This week we read an interesting article about building a communication journal collection in a discipline that is at odds with itself as to what actually constitutes its boundaries. In "The Communication Journal Collection," author Dawn Popoff explains the complication surrounding defining the new academic discipline of communication. In many ways these difficulties might be seen of having arisen during the 1940's when the field seemed to split in two directions, with one remaining a field of the humanities and another defining itself as a more scientific approach to communication (2006, pp. 69-70). In other ways, the field is split due to disputes between whether the field should be inclusive, that is, with equal interest in how communication works in many interdisciplinary fields such as education and business advertising; or whether communication should define itself under a more exclusive model that focuses only on articles written by those in the communications field, or at least from the perspective of communication theories (pp. 72-3).
From a standpoint of a communication subject librarian, the mindset of a particular institution's faculty members could have a significant effect on the way in which librarians select communication's journals, as well as the way in which they offer assistance to students. Popoff points to three lists of communication journals by large institutions, one by Mammoth University, one by the Social Science Citation Index, and the Iowa Guide, and points out that only one of the three (the Iowa Guide) is an inclusive list. Further, Popoff points out that even among the two exclusive lists, the two lists offer a surprisingly small amount of agreement between what journals actually fit the criteria as an exclusive journal (pp. 74).
If the generators of these lists disagree between the parameters that define their view of exclusive communication journals, then there is reasonable to suspect that there is likely a high degree of disagreement between different faculty and different departments, as well. Additionally, if the professors and researchers have this much disagreement about their own field, then I can imagine that it would be very difficult for a student to learn how to navigate this complicated terrain in order to find resources that their different professors would agree fall within their own framework of acceptable communication research.
Popoff attributes this disagreement to the fact that the discipline is still young and has not fully matured (pp. 76), and encourages librarians to follow the debate closely in order to know developing trends in communication research. Papoff also suggests that, "even those who represent departments that espouse an exclusive interpretation of journals must remember that communication researchers many want to review the literature of related disciplines even if they do not consider it true communication research" (pp. 77).
As we have seen in past weeks, these problems are not necessarily unique to the communication field of study. Many other fields have branched off into sub-fields. Some of these sub-fields have remained more identifiable as elements of the humanities by remaining keenly interested in classic works in their discipline, while others have attempted to establish a more modern and scientifically rigorous approach to their studies. Many of these issues are rather political in their origins and have a lot to do with acquiring grants, resources, and the interest of attracting students by remaining relevant in an increasingly technical and scientific age. No matter what the cause, though, librarians in these fields have the difficulty of remaining flexible and highly knowledgeable to both the inclusive and exclusive camps in their respective fields.
In the end, it is not really up to the librarian to settle (or even necessarily to take a stance on) the disagreement between inclusive and exclusive journals in communication. A reference librarian in this field would probably be better off to remain as neutral as possible and as open to different theories communication as possible. Retaining a flexible mindset will likely result in a more diversified collection (budget allowing), that is likely to benefit a wide range of research and disciplines. It is important, however, for the librarian to have a good relationship with the faculty in order to properly instruct students on obtaining the proper research materials.
Popoff, D., (2006). The communication journal collection. Collection Management ent, 30(3). pp. 67-85
No comments:
Post a Comment