The foundations of communication and media studies are rooted mainly in the work of three prominent 19th century European scholars—Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), and Karl Marx (1818-1883). The collective works of these individuals profoundly affected the development of the social sciences throughout the 20th century and served as an intellectual cornerstone for the fields of communication and media studies. Despite the fact that Darwin was a biologist, the ramifications of his theory of evolution extended well beyond the narrow confines of the biological sciences into social, economic, political, and communication thought. Likewise, Freud’s psychoanalytic theory strongly influenced the intellectual trajectories advanced by many of the “founding fathers” of communication studies who, for the most part, had received formal academic training in Europe. The materialist dialectics of Karl Marx has also had a profound influence on many disciplines in the social sciences and, later, the fields of communication and media studies. His influence, and that of Freud, is particularly evident in the foundational communication and media research undertaken throughout the 1930s at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt Germany (i.e. the Frankfurt School).
During this time several European scholars who had migrated to the United States also were making empirical and theoretical advancements in the study of communication and media. Much of this early work focused on the ways in which public opinion is influenced by the media as well as more sociologically- and psychologically-oriented investigations of how communication affects individuals and communities. To this end, the emergence of communication studies in the United States as a legitimate field of social scientific investigation is directly linked to the media effects research of a number of eminent scholars including: Harold D. Lasswell (1902-1978), Paul F. Lazarsfeld (1901-1976), Kurt Lewin (1890-1947), Carl I. Hovland (1912-1961), Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), and Claude Shannon (1916-2001).
There is also another group of American researchers whose work deeply influenced the study of communication. In contrast to the behaviouralist underpinnings of the early media effects research, studies undertaken by Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929), John Dewey (1859-1952), George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), and Robert E. Park (1864-1944) were rooted in the philosophical school of Pragmatism and the Chicago school of sociology. This alternative to media effects research delved into issues relating to the ways in which the social processes of communication influence the emergence of mind and self.
Throughout the 1930s and early 1940s communication and media studies were not yet formally recognized by the academy. Moreover, the four founding fathers (i.e. Lazarsfeld, Lewin, Lasswell, and Hovland) did not identify themselves as communication scholars. Wilbur Schramm (1907-1987) was the first U.S.-based academic to identify himself as a communication scholar. His vision of communication studies began to form in 1942 when he was the Director of the education division of the Office of Facts and Figures, the United States government’s central propaganda agency during World War II. In 1947, he became the founder and first director of the Institute of Communications Research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Here, Schramm created the first academic degree-granting programs with “communication” in their name and contributed to training the first generation of American communication scholars. This marked the formal establishment of communication and media studies as a legitimate field of inquiry within the behavioral and social sciences.
In the 1950s a conflict, which continues to reverberate in some quarters today, began to intensify between the two schools of thought within communication and media research. The one side was rooted in Lazarsfeld’s notion and practice of “administrative research”. It was characterized by its empirical basis and sophisticated data analysis. A key premise of administrative research is that practice, or action, is more important than theoretical propositions. This approach recognizes, but does not challenge, the strong ties between existing economic and political powers in society and the social forces that support the established order. On the other side was the “critical research” that was originally developed by members of the Frankfurt School such as Theodor Adorno ( 1903 -1969), Max Horkheimer ( 1895 -1973), Walter Benjamin ( 1892 -1940), and Herbert Marcuse ( 1898 -1979). Focusing on general principles and human values to analyze the ways in which communication and media are used to uphold political and economic power systems at the national or global level, critical research is oriented toward challenging the established order. At the core of the critical school of thought is the notion that social change is a dialectical, historical, and materialist process; a rejection of the positivist tenets of administrative research; and a firm belief that researchers have a role to play in fomenting social and political change. Put simply, critical research seeks to make practice conform to theory.
A defining feature of communication research in Canada has been a proclivity toward engaging with questions relating to culture and technological change. This reflects, in part, the paradoxical relationship that Canada has with information and communication technologies. While these technologies are feared on the one hand as potentially damaging Canadian identity, they are simultaneously embraced by the other as a vital tool for ensuring Canada’s existence as a sovereign nation-state. From the early 1900s onward, the fear of a possible American cultural invasion through broadcasting, telecommunication, and print media has been a dominant theme in Canadian communication and cultural policy. Yet, throughout this time the rhetoric and myth of technological nationalism (i.e. the notion that Canada’s existence as a sovereign nation-state is contingent upon the use of information and communication technologies) has remained a core component of Canadian communication and cultural policy.
For this inaugural issue of the Global Media Journal -- Canadian Edition (GMJ -- CE)we have invited eight prominent Canadian scholars to expound upon the intellectual lineage of Canadian contributions to communication and media studies within the global context. Our objective and, more broadly, that of this journal is to begin mapping the broad Canadian contours of global communication and media studies. This is no easy task given the diversity and dynamism of research in these fields. However, in addressing where these fields have been, the current state of play, and future research directions, we believe that the collection of papers presented here make significant headway in the right direction.
This issue of GMJ -- CE opens with two papers that focus on the work of, perhaps, the two most influential Canadian communication scholars: Harold Adams Innis (1894-1952) and Herbert Marshall McLuhan ( 1911 -1980). Their research significantly advanced the understanding of the relationship between economic, social, political and cultural change and media technologies. In the first paper, Robert E. Babe looks at the influence of Harold Innis’ medium theory on the contemporary media and communication scholarship in Canada and abroad. He sets out the connections between Innis’ political economy approach and McLuhan’s literary approach to media technologies on the one hand, and David Suzuki’s ecological studies on the other. Babe then goes on to reflect on some of the reasons why Innis’ medium theory appears have struck a cord with the Canadian, but not, American psyche. This is followed by a contribution from Eric McLuhan who reflects on the methodological implications arising from his father’s classic refrains, “I don’t have A Theory of Communication” and “I don’t use theories in my work”. What emerges from his examination of the ways in which Marshall McLuhan applied Practical Criticism and other analytical tools to analyze media and communication, is the notion that many of the conundrums of modern media and culture may be understood most effectively through research that transcends the constraints imposed by seeking to make the case for or against the truth of a particular theory.
In his paper, Vincent Mosco examines some of the factors influencing the transnationalization of the political economy of communication. He gives particular attention to the growing recognition of the need to create transnational democracy and a genuine cosmopolitan citizenship, the enduring emphasis on historical research within this avenue of communication research, various standpoints of resistance, the continuities and discontinuities between old and new media, and the growth of activism connected to the political economy tradition. His analysis of these trends suggests that political economists have made significant contributions to the overall resurgence of activism around major communication issues.
Focusing on implications arising from the tendency to conflate notions of cultural and creative industries, Gaëtan Tremblay examines the ideological underpinnings of UNCTAD’s Creative Economy Report 2008 which sought to measure global trade flows of creative goods and services. Pointing to the highly contestable nature of the manner in which statistical data are used and interpreted in the report to formulate directions for policy strategies, he suggests that the conflation of the cultural industries into the gambit of creative industries serves an important ideological function. Specifically, the failure to maintain a clear distinction between arts and culture on the one hand, and creative industries on the other, enables to latter to call for the deployment of similar regulatory measures to those which been implemented by national governments over the past four decades to protect the arts and culture sectors.
Starting from the premise that democracy is a term whose defining attributes are best understood as the politicization of moral and ethical questions and equality (as opposed to a characteristic set of procedures and practices), Darin Barney investigates the potential for democratic participation via Web 2.0 platforms such as Facebook and other social networking sites. What emerges from his contribution is the recognition that within the contemporary context, information, communication and participation stand-in for motivation, judgment and action when it comes to democratic politics. This, he argues, suggests that we potentially are settling for publicity in the place of the more demanding democratic goods of politicization and equality.
Appraising the catalyzing influence of Bill C-61, a proposed amendment to the Canadian Copyright Act, and other recent ICT-related policy developments on activism in Canada, Leslie Regan Shade examines the role of academics and activists in fostering a broader public discourse about ICT policy in Canada. The analysis she provides demonstrates how “esoteric” digital policy issues are now seen by many Canadians as worthy of their energies. This, she argues, suggests that the activities of citizens, grassroots groups, and non-profit organizations in seeking a voice in the various structures of policy making cannot be overlooked by politicians or communication policy researchers.
In her contribution, Gertrude J. Robinson challenges the commonly held view that gender-based differences in the newsroom experiences of males and females comes down to an issue of demographics. Her comparison of the findings of two national surveys, one in 1975 and one in 1995, that measured the professional progress of Canadian press and television journalists that were employed at 114 dailies and 188 television outlets reveals that despite reductions in gender-based structural inequalities over time, assumptions about how work and family obligations should be combined persist. These assumptions, she argues, continue to resonate in the journalism profession and can be best understood as a manifestation of the meaning of gender at three levels: as a classifying system, as a structuring structure, and as an ideology.
In his reflection on the transformation of global journalism ethics over several centuries, Stephen J. A. Ward posits what a future journalism ethics might look like. He argues that the parochial approach which has historically characterized journalism ethics no longer serves journalism, the study of journalism, or the public of journalism. This leads him to advocate for a widening of the conceptual base of journalism ethics such that it becomes more informed by critical work from various disciplines and cultures. The task that lies ahead, in his view, is to construct a global journalism ethics that incorporates new knowledge of media from outside journalism ethics, and to redefine journalism ethics as a global enterprise.
With the release of this inaugural issue there are a number of people to whom we would like to express our sincere thankfulness for their support of our efforts at launching this online journal. We are deeply appreciative of the encouragement and support provided by Dr. Yahya Kamalipour, the Founder of Global Media Journal, Dean George Lang and Vice Dean Research Lori Burns of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa, the Chair of the Department of Communication, Dr. Denis Bachand, and the members of the GMJ -- CE Advisory Board. A debt of gratitude also is owed to the various research assistants who played an important role in helping to bring this project to fruition. We strongly encourage the contributions of communication and media scholars from Canada and abroad to help make this journal a central forum for spirited academic debate about the diverse and ever-expanding avenues of communication and media research.
