Anatomy of the Two Subdisciplines

of Communication Study
EVERETT M. ROGERS
university of New Mexico

Evidence is summarized here for the degree to which thefield of communication study is
divided into two subdisciplines: mass communication versus interpersonal communication.
This division is expressed (a) in thegeneral lack of cross-citations betweenfive mass communi-
cation journals andfive interpersonal communication journals, (b) by separation of the two
subdisciplines in communication associations,and (c) by the awarding of doctoral degrees in
programs specializing mainly in interpersonal communication or in mass communication.
The historical and other reasonsfor this bifurcation of communication study and thefunctions
and dysfunctions of this division are discussed.

A barber pole a n d a zebra would b e more similar t h a n a horse and a zebra if

t h e feature "striped" h a d sufficient weight.
-Murphy and Medin (1985, p. 292)

In communication research, by assigning heavy weight to "stripes" rather

than to "four legs," we have shaped our view of this field.
-Reardon a n d Rogers (1988, p. 301)

The present article argues that the field of communication study is

divided into two subdisciplines-mass communication and interper-
sonal communication-for reasons that are largely historical and some-
what accidental.' The intellectualcanyon running through our field slows
theoretical advance, limits the coherence of communication scholarship,
and violates the holistic nature of the human communicationprocess. The

Everett M. Rogers (Ph.D., Iowa State University, 1957) is a professor in the Department of
Communication and Journalism at the University of New Mexico. The author expresses his
gratitude to Stephen Chaffee of Stanford University, William B. Hart of Old Dominion Uni-
versity, Shaheed Mohammed of the University of the West Indies, and John Oetzel at the
University of New Mexico for helpful comments on a previous draft of this article, which
was presented at the International Communication Association Preconference on the Blur-
ring of Boundaries between Mass and Interpersonal Communication in Haifa, Israel on July
19,1998. Address correspondence to the author at the Department of Communication and
Journalism, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1171; phone: (505) 277-
7569; e-mail: erogers@unm.edu.
Human Communication Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, June1999 618-631
0 1999 InternationalCommunication Association
618
 Rogers / SUBDISCIPLINESOF COMMUNICATION STUDY 619

dysfunctions of this division seem to outweigh its functions, especially in

an era when the new media make this distinction increasingly less rele-
vant. First, the width and depth of the interpersonal versus mass commu-
nication division is documented, then the history of this separation is dis-
cussed, and the article ends with recommendations for closing the gap
between interpersonal and mass communication.
Three types of evidence indicate the current lack of coherence of the
field of communication study: (a) the low degree to which cross-citations
between mass communication and interpersonal communication jour-
nals occur, (b) the specialization along similar lines of the professional
associations of communication scholars, and (c) the organizational sepa-
ration of many doctoral training programs in U.S. universities into either
mass communication or interpersonal communication.

CROSS-CITATIONSOF COMMUNICATION JOURNALS

”The degree to which mass media communication scholars and inter-

personal communication scholars see themselves as different is perhaps
best indicated by the degree to which they cite each others’ work in their
research publications” (Reardon & Rogers, 1988, p. 291). Journal articles
are the most important single type of scholarly publication in a scientific
field (Kau & Johnason, 1983),including communication (Hickson, Stacks,
& Amsbary, 1989; Vincent, 1991). A citation in an article represents
acknowledgement of an intellectual debt to another scholar’s work. Thus,
if scholars publishing in predominantly mass communicationjournals do
not cite articles published in predominantly interpersonal communica-
tion journals and vice versa, then participants in these two subfields per-
ceive these two subfields as distinct.
Four different studies investigated the degree of cross-citation-that is,
whether authors publishing in mass communication journals cite work in
interpersonal communicationjournals and vice versa. Table 1shows that
the percentage of all journal cross-citations that link a mass communica-
tion journal and an interpersonal communication journal ranges from a
low of about 2% to a high of about 8% (and averages about 6.4%for the
four studies combined). The exact journals included in these four cross-
citation analyses rest in part on which journals were included in the Social
Science Citation Index used by these investigators to calculate the cross-
citation measures.’ On the basis of these four analyses, the investigators
concluded the following: ”Unfortunately, the subdivisions of communi-
cation show . , . noncommunication” (Paisley, 1984, p. 26); ”the lack of
communication among communication researchers in the two major sub-
disciplines is still quite likely” (So, 1988,p. 251); “communicationremains
620 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / June 1999

TABLE 1
The Degree of Cross-Citation Between Mass Communication
Journals and Interpersonal Communication Journals
MUSS Interpersonal Cross-
Citation Communication Communication Cross- Subdisplinay
Studies Journals Journals Citations Citations (%)

Paisley (1984) CR, JOB, JOC, CSSJ,CM, QJS 1,343 1.8a

JQ, POQ
Reeves and CR, JOB, JOC, CSSJ,CM, QJS,HCR 3,595 7.7
Borgman (1983) JQ, POQ
So (1988) CR, IOB, P C , CSSJ, CM, QJS, 1,672 6.9
JQ, POQ HCR, CE
Rice, Borgman, CR, JOB, JOC, CSSJ, CM, QJS, 13,006 6.4
and Reeves (1988) JQ, POQ, PRR HCR, CE

NOTE: C R = Communication Research, JOB =Journal of Broadcasting (nowJournal of Broadcast-

ing and Electronic Media), JOC = Journal of Communication, JQ = Journalism Quarterly, POQ =
Public Opinion Quarterly, PRR = Public Relations Review, CSSJ = Central States Speech Journal
(now Communication Studies), CM = Communication Monographs, QJS = Quarterly Journal of
Speech, CE = Communication Education, and HCR =Human Communication Research.
a. Note that if the total number of citations (N = 5,941), including self-citations,were used as
the denominator in calculating the measure of subdisciplinary crosscitation (instead of
cross-citations,n = 1,343),the measure would only be 0.75%.

a field with separate subliteratures” (Reeves & Borgman, 1983, p. 119);

and that the generally low level of subdisciplinary cross-citation is consis-
tent across a decade of study (Rice, Borgman, & Reeves, 1988):
Unlike most other scientificfields, ”citation analysis shows that there is
no dominant journal for the entire field of communication” (So, 1988, p.
251). Nor is there a dominant journal in the subdiscipline of mass commu-
nication and in the subdiscipline of interpersonal communication. Most
other scientific disciplines have one dominant journal, which provides a
certain degree of coherence to the discipline. Instead, communication
journals are not only divided into mass communication versus interper-
sonal communication, but the communicationjournals are further subdi-
vided by their quantitative versus qualitative research methodologies
(Mohammed, 1998)’as shown in Table 2.4
We conclude that interpersonal communication scholars and mass
communication researchers rarely cite each other’s journal articles. Com-
munication scholars generally ignore the research literature of their coun-
terpart communication subdiscipline. The two communication journals
that play the most important role in linking the two subdisciplines of com-
munication study are (a) the Journal of Communication UOC),predomi-
nantly a mass communication journal, and (b) Human Communication
 Rogers / SUBDISCIPLINESOF COMMUNICATION STUDY 621

TABLE 2
Ten CommunicationJournalsby Their Degree
of Qualitative/QuantitativeResearch Methodology
and by Subdisciplinary Specialization
Percentage of 1987 to Percentage of
Communication Sponsoring 1996 Articles That Cross-Disciplina
Journals Association Were Quantitativea Cross-Cita tionsli?

Interpersonal
communication journals - 64 14
CSSJ (now CS) NCA 37 9
CM NCA 67 13
Qls NCA 0 7
CE NCA 98 17
HCR ICA 100 32
Mass communication
journals - 8?c 11
CR None 98 13
JOB (now JOBEM) NBE 77 7
JOC ICA 49 22
JQ AEJMC 84 5
POQ AAPOR 98 8
Total - 78 12
~ ~ ~~ ~

NOTE: CSSJ = Central States SpeechJournal (now Communication Studies), CM = Communica-

tion Monographs, QJS = Quarterly Journalof Speech, CE =Communication Education, HCR = Hu-
man Communication Research, C R = Communication Research, JOB = Journal of Broadcasting
(now Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media), JOC =Journalof Communication,JQ=Jour-
nalism Quarterly, and POQ = Public Opinion Quarterly. NCA = National Communication As-
sociation, ICA = International Communication Association, NBE = National Broadcasting
Educators, AEJMC = Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
and AAPOR = American Association for Public Opinion Research.
a. Using data provided by Mohammed (1998), the author calculated this index as the
number of the 969 journal articles in each journal that were classified as quantitative divided
by the number of articles that were qualitative plus quantitative, leaving out the number of
articles classified as conceptual or mixed methods (which may have used both qualitative
and quantitative methods). The latter two categories comprised 17%of the 969 journal arti-
cles, a 25%random sample of the articles published from 1987 to 1996 in 15journals.
b. This index was calculated as the percentage of all cross-citationsto the other nine commu-
nicationjoumals that were made to the fivejournals in the other subdiscipline using citation
data for the 1977 to 1985 period provided by Rice, Borgman, and Reeves (1988).
c. The relatively high percentage of mass communication journal articles that were quantita-
tive would be less if Critical Studies in Mass Communication was included.

Research (HCR),predominantly an interpersonal communicationjournal

(see Table 2). Both journals are managed by the International Communi-
cation Association (ICA), the one professional association in the field of
communication study that seeks to span the interpersonal communica-
tion versus mass communication split.’
622 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / June 1999

PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATIONS

Most social sciences have one main professional association, which

organizes an annual conference and publishes the most prestigious jour-
nal in the field. These associations play an important integrative function
in providing intellectual coherence to their scientific field. Communica-
tion study does not fit this general pattern. Although ICA includes both
mass communication and interpersonal communication scholars, the
other two main communication associations, the National Communica-
tion Association (NCA) and the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication (AEJMC), mainly represent interpersonal
communication and mass communication scholars, respectively. Both
NCA and AEJMC have a larger membership than ICA. The differentiat-
ing effect of communicationjournals is paralleled by the leading associa-
tions of communication scholars, who own and manage the journals (see
Table 2).
ICA might appear to play a bridging function across the interpersonal
communication/mass communication divide. But ICA is basically a fed-
eration composed of the two subdisciplines that gather annually at the
same meeting ground rather than serving as a strong promoter of
exchange across subdisciplinary lines.6
Many communication scholars who participate in an ICA annual con-
ference do so in a way that does little to bridge the subdisciplinary canyon
in our field. For example, a mass communication scholar mainly attends
paper sessions of his or her division, talks informally with other mass
communicationscholars, and is unlikely to attend the ICA business meet-
ing or the one or more plenary sessions that are generally discipline-wide
in focus. So although ICA provides an organizational opportunity for
linking the two subdisciplines, a relatively small amount of actual inte-
gration occurs. Nevertheless, ICA is the most integrative of the various
communication associations in our field. Two of its journals (JOC and
HCR), as mentioned in the previous section, represent to a certain extent
cross-citation bridges between mass communication and interpersonal
communication journals.

DOCTORAL PROGRAMS

A fundamental basis for the existence and maintenance of the two sub-
disciplines is the bifurcation of Ph.D. training programs in communica-
tion. To a strong degree, the boundaries drawn during doctoral training
mark most scholars for life. Ideally, if communicationstudy were to be an
integrated, coherent discipline like other scientific disciplines, doctoral
 Rogers / SUBDISCIPLINESOF COMMUNICATION STUDY 623

students would study a common core of theory and research methods

courses, and then specialize in certain further courses and in their disser-
tation research. Many doctoral programs of study in US. universities
focus entirely on either mass communication or interpersonal communi-
cation. So, for example, a doctoral student in a school of journalism and
mass communicationtakes only mass communication theory courses and
enrolls only in research methods courses that deal with mass communica-
t i ~ nThe
. ~ situation is parallel for a doctoral student in an interpersonal
communicationprogram. Even if the distinctivenessof mass versus inter-
personal communication were not emphasized as it presently is in jour-
nals and scholarly associations, the separateness and specialization of
doctoral programs imprints the subdisciplinary division on newly
trained communication scholars.
More than one third of the main US. universities granting doctoral
degrees in communication have two doctoral programs (each housed in
its own department or school), with one in interpersonal communication
and one in mass communication. These doctoral programs are among the
largest in the number of degrees granted, so approximately half of the
roughly 250 doctoral degrees awarded annually in communicationin US.
universities are granted in either mass communication or in interpersonal
communication (rather than in communication without some type of
modifying adjective). The doctoral students at universities with a degree
program in both mass communication and interpersonal communication,
of course, could enroll in courses in the other doctoral program at their
university. Generally, they do not do so. Often, they are forbidden or dis-
couraged from doing so by their faculty advisors and doctoral commit-
tees. The subdivisions of mass and interpersonal communication are thus
continued in future generationsof academic scholarsof communication.
The result of this specialization of doctoral training programs is that
most communication scholars are largely unschooled in the other subdis-
cipline. They do not understand the theories of the other subdiscipline.
They may not be comfortable reading journal articles or books or confer-
ence papers in the other subdiscipline. Thus, their scholarly interests are
channeled into either mass communicationor interpersonal communica-
tion.

FISH SCALES OF DISCIPLINARY ETHNOCENTRISM

Is this dimension of communication channel (mass media versus face-

to-face interaction) the most efficient way to divide a scholarly field such
as communication study? Perhaps it is a case of a distinction being made
on the basis of stripes versus no stripes rather than four legs versus two
624 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / June 1999

legs (Murphy & Medin, 1985). More generally, should an academic disci-
pline be divided to this degree on any basis?
Imagine a two-dimensional space that represents all possible special-
ties in the field of communication study that might have existed at some
early stage in the field’s history. Rather arbitrarily (as we explain in a fol-
lowing section of this article), two administrative units are created, one
specializing in mass communication and one in interpersonal communi-
cation. As time goes by, these two fish scales shrink in their academic
scope, becoming more and more inward oriented and specialized and
thus leaving intellectual territory that is not covered by either subdisci-
pline (Campbell, 1969). The arbitrary boundaries become more and more
pronounced due to the centralizing bias of core curricula, Ph.D. compre-
hensive examinations, dissertation committees, and faculty hiring poli-
cies (Reardon & Rogers, 1988). University units tend to become narrower
in academic scope over time and to represent what Campbell (1969) called
the ”ethnocentrism of disciplines.” Once created, university boundaries
become higher and divisions become deeper.
The administrative units in US. universities that offer doctoral training
in communication study frequently identify themselves with a name that
includes various adjectives in addition to communication, such as speech
communication or journalism and mass communication. These names are
important in maintaining the lack of coherence of communication study.8
How is a doctoral student to self-identify if he or she receives a
Ph.D. degree in an academic unit called speech communication or mass
communi~ation?~

HISTORY OF THE TWO SUBDISCIPLINES

We have reviewed three types of evidence to show that the field of

communication study in the United States is strongly divided into two
subdisciplines. How did it get that way?
An important paradigm for communication study grew out of Shan-
non’s mathematical theory of communication (Shannon& Weaver, 1949),
applied to human communication and popularized by Wilbur Schramm
(Rogers, 1994) and David Berlo (1960). This paradigm represented a social
scientific approach to studying human communication behavior. The
new paradigm led to establishing university-based academic units for
communication study in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In a few cases, a
new academic unit called communication was created at a university, but
in most cases, the new paradigm of communicationwas grafted on to pre-
viously existing departments of speech or schools of journalism, mainly
by hiring new Ph.D.s in communication study. This strategy of imple-
menting the new paradigm was resisted by certain scholars, especially in
 Rogers / SUBDISCIPLINESOF COMMUNICATION STUDY 625

schools of journalism where a professional emphasis was threatened by

the new faculty members with Ph.D. degrees in communication (Rogers
& Chaffee, 1994)." This scientific revolution was largely over within
about a decade, except for some mopping-up operations. Speech depart-
ments became departments of speech communication, and schools of
journalism became schools of journalism and mass communication."
When the new paradigm of communication was introduced in depart-
ments of speech (which had earlier grown out of rhetoric), interpersonal
communication often became the dominant focus of the department.
The adding on of the communication study paradigm to existing
administrative units divided the field of communicationinto the two sub-
disciplines. Communication study in American universities was thus
"organizationally structured to grow apart instead of together" (Reardon
& Rogers, 1988, p. 289). If students entering a university with separate
doctoral programs in interpersonal communication and mass communi-
cation wanted to study just plain communication, they could not do so.
In the universities of Latin American, Europe, and Asia, communica-
tion study generally got under way as an administrative unit somewhat
later than in the United States. For example, the first department of com-
munication in Latin America was established at the Universidad
Iberoamericano in Mexico City in 1968, whereas the first units with that
title in the United States had been founded about a decade earlier. Outside
of the United States, departments of speech generally did not exist, and
university-based schools of journalism were unknown in many countries.
Communication departments and schools were created anew rather than
grafted on to existing units in speech and journalism. Today, most admin-
istrative units in non-U.S. universities are called communicationor commu-
nication study.

THE UNIQUE ROLE OF HCR

The communicationjournal that does most to bridge the two subdisci-

plines is HCR, a predominantly interpersonal communication journal,
with 32% of its cross-citations to the five mass communication journals
(see Table 2), particularly to CommunicationResearch (CR)and JOC during
the 1977 to 1985 period (Riceet al., 1988).HCR is linked closelyby citations
to other interpersonal communicationjournals, especially Communication
Monographs.
HCR is weakly interlinked with the Quarterly Journal of Speech (QJS),
perhaps because these two journals differ sharply in the research method-
ologies reported in the articles they publish (see Table 2). HCR published
predominantly quantitative articles in the 1987 to 1996 period, whereas
QJS published mainly qualitative articles (Mohammed, 1998). HCR was
626 HUMAN COMMUNICATIONRESEARCH / June 1999

most strongly linked through citations to other highly quantitative inter-

personal journals, such as Communication Monographs, and to highly
quantitative mass communicationjournals (such as C R and JOC).
How does a journal such as HCR become specialized as a quantitative
and interpersonal communication journal? Mohammed’s (1998) investi-
gation suggests that a communication journal acquires a reputation as
qualitative or quantitative on the basis of the articles that it publishes.
Then, this reputation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, influencing
which types of articles scholars submit to a journal. The editor of a journal
serves as a symbol representing the quantitative versus qualitative and
interpersonal versus mass communication specialization of a journal.
Most past editors of HCR have been perceived as interpersonal, quantita-
tive communication scholars and thus fit with the content that has been
published. Thus, the reputation of a journal, the perceptions of its editor,
and the articles that are submitted to the journal interact in a complicated
process that tends to maintain the quantitative and interpersonal charac-
ter of a journal such as HCR (Mohammed, 1998).

FUNCTIONS AND DYSFUNCTIONS

OF THE SEPARATION

The splitting of communication study into two subdisciplineshas three

dysfunctional consequences.

1. Communication theory is not integrated. “Today there is one set of theo-

ries for interpersonal communication, and a different set of theories for
mass communication” (Reardon & Rogers, 1988, p. 295). For example,
theories of persuasion and attitude change have mainly attracted the
attention of interpersonal communication scholars. However, persuasion
theories are used in mass media advertising, health communication cam-
paigns, and political campaigns, which are topics that are usually
included in mass communication courses. Most of the theories in commu-
nication study are assigned to either mass communication or to interper-
sonal communication, even when the theory would seemingly apply to
both subdisciplines or perhaps should.
One of the intersectionsbetween interpersonal and mass communica-
tion that deserves the attention of communication scholars is motivation
for communication (Rubin & Rubin, 1985). Cohen and Metzger (1998)
argued that individuals communicate with others, either by face-to-face
or mass media channels, because of a need for social affiliation and to
understand who we are in relation to the world around us. We may talk to
others to give meaning to events or situations, or we may seek answers to
 Rogers / SUBDISCIPLINESOF COMMUNICATION STUDY 627

such puzzles from media personalities through parasocial interaction.

Here, we see an example of how a communication theory can be con-
structed on both mass communication and interpersonal communication
research that spans the two subdisciplines.

2. Human communicationcannot be understood by only one of the two subdis-

ciplines. Because most individuals use both mass media channels and
interpersonal communication channels for interrelated purposes, the
total process of human communication cannot be adequately understood
by only one of the two subdisciplines.For instance, the behavioral change
effects of an entertainment-education radio soap opera in Tanzania
almost entirely occurred through media messages stimulating word-of-
mouth communication among audience individuals (Rogers, 1998).This
inherent interconnectednessof mass media and interpersonal communi-
cation is referred to as intermedia by Gumpert and Cathcart (1982). Obvi-
ously, communication scholars who are specialized in either mass or
interpersonal communication are not best equipped to study the reality of
this interplay of channels in a total communication process.

3. The new communication technologies of the 1990s are interactive. They

cannot be classified as either mass communication or interpersonal com-
munication. As a result, the new technologies of the Internet, the World
Wide Web, and e-mail may be inadequately studied by communication
scholars in either subdiscipline. In future years, the rising importance of
the interactive communication technologies will be a force for the closer
integration of the two subdisciplines(or, perhaps, for formation of a third
subdiscipline).

In addition to these negative impacts of the division of communication

study, there are also certain positive consequences. Specialization of a
scholar’s field into either of two subfields means that the individual
scholar only has to stay abreast of half as much academic material. In a
rapidly growing scholarly field where the outpouring of research find-
ings causes increasing problems of information overload, academic spe-
cialization and balkanization of the discipline is welcomed by many indi-
vidual scholars as a relief from information overload. Perhaps, the
functions of the division accrue mainly to the individual scholar, whereas
the dysfunctions occur mainly for the field of communication study.

RECOMMENDATIONS

What can communicationscholars do if they want to close the division

in our field?
628 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / June 1999

1. Combine doctoral programs at universities that have two programs, per-

haps as a gradual step toward merging the two administrative units.
2. Rethink and perhaps change the interpersonal versus mass communication
and quantitative versus qualitative specializations represented by present
communication journals.
3. Reconsider the present divisional structure of ICA and focus more confer-
ence sessions on communication problems, theories, or research methods
that face all communication scholars, rather than force most sessions to fol-
low divisional lines.
4. Consider the merger of the three large communication associations into one
stronger association that would seek to encourage the advancement of com-
munication study as an integrated field.
5. Give awards for research, writing, and other scholarly activity that span the
subdisciplinary boundaries of communication study.

What can individual scholars of communication do?

1. Teach undergraduate and graduate courses in an integrated way, drawing

on both mass communication and interpersonal communication theories
and research.
2. Read and submit articles to communication journals that represent the
highest quality research and theory, whether they are known as interper-
sonal communication or mass communication journals.
3. Collaborate in conducting research with colleagues and other scholars who
are in the other subdiscipline.

As we approach the millennium, perhaps it is time for communication

scholars to consider whether stripes, four legs, o r some other dimension is
the most appropriate basis for division. Are divisions such as those that
are presently existing a benefit or a handicap to the field of communica-
tion study?

NOTES

1.We define mass communication as the exchange of information via a mass medium
such as radio, television, newspapers, and so forth from one or a few individuals to an audi-
ence of many. Interpersonal communicationinvolves the face-to-face exchange of informa-
tion between two or more people. Here, we consider interpersonal communication as
including such scholarly specialties as rhetorical theory and criticism, organizational com-
munication, intercultural communication,communication education, and others. The term
interpersonal communication generally corresponds to what some observers refer to as “com-
munication studies.” Here we use communication study to mean the study of all aspects of
communication.
2. The Social Science Citation Index is published by the Institute for ScientificInformation
in Philadelphia on the basis of their database of the citations made in published journal arti-
cles. Some of the newer communicationjournals, such as Communication Thpory and Critical
 Rogers / SUBDISCIPLINESOF COMMUNICATION STUDY 629

Studies in Mass Communication, were not published long enough to be included in the Social
Science Citation Index at the time of the four cross-citationstudies.
3. Determination of the communicationjournals assigned to the mass communication
cluster and to the interpersonalcommunicationcluster is, of course, a key matter in the four
cross-citationanalyses. As Table 1shows, these four citation studies are relatively consistent
in the journals assigned to both categories.Rice, Borgman, and Reeves (1988) began with the
citation data among 20 communicationjournals and, by using the NEGOPY computer pro-
gram for network analysis, pared the 20journals to 5 interpersonalcommunicationjournals
versus 6 mass communicationjournals. This method of identifying the clustersof mass com-
munication and interpersonal communicationjournals is representative of the other three
citation studies.
4. The quantitativeversus qualitativedistinctionin communicationjournals seems to be
almost as divisive of the field of communicationstudy as is the mass communicationversus
interpersonal communication division. The most quantitative communicationjournals are
Communication Research and Public Opinion Quarterly (both mass communication journals)
and Communication Education and Human Communication Research (both interpersonal com-
municationjournals).The Quarterly Journal ofspeech, an interpersonalcommunicationjour-
nal (specializing in rhetorical communication), is the most qualitative communication
journal.
5. The publication committee of a communication association typically oversees that
association’s journals, includingselectionof the journal’s editors. Often, many of the articles
submitted to a journal were previously presented at the annual conferenceof the communi-
cation association that owns the journal. So,there is a close, although not a one-to-one, rela-
tionship between a communication association and its journals.
6. A cross-divisionalmembership analysis of ICA members, similar to the four studies
of cross-citations discussed previously, was conducted by Barnett and Danowski (1992),
who found one cluster of ICA members in the interpersonalcommunication-type divisions
(e.g., the interpersonal, organizational, intercultural/development, and instruc-
tional/developmental divisions) versus another cluster of members in the mass communi-
cation-oriented divisions(e.g., the mass, political, and health divisions).Another important
divisionwas on the basis of scientificversus humanisticdivisions (popular communication,
philosophy of communication, and feminist scholarship).
7. Steve Chaffee (personal communication, June 23, 1998) pointed out to me that
although communication research methods courses at US. universities with two doctoral
programs may be taught separatelyin each program, both sets of methodology courses gen-
erally follow a social science approach and probably use the same or similar textbooks. The
examples in these research methods courses may be specialized to mass communication or
interpersonal communication, but the research methods are common enough that a mass
communicationscholar could understand interpersonal research and vice versa. So either
subdiscipline could read the other’s research.
8. A similar importance of names may exist in scholarlyjournals. So (1988) concluded,
“Among the 10 core journals, those with the word ’communication’in their titles tend to
have a broader scope of concern than those with specialized titles” (p. 249). However, the
citation analysisby Rice, Borgman, and Reeves (1988) does not seem to support So’s (1988)
contentionabout journals with the word communication in their titles. But the five journals in
Table 2 with communication in their titles average 18.8% cross-disciplinary cross-citations,
whereas the five journals without communication in their name average 7.2% cross-
disciplinary cross-citations.
9. The Department of Communication at Michigan State University was founded in
1960 as the first unit in the field dedicated to studying communication without adjectives
(Rogers, 1994).
630 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / June 1999

10. They were called chi squares by the professional journalism professors, who in turn
were labeled green eyeshades by the mass communication scholars with Ph.D. degrees
(Rogers, 1994).
11.A parallel renaming of professional associations and their journals has occurred, with
the Speech Communication Association changing its name to the National Communication
Association in 1998.

REFERENCES

Bamett,G. A., & Danowski,J. A. (1992). The structure of communication: A network analysis
of the International Communication Association. Human Communication Research, 19,
264-285.
Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process ofcommunication. New York Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Campbell, D. J. (1969).Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scalemodel of omniscience.
In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), lnterdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences
(pp. 328-348). Chicago: Aldine.
Cohen, J., & Metzger, M. (1998). Socialaffiliation and the achievement of ontological security
through interpersonal and mass communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
15,4140.
Gumpert, G., & Cathcart, R. (Eds.) (1982). lnterlmedia:Interpersonal communication in a media
world. New York Oxford University Press.
Hickson, M., Stacks, D. W., & Amsbary, J. H. (1989). An analysis of prolific scholarship in
speech communication, 1915-1985:Toward a yardstick for measuring research produc-
tivity. Communication Education, 38,231-236.
Kau, J. B., & Johnason, L. L. (1983). Regional science programs: A ranking based on publica-
tion performance. journal of Regional Science, 23,177-186.
Mohammed, S. N. (1998).An analysis of research methodologies in 15major communication
journals from 1987to 1996 (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1998). Dis-
sertation Abstracts International,59.
Murphy, G . L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psycho-
logical Review, 92,289-316.
Paisley, W. (1984). Communication in the communication sciences. In B. Dervin, & M. J.
Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 143). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Reardon, K. K., &Rogers, E. M. (1988). Interpersonal versus mass media communication: A
false dichotomy. Human Communication Research, 15,284-303.
Reeves, B., & Borgman, C. L. (1983). A bibliometric evaluation of core journals in communi-
cation research. Human CommunicationResearch, 10,119-136.
Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L., & Reeves, 8. (1988). Citation networks of communication jour-
nals, 1977-1985 Cliques and positions, citations made and citations received. Human
CommunicationResearch, 15,256-283.
Rogers, E. M. (1994).A history of communicationstudy:A biographical approach. New York Free
Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1998). When the media have strong effects: Intermedia processes. In J. Trent
(Ed.), Communication:Viewsfrom thehelmfor the twenty-first century (pp. 276-285). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Rogers, E. M., &Chaffee, S. H. (1994).Communication and journalism from "Daddy" Bleyer
to Wilbur Schramm: A palimpsest. JournalismMonographs, 147.
Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. C . (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A
research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,2,36-53.
 Rogers / SUBDISCIPLINES OF COMMUNICATION STUDY 631

Shannon,C. E., &Weaver,W. (1949).The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana:UN-

versity of Illinois Press.
So, C.Y.K. (1988).Citation patterns of core communicationjournals An assessment of the
developmental status of communication.Human Communication Research, 15,236-255.
Vincent, R. C. (1991). Telecommunications research productivity of U.S.communication
programs: 1984-1989.Iournnlism Quarterly, 68,840-851.