On Increased Accountability in Higher Education, Communication is Everywhere

From Kansas City to Washington, DC, at conferences about General Education, the Humanities, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Communication (as a discipline and as a practice) is simply everywhere.

  • How do we communicate the importance of General Education to students, parents, and colleagues?
  • How do we best communicate the value of social and behavioral sciences to policymakers who don’t appreciate the role of social science and who don’t support the continued federal funding of such research?
  • How do we best communicate how the humanities contribute to the “common good” to students and parents who believe the errant discourses about employability and college majors?

AAC&UIn its mid-February meeting on General Education and Assessment, the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) presented a series of challenging and provocative panels organized around the meeting’s theme: “From Mission to Action to Evidence: Empowering and Inclusive General Education Programs.” As should be evident from the theme, many of those panels involved meaningful discussion about how best to communicate to various audiences. At AAC&U, two levels of communication emerged.

On a disciplinary level, participants at the conference often engaged in careful discussion about how best to demonstrate the value of communication skills and knowledge as an important part of the General Education program. Increasingly, colleges and universities are discovering that students, parents, employers, and just about everyone else is recognizing the centrality of communication skills and knowledge for students’ professional, personal, and civic success. Often cited was AAC&U’s 2015 report “Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success,” that recounted the results of AAC&U’s survey of employers and students alike. Communication skills and abilities were clearly the most important sets of learning outcomes for college graduates.

On a more practical level, scholars and administrators at the AAC&U meeting were also quite concerned about how best to communicate the importance and value of general education and assessment to their colleagues and administrators in an increasingly challenging political environment for higher education. So Danette Ifert Johnson, the immediate past president of the Eastern Communication Association and an associate provost at Ithaca College presented a discussion of “Making General Education Reform Stick: Using an Organizational Change Model to Guide Implementation” to a standing-room only crowd. Another Communication scholar, Lori J. Carrell, who is now the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Minnesota-Rochester offered a plenary session presentation highlighting the communication challenges facing General Education reform efforts—and received a standing ovation!

Communication, as both discipline and practice, was also on full display at the annual meeting and advocacy day for the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA) and the National Humanities Alliance (NHA). On two successive weeks in March, these two groups convened scholars, administrators, and association officials in Washington to discuss how best to advocate for the humanities and social sciences.

COSSAAt COSSA, attendees heard from scientists who have been attacked in the news media and over social media channels by politicians and others who deem their research frivolous. From “shrimp on treadmills” to sociological explorations of the Chinese dairy industry, these scholars offered a bleak assessment of the media and political landscape even as they remained optimistic about the potential for social and behavioral scientists to respond successfully to such attacks.

NHAThe keynote address at NHA was presented by Scott Jaschik from Inside Higher Ed, who highlighted the challenges confronting the humanities as these disciplines seek to preserve funding for humanities research and to enhance legitimacy and viability on college campuses and in society at large. Jaschik’s comments highlighted the emerging sense among humanities scholars everywhere of the imminent importance of effectively communicating the value and place of the humanities in promoting what NEH chairman Bro Adams has called “the common good.”

Even the physical and biomedical sciences are coming to see the value and importance of Communication: NCA just received an invitation to the National Research Council’s 2015 Harry and Byrna David Lecture, featuring none other than Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Her title: “Communicating the Value and Values of Science.”

Whether as a discipline or as a practice, Communication is everywhere.

It’s Convention Time!

NCA Website Rotisserie Banner

Each November, since 1986, I’ve eagerly planned my trip to NCA’s annual convention.  That first fall convention trip, I piled into a room at the Palmer House with six other graduate students and enjoyed my first of many weekends in Chicago attending NCA’s convention.  While working on my M.A. at Penn State, the faculty ingrained in me the importance of attending conventions and interacting with other scholars in the field.   I’ve rarely missed a convention since.

This year the convention is only a short Metro ride away for me.  It’s exciting to be in the city I’ve called home since 1993!  I’m looking forward to enjoying the city from a different vantage point.  Woodley Park is an exciting neighborhood and near many great restaurants and nearby attractions and with the Metro only a few steps away, the location can’t be beat.  More importantly, though, the scholarly activities and events planned over the next few days will be enlightening, and in the case of the opening session, entertaining.  I haven’t seen Capital Steps since my first year living here!  As a student of political communication, I am sure their performance will provide much food for thought.  Other panels, many focused on teaching and learning issues, such as using NBC Learn Archives on Demand, a service available to all NCA members, will certainly provide new ideas that I can incorporate into classroom activities.

What convention events are you most looking forward to attending?  Which city sights will you be sure not to miss? Share your ideas with our blog readers!  Safe travels to everyone – see you in DC!

The State of Doctoral Education in Communication

If it’s autumn, it’s time to talk about the state of doctoral education in Communication.

Graduate in gownsNew cohorts of graduate students are beginning their programs of study in graduate programs across the country. Prospective graduate students are looking at programs, talking to advisers and mentors, and figuring out what’s the best plan for their future. More and more students are pondering a future in graduate school–even in the arts and humanities, where enrollment in doctoral programs in 2012 increased by 7.7%. Faculty members and administrators are determining hiring plans and assessing the state of individual doctoral programs in their yearly process of self-study and internal assessment. In short, it’s a good time to think about doctoral education in Communication.

NCA examines and provides information about doctoral education in Communication via its Doctoral Education Committee (DEC). These dedicated volunteers work to enhance NCA programming that promotes doctoral education in Communication, including oversight of the annual NCA Doctoral Honors Seminar and the Miller Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award. At the DEC’s urging, NCA has prepared the Doctoral Program Guide that provides information about 76 doctoral programs in Communication. Along with the program information, the Guide also includes NCA’s latest report, “Assessing Doctoral Program Quality in Communication.”

Among the most frequently asked questions we receive at NCA concerns the 2004 NCA Reputational Study that ranked doctoral programs in several research specialties and along three different criteria. We are often asked if we’re going to replicate the study or offer another ranking system for doctoral education. All of these requests prompted serious thought and discussion in the National Office and among the DEC. We also researched the historical and current attempts to rank or rate doctoral programs, particularly in Communication, and the “Assessing Doctoral Program Quality in Communication” report is the result of that research.

DPG ImageInstead of sponsoring or conducting another reputational study, DEC and the NCA staff decided a better approach would be to provide current and relevant information about doctoral education in Communication. Hence, the Doctoral Program Guide. There are many concerns with both of the main methods for ranking/rating doctoral programs–reputational studies and productivity studies. Reputational studies are inherently difficult to conceptualize and execute. Response rates to such studies are often low and the measurement instruments can be complicated and onerous for the respondent. Who is sampled for reputational analyses and what factors contribute to a program’s reputation are persistent issues for reputational studies. Timeliness is also a concern, as program reputations change quickly, faculty members change affiliations, and program offerings vary from time to time.

Productivity studies of research output are also complicated. What research is counted, what databases are used, what citations are measured—these are all issues that such studies must grapple with as they proceed to assess doctoral program quality. On a related note, because Communication is a multi-methodological, pluralistic discipline, its scholars conduct and disseminate their research differently and those differences may well involve publication patterns and frequencies as well as citation practices.

In the end, as we say in the “Assessing Doctoral Program Quality in Communication” report, “Consumers of rankings and ratings of doctoral programs in Communication would be well-advised to consider such limitations and to adapt their expectations about such quality measures accordingly. Whether prospective or current graduate students, faculty members or unit administrators, anyone who attends to assessments of doctoral programs in Communication, or any discipline, should seek out and consult as much information as possible, recognizing that no single assessment or measurement of graduate program quality is definitive and that, in the case of doctoral program quality, more information and more data is better than less.”

From Maine…the 2013 NCA Doctoral Honors Seminar

SERCSince at least 1970, NCA has sponsored annual or biannual Doctoral Honors Seminars, bringing together promising doctoral students and prominent faculty leaders in the communication arts & sciences for an intensive weekend of discussion and dialogue around a specific theme. Doctoral Honors Seminars have been held all over the country, at dozens of prominent doctoral-granting institutions. For the first time, in 2013, the host for the DHS is the University of Maine. On July 18-21, about 30 doctoral students joined with eight faculty leaders at the Schoodic Education &  Research Center (right) in Acadia National Park for the 2013 NCA DHS.

The general theme for the 2013 DHS is “Research Collaboration on Disciplinary Frontiers,” and working from this theme, students are divided into three groups for engaged interactions with one another and with faculty leaders about their doctoral research and the research process in general.

DHS 2Discussing “Spanning Methodological Boundaries–Communication & the Environment,” were faculty leaders Stephen DePoe (U of Cincinnati), Laura Lindenfield (U of Maine), and Tema Milstein (U of New Mexico). Ten students in this group discussed transdisciplinary and intra-disciplinary dimensions of research in environmental communication, engaged in a “World Cafe” style program to discuss research and professional development issues, and pursued individual workshopping of ongoing research endeavors. The doctoral students in this group included Maria Blevins (U of Utah), Tover Cerulli (U of Massachusetts), Katherine Cooper (U of Illinois), Brian Cozen (U of Utah), Bridie McGreavy (U of Maine), Renu Pariyadath (U of Iowa), Aaron Philips (U of Utah), Jessica Rich (U of North Carolina), Elizabeth Schwarz (UC-Riverside), and Yuanxin Wang (Temple University).

DHS 1Focusing on “Rhetoric & Materiality” were faculty leaders Greg Dickinson (Colorado State), Brian Ott (U of Colorado-Denver), and Nate Stormer (U of Maine). Ten students in this group discussed general theoretical issues and problematics in the relationship between rhetoric and materiality, identified common research problems in this sub-domain of rhetorical studies, and read and engaged in discussion about individual student research endeavors. The doctoral students in this group included: Cynthia Bateman (U of South Carolina), Roberta Chevrette (Arizona State U), Mary Domenico (U of North Carolina), Emily Winderman Hallsby (U of Georgia), Brook Irving (U of Iowa), Marie-Louise Paulesc (Arizona State U), Pamela Pietrucci (U of Washington), Yvonne Slosarski (U of Maryland), Scott Tulloch (Georgia State U), and Justine Wells (U of South Carolina).

DHS 4The final group of nine students joined with faculty leaders Robert Brookey (Northern Illinois U) and David Gunkel (Northern Illinois U) to discuss research issues related to “Digital Media Convergence.” While discussing individual student research projects, this group also emphasized professional development concerns, networking, and issues of interdisciplinarity and engagement across disciplines. The doctoral students in this group included: Bryan Behrenshausen (U of North Carolina), Sarah Bell (U of Utah), David DeIullis (Duquesne U), Eunice Kim (U of Texas), Lindsey Meeks (U of Washington), Ben Morton (U of Iowa), Renee Powers (U of Illinois-Chicago), Jessica Rudy (Indiana U), and Julie Wight (U of Minnesota).

Hosting the DHS was the Department of Communication & Journalism at the University of Maine–and the primary organizers for the event were Nate Stormer and doctoral student Bridie McGreavy. From lobster bakes to hikes out on Schoodic Point, from great conversation and compelling discussion, the 2013 NCA Doctoral Honors Seminar continued the tradition of NCA Doctoral Honors Seminars with a decidedly New England flair.

DSC_0069

2nd NCA Chairs’ Summer Institute, June 28-30, 2013

DSC_0029It’s late June in hot, steamy Washington, DC–and a dedicated group of department chairs from communication departments across the nation have gathered together for the 2nd NCA Chairs’ Summer Institute (CSI). In pursuit of one of its strategic objectives–“to increase support for communication administrators”–NCA has hosted the Chairs’ Summer Institute for two straight summers, welcoming almost fifty department chairs in two years to Washington for an intensive weekend of discussion and dialogue. The theme of the 2013 Institute was “Building Connections, Creating Community: Best Practices for the Communication Department Chair,” and the Institute featured in depth discussions of interdisciplinarity, the Basic Course, conflict and difficult personnel and other important concerns facing department chairs.

After a rain-soaked journey to the NCA National Office for an opening reception, the CSI began in earnest with a keynote presentation from Bryant Keith Alexander, dean of the College of Communication & Fine Arts at Loyola Marymount University. Dean Alexander highlighted the relevance and importance of the department chair in the success of the communication discipline, drawing upon his own considerable experience in a variety of institutions and positions.

DSC_0018Addressing the relevance of interdisciplinarity for communication departments were Linda Aldoory, Director of the Herschel Horowitz Center for Health Literacy at the University of Maryland, and Stephen Kidd, executive director of the National Humanities Alliance. Cheri Simonds, from Illinois State University, added a discussion of the role and relevance of the Basic Course for department chairs. Simonds chairs NCA President Steve Beebe’s Task Force on Strengthening the Basic Course, and provided the participants of the CSI with a personal and insightful presentation about the Basic Course as the “front porch” of the discipline.

Two members of the NCA Chairs’ Advisory Council, Carl Cates and Jon Hess, led an afternoon open dialogue about the challenges and rewards of serving as a department chair and the institute concluded with a discussion of managing conflict and dealing with difficult personalities in the contemporary academic environment.

Attending the 2013 CSI were Cynthia Cooper (Towson University), Cheri Hampton-Farmer (University of Findlay), Andrew Hayes (DePauw University), Kenneth Lachlan (UMass-Boston), Noemi Marin (Florida Atlantic University), Chad McBride (Creighton University), Kristan Moran (University of San Diego), Bala Musa (Azusa Pacific University), Anne Nicotera (George Mason University), David Petroski (Southern Connecticut State University), Rhonda Sprague (University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point), Tim Steffensmeier (Kansas State University), Helen Sterk (Western Kentucky University), April Trees (St. Louis University), Jill Tyler (University of South Dakota), Claire Van Ens (Kutztown University), and Shawn Wahl (Missouri State University).

DSC_0038

What’s a COMM Major Worth?

What do Bill Gates, Ralph Lauren, Henry Ford, and Harry Truman have in common?

The answer might not be obvious at first glance–they are all highly successful individuals who did not earn a college degree. And they are the bane of college and university educators as the examples always used by legislators, students, parents, and anyone else trying to argue for the declining value of a college education.

Dollars fly conceptAs tuition and other college costs rise for students and parents nationwide in all sectors of higher education, and with all the renewed public attention to the pressing issues of rising student debt and the dynamics of America’s student loan system, it makes sense to ask seriously about the value of a college education. And it also makes sense to drill down on that question to really explore which majors or college plans of study are better than others.

For those of us who study and teach in the communication arts and sciences, then, an operative question of the moment is What’s a COMM major worth?

Some answers to this question are found in a new report from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown’s Public Policy Institute. Entitled Hard Times: College Majors, Unemployment and Earnings, the report draws on data from the American Community Survey and from the Census Bureau to offer a comparative snapshot about unemployment and earning power based on specific college majors. For Communication (identified in the report as Communications & Journalism), the findings are quite interesting.

  • COMM is not among the majors with either the lowest or the highest levels of unemployment. The major with the lowest unemployment rates is Nursing, at 4.8%. while students majoring in Information Systems face the highest level of unemployment at 14.7%.
  • For COMM, the unemployment rates are 7.8% for recent college graduates, 6.0% for experienJob Graduateced college graduates, and 4.2% for graduate degree holders. Recent college graduates in the Humanities and Liberal Arts face a 9.0% unemployment rate while those in Psychology & Social Work are looking at an 8.8% rate, and those in Social Science are facing a 10.3% unemployment rate.
  • COMM majors who are recent college graduates command median earnings of about $33,000. This is higher than Humanities and Liberal Arts majors ($30K) and equal to Law and Public Policy majors ($33K), but lower than Engineering majors ($54K) and Business majors ($39K). Graduate degree holders in COMM have median earnings of $64,000, ahead of majors in the Arts, Education, Recreation, and Psychology & Social Work.
  • Among the COMM sub-fields identified in the report, Mass Media majors face the dimmest prospects, with an employment rate for recent college graduates at 8.9% and median earnings of just $31,000. The report counts Family & Consumer Sciences majors in the COMM group, and these graduates fare best in unemployment rates (6.4%), but less successfully in terms of median earnings ($30K)

PathwaysFor years, NCA and Communication educators have worked to convince students and parents that a COMM major is worth it–that the degree will be beneficial for students both in terms of liberal arts learning and in practical preparation for the challenging job market. Whether it’s via Pathways, the NCA guide to careers in Communication, or the ubiquitous poster in COMM departments nationwide that asks students “What Can You Do with a Communication Degree?,” we’ve spent considerable time and effort as educators convincing students, administrators, legislators, and parents that our degree matters, that it sufficiently prepares young people to pursue successful careers and to build fruitful lives.

Georgetown’s report on college majors and earning potential is good news for COMM educators and COMM majors. It demonstrates, with compelling data, that a COMM major is worth much, and is good preparation for young people who confront a difficult and daunting employment marketplace.

Budget Season in DC–Why Budgets Matter for NCA

President Bill Clinton used to say that budgets are important because they’re moral documents–they express communal values and articulate common ideals. That’s why everyone in Washington these days is busy examining all of the various federal budget proposals coming from the House, the Senate, and the White House. That…and the politics. Nothing gets Washington more worked up these days than the politics of budgeting–from deficits to Medicare to Social Security to tax hikes, it’s all the stuff of great political copy.

Obama BudgetFor learned societies like NCA, the billions and billions of dollars at stake in the various versions of the federal budget don’t mean a whole lot–weapons systems at DOD and foreign aid monies for the State Department and public housing funds at HUD all have little to no direct effect on NCA and its members beyond our role as citizens. While we might care about such budget lines, they generally will not influence how NCA members do their jobs and fulfill their professional responsibilities as scholar/teachers.

Instead, what we look for in the various budget proposals are changes in federal outlays for research funding and shifts in other education funding streams that may have some effect on higher education. We notice, for example, when President Obama asks for a 10.6% increase in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in his 2014 budget proposal. Along with all of their programs in biomedical research and STEM disciplines, NSF provides significant research funding for the behavioral and social sciences. Some communication scholars have received meaningful support from the NSF for their research, so the funding requests and struggles over NSF funding matter to NCA.

Though of a much smaller scale than NSF or the National Institutes of Health, at NCA we also notice funding shifts and changes in the humanities. The president’s budget requested a modest $8.6 million increase for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), to $154.4 million. Compared to the $7.626 billion (with a “b”) request for NSF, the NEH budget seems paltry–but those few million dollars can make a big difference for the researchers who receive that funding. The president’s request is particularly gratifying for the communication scholars and National Office staff members who journeyed to Capitol Hill in March to lobby for humanities funding as part of the 2013 National Humanities Advocacy Day (NHAD).

NHPRC-logoAnd we also notice the really small changes in budget requests and priorities that can have a real, even devastating impact. For instance, the Obama administration’s budget request proposed a 40% slashing reduction in funding for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), from $5 million to $3 million in just one year. The rationale for this request is unclear, but the consequences would be severe, threatening the very ability of the program to maintain operations. For humanities scholars in communication who examine rhetorical history, the projects pursued by the NHPRC are invaluable–so we watch carefully to see what Congress does to this tiny budget line in the months ahead.

As the budget process proceeds on Capitol Hill, NCA monitors carefully all of the potentially relevant changes and maneuvers for how they might affect our members. It’s often not enough, though, to simply watch what happens–sometimes, direct action is called for. Along with our efforts at NHAD, NCA also works alongside our advocacy partners at the Consortium for Social Science Associations (COSSA) and the National Humanities Alliance (NHA) to directly lobby for continued and increased federal funding for research and educational initiatives. Recently, NCA members were alerted to directly petition their members of Congress about humanities funding and over 300 letters were sent to Capitol Hill to champion funding for the humanities. On another front, the Coalition for National Science Funding is hosting a Capitol Hill exhibition, and NCA is sponsoring a booth featuring communication scholar Brian Spitzberg talking about his NSF funded research on cyberspace.Capitol Hill

From changes to student loans to funding requests for research, from significant declines in state budget outlays for higher education to targeted hits on funding streams that benefit communication scholars–there’s much to scrutinize and study during this contentious budget season in DC. The politics of it all may seem intractable and obscure, but the effects and consequences of all of this budget wrangling may be quite meaningful for NCA and its members. Stay tuned…

Humanities or Social Science?

Woolbert“For three years,” Charles Woolbert wrote in 1916, “I have been facing the question: Should speech matters be taught in the department of English or in a separate department?” (Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking, Vol. 2, 1916). Woolbert was responding to a question from University of Illinois president Edmund James who sought Woolbert’s counsel regarding the formation of a separate department of “speech studies and arts.” Like so many of the founders of what is now NCA, Woolbert struggled to define and delimit the very nature of the new discipline that they created: How would this discipline carry out its research? Where would this discipline fit within the higher education structures of the time?

Woolbert concluded that “speech studies and arts” drew its methods and objects of study and teaching from so many disciplines that it really should occupy its own space in the university structure, that it merited its separate departmental home. Despite the good work of Woolbert and the thousands of teacher/scholars in communication who followed him in establishing, growing, and operating departments of speech (then speech communication, then communication) across the nation and around the world, we still wrestle with the same questions one hundred years later: How should communication scholars carry out their research? Where does the discipline of communication “fit” within college and university structures and in the larger systems of higher education?

HumanitiesNCA is defined as the association that “advances communication as the discipline that studies all forms, modes, media and consequences of communication through humanistic, social scientific and aesthetic inquiry.” Consistent with our history, NCA participates in and encourages all of the many ways that our members practice, study, and teach the communication arts and sciences. NCA members and staff participate in programs sponsored by the National Humanities Alliance and the American Council of Learned Societies as well as the Consortium of Social Science Associations and the NSF. NCA members receive external funding from the NEH and the NIH. Indeed, in many ways NCA and its members constantly negotiate the duality of communication as both a social science and a humanities discipline.

One initiative that NCA has participated in recently is the Humanities Indicators project–an effort sponsored by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences to collect and disseminate “reliable, comprehensive, and consistently updated statistical data necessary to chart trends and draw conclusions” about the humanities. A key part of the data collection for the Humanities Indicators is a departmental survey, and NCA worked hard to assure that Communication departments were included in the second round of surveys. We’ve recently received an interim report on response rates for the survey and that report isolates Communication as among the disciplines with the lowest response rates–the report notes that “Most of the communications departments who wrote declining to participate indicated that their department focused more on the social science facet of communication and did not believe they should be included in a humanities study.”

Social Science This report speaks to a disturbing tendency to classify and categorize in limited rather than expansive ways the teaching and research underway in the discipline. Even the most casual glance at communication departments reveals that virtually every program includes courses in the humanities and the social sciences, faculty members that conduct research both critically and social scientifically, and students that want to study communication as both a humanities and a social science. Perhaps it is university structures or hierarchies, or maybe it’s simply a process of finding the most pristine mode of self-definition, but some (many?) communication departments, like the ones that refused to complete the Humanities Indicators survey, still choose to define themselves as either a humanities or a social science rather than both/and.

Charles Woolbert and his colleagues almost a century ago spent considerable time and energy figuring out how “speech” fit–where did “speech” belong in the higher education landscape of the early twentieth century. We continue those discussions today. How does communication fit in the ever-changing higher education landscape of the early twenty-first century? Is communication a humanities? A social science? Both? Neither?

%d bloggers like this: