Abstract
In considering the prospect of a new journal focused on “Communication and the Public,” it is impossible to avoid the question of whether these concepts—broad and expansive as they are—have already been adequately addressed in other venues. Certainly, in a narrow conception of mere topical coverage, they have. Such a limited assessment, however, would overlook two vitally important dimensions of this exciting new outlet. The first of these lies in the rich set of extremely timely themes that I would argue emerge from the intertwining of communication and the public that the journal’s theme occasions. The second, and I think more important, can be found in the set of vitally important directives found within the journal’s mission statement, which challenge researchers to explore the themes just alluded to with a focus on understudied empirical contexts and a broad array of epistemological and methodological approaches. In this brief essay, I will articulate my own particular vision of these two dimensions, with the hope of contributing in some small part to what I expect will become a rich and productive conversation to take place over the course of future volumes. In each case, I will suggest that there are both more and less common ways of engaging the associated themes and directives, both of which I think can be part of the journal’s future success.
To begin with the basic conceptual issues, it is certainly uncontroversial to note that in many ways, the most pressing research questions of our time engage the interrelationship between communication and publics, as well as the sense in which both are experiencing dynamic transformations. In light of sweeping socio-technical change, we explore the ways that communication affirms or negates, facilitates or hinders, and constitutes or forecloses vital democratic processes that unfold in the public sphere. In doing so, much contemporary work further examines the sense in which a changing communication environment suggests or highlights an array of public-related conceptualizations, including counter-, mini-, and issue-publics (Kim, 2009; Toepfl & Piwoni, 2015; Warren & Gastil, 2015). Whether or not one agrees with the argument that the classic paradigm of media effects has become a clear casualty of these developments (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008), one cannot deny that broader questions concerning the fundamental relationships between communication and the public, writ large, continue to gain currency and significance, despite the fact that they have also been with us for quite a long time.
The most common lines of research engaging these issues deal at some level with dynamics of fragmentation, either based on levels of political interest (Prior, 2007), or among those with at least a modicum of interest in politics, according to ideological and/or partisan leanings (e.g. Sunstein, 2001), made possible and more pronounced by abundant media choice. These themes are important, and work oriented toward the study of fragmentation within our contemporary communication environment garners a significant amount of attention based on the disturbing implications it often suggests for fundamental democratic processes of public deliberation and public will formation. Equally important, and of no small theoretical interest, however, are studies that examine novel counter-currents to fragmentation dynamics. Whether based on various forms of entertainment or otherwise not-strictly-political communication, work in this vein brings more dominant patterns of fragmentation into sharp relief, even while reminding us that not all communication, even in an era of unprecedented choice, necessarily pulls people away from encounters with those who may be more, or less, interested in politics than they are, or who may be friend or foe in ideological or partisan terms (e.g. Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009; Xenos & Becker, 2009; Xenos, Vromen, & Loader, 2014). By focusing explicitly on issues of communication and the public, I think that this new journal provides an important and exciting opportunity for work that engages these complementary themes to enter into deeper and more fruitful dialogue.
As noted earlier, however, I would contend that it is Communication and the Public’s stated emphasis on understudied empirical contexts and a broad epistemological scope that presents the most stimulating challenge to contemporary researchers and future contributors. Indeed, while there are certainly a variety of other outlets where general themes of communication and public sphere processes are explored, no one could plausibly argue that there are ample outlets devoted to examining these issues outside of the all-too-familiar national contexts of advanced, Western democracies, or doing so in an explicitly pluralistic methodological mode. For some time now, there have been a number of conversations in the field concerning the lack of research outside of the typical US and/or UK contexts (Moy, Bimber, Rojecki, Xenos, & Iyengar, 2012), and of course debates and discussion related to epistemological diversity have an even longer history. To my mind, however, the establishment of this journal represents perhaps the most concrete and potentially efficacious step toward building an institutional resource for those interested in addressing issues related to either an overreliance on familiar national contexts or the uncritical adoption of any one methodological orientation.
Here again, it is in the potential for the journal to provide a space for both more straightforward as well as less obvious ways of exploring these themes that I think there are particular opportunities for creating a truly unique and distinctive venue for new communication research. Naturally, an important aspect of this will be in providing an outlet for research that draws on empirical data collected from understudied national contexts. Research on communication and public sphere processes in these areas naturally provides not only for tests of the generalizability of many important theoretical propositions, but in some cases even the opportunity to consider how key national-level variables may condition important communication-related dynamics (e.g. Bailard, 2014). Likewise, I am hopeful that researchers from a variety of epistemological camps will heed the journal’s special call for qualitative and quantitative, as well as social scientific and humanistic scholarship on contemporary communication dynamics relevant to democratic processes that take place in the public sphere.
At the same time, however, I would argue that there are a number of other, perhaps less obvious, ways of interpreting the notion of understudied empirical contexts, as well as the journal’s explicitly open methodological orientation that can also make meaningful contributions to a vibrant scholarly discussion within the pages of Communication and the Public. For example, as Livingston and Walter-Drop (2014) have recently demonstrated, exploring the role played by communication in vital public processes in parts of the world often overlooked by communication research can provide more than just an opportunity for refining existing communication theories. Indeed, whereas much communication research has focused on certain states at the expense of others, their work brings to light a variety of unique research questions associated with areas of the world in which statehood itself is limited. In terms of the journal’s commitment to methodological pluralism, I would suggest that an intriguing opportunity that might not be immediately apparent is simply a renewed commitment to more explicit and accessible discussion of methodological approach in any given submission. The logic here is that if the journal itself is successful in using communication to constitute a community of scholarship, future contributors to Communication and the Public will need to write for an epistemologically diverse audience, lest the community itself fall prey to fragmentation. Although the more natural approaches to carrying out the journal’s unique mission and vision for contemporary communication research will no doubt produce a worthwhile scholarly discussion, I believe this discussion will be even more enhanced to the extent that contributors are able to embrace the open-minded spirit that animates the aims and scope of this exciting new outlet.
Thus, as worthwhile and important as its topical focus may be, I think it is the unique thrust of this new journal’s mission that will truly set it apart and create a distinctive venue for new research. Indeed, I hope that prospective contributors will not only heed that mission, but seek to “push the envelope” in doing so. I certainly look forward to following the discussion that emerges in this space, and joining the public community that will be its natural product.