Scholars’ Academic Origins. Of the 17 scholars in the first subgroup (Cluster 1-a) in Group 1 (Cluster 1), the majority were from the same academic areas—
journalism and mass communication—except 2 from psychology and 2 unknown (Table 4.2). Scholars in the second subgroup (Cluster 1-b) in Group 1 (Cluster 1) are mainly from two areas: political science and speech communication. In Group 2 (Cluster 2), scholars are from the fields of speech communication, journalism, and mass communication. For those in Group 3 (Cluster 3), all but one (Hahn) received their academic training in the field of speech communication/theater;
Hahn received his in political science. Most of these 51 authors graduated from schools located in the middle, Midwestern, and eastern regions of the country:
9 from Wisconsin, 4 each from Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, and 3 each from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and New York.
An analysis of the statistical results indicates the existence of three main author groups in the field of political communication research. Each of these three groups has its unique attributes with respect to the authors’ primary research approach, their major research subject areas, and their academic origins. These attributes are reflections of the basic characteristics of the intellectual structure of political communication research. Our knowledge of these attributes can establish a basis for us to understand the structure itself.
Name Area of Dissertation Institution
Cluster 1 Cluster 1-a
a4/Atwood (1965)a Journalism Univ. of Iowa
s4/Stevenson (1975) Journalism Univ. of Washington
s2/Shoemaker (1982) Mass communication Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison
b2/Becker (1974) Mass communication Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison
c1/Chaffee (1965) Journalism Stanford Univ.
r2/Rubin (1976) Mass communication Univ. of Illinois
j2/Jeffres (1976) Mass communication Univ. of Minnesota
a3/Atkin (1972) Mass communication Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison
o1/O’Keefe (1971) Psychology Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison
m3/McLeod (1963) Psychology Univ. of Michigan
s1/Shaw (1966) Journalism Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison
w1/Weaver (1974) Mass communication Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
l2/Lemert (1964) Journalism Michigan State Univ.
m2/McCombs (1966) Journalism Stanford Univ.
b5/Blumler N/A Oxford Univ.
r1/Reese (1982) Mass communication Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison
j3/Jensen N/A Univ. of Aarhus, Demark
Cluster 1-b
g2/Graber (1949) Law Columbia Univ.
p2/Patterson (1971) Political science Univ. of Minnesota
a1/Adams (1977) Political science George Washington Univ.
h4/Hofstetter (1967) Political science Indiana Univ.
g1/Garramone (1981) Mass communication Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison
k2/Kepplinger N/A Univ. of Mainz, Germany
p1/Paletz (1970) Political science UCLA
s5/Swanson (1971) Speech communication Univ. of Kansas
b3/Bennett (1974) Political science Yale Univ.
e1/Entman (1977) Political science Yale Univ.
n1/Nimmo (1962) Political science Vanderbilt Univ.
p4/Pfau (1987) Speech communication Univ. of Arizona
p5/Powell (1987) Political science MIT
j1/Jamieson (1972) Speech communication Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison k1/Kaid (1974) Speech communication Southern Illinois Univ.
Cluster 2
b1/Beasley (1974) Journalism Univ. of Washington
p3/Perry (1984) Mass communication Univ. of Wisconsin—Madison
w2/Whitney (1978) Mass communication Univ. of Minnesota
m4/Murray (1974) Speech communication Univ. of Missouri–Columbia z1/Zarefsky (1974) Speech communication Northwestern Univ.
94
TABLE 4.2 (Continued)
Name Area of Dissertation Institution
Cluster 3 Cluster 3-a
h3/Hellweg (1977) Speech communication Univ. of Southern California
t1/Trent (1970) Speech communication Univ. of Michigan
d1/Denton (1980) Speech communication Purdue University
h2/Hart (1970) Speech communication Penn. State Univ.
Cluster 3-b
g3/Gregg (1963) Speech–theater Univ. of Pittsburgh
m1/Medhurst (1980) Speech communication Penn. State Univ.
b6/Bormann (1953) Speech–theater Univ. of Iowa
h1/Hahn (1968) Political science Univ. of Arizona
b4/Blankenship (1961) Speech–theater Univ. of Illinois
e2/Erickson (1972) Speech communication Univ. of Michigan
s3/Simons (1961) Speech–theater Purdue Univ.
l1/Larson (1968) Speech communication Univ. of Minnesota
g4/Gronbeck (1970) Speech communication Univ. of Iowa
a2/Andrews (1966) Speech communication Penn. State Univ.
aThe year in which the author’s doctoral degree was granted is given in parentheses.
generated most of the studies in the field; these studies are usually considered
“mainstream” political communication research. The impact of these two ap- proaches on the intellectual structure of the field can be clearly seen on the map (Fig. 4.3). Based on the present groupings, the majority of the scholars on the map can be classified into two big camps. The first one is the camp of rhetori- cal criticism/qualitative approach, which includes those scholars in Group 3 and several scholars in the second subgroup in Group 1. The second one is the camp of social-scientific analysis/quantitative approach, which consists of the scholars in the first subgroup in Group 1 and several scholars in the second subgroup in Group 1. The existence of this simple dichotomy suggests that the long discussion of the intellectual separation of interpersonal communication (broadly speaking, speech communication) and mass communication in the field of communication studies can help us understand the intellectual structure of political communica- tion research. Most important, because such a discussion reflects communication scholars’ recognition and understanding of the intellectual fragmentation of com- munication research as a whole (Barnett & Danowski, 1992; Delia, 1987; Reardon
& Rogers, 1988; Rice et al., 1988), the fragmentation of political communication research warrants political communication scholars’ investigation.
In a close examination of the map (Fig. 4.3), it is evident that, among these author groups, some are close to each other and some are distant. According to the basic assumptions of citation analysis, groups that are distant from each other have less intellectual connection (i.e., exchanging information through citing others’ work)
than those near each other. In other words, the unbalanced information exchange (due to the differences in the scholarly commitments) among these groups creates the scatter of authors—fragmentation. Fragmentation as a basic feature of the re- search scene in political communication has caught scholars’ attention (Nimmo &
Swanson, 1990). They realize that, in order to understand the intellectual structure of political communication research, fragmentation is a “fundamental fact that must be taken into account . . . ” (Delia, 1987, p. 22). Thus, understanding fragmentation of the field is the key to investigating and comprehending the intellectual connection between scholars—the intellectual structure of political communication research.