, 1977–1985: cliques and positions, citations made and citations received. Human Communication Research, 15, 256–283.
Rogers, E. M. (1994). A history of communication study: a biographical approach. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1983). Communication as an academic discipline: a dialogue. Journal of Communication, 33, 18–30.
Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.
Sarkar, J. (2002). Technological diffusion: alternative theories and historical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12, 131–176.
Wiemann, J. M., Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1988). Fragmentation in the field and the movement toward integration in communication science. Human Communication Research, 15, 304–310.
Woelfel, J., & Fink, E. L. (1980). The measurement of communication processes: Galileo theory and methods. New York: Academic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Kyungpook National University Research Fund, 2012.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chung, C., Barnett, G.A., Kim, K. et al. An analysis on communication theory and discipline. Scientometrics 95, 985–1002 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0869-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0869-4