Debate, confrontación y hegemonía en la disciplina de la comunicación. Nuevos tiempos para un paradigma dominante

  1. Ángel Carrasco Campos
  2. Enric Saperas
Revista:
Redes.com : revista de estudios para el desarrollo social de la Comunicación

ISSN: 1696-2079

Ano de publicación: 2014

Número: 10

Páxinas: 145-158

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Redes.com : revista de estudios para el desarrollo social de la Comunicación

Resumo

In many ways communication research reflects the debates, confrontations and times of hegemony that have shaken the social sciences in its institutionalization process during the last century. Looking back to the immediate past of media studies allows us to observe the evolution of contemporary social theory, while the current changes imposed by globalization reposition in the central debate the theoretical and institutional transformations of international communication research. Its multidisciplinary structure, organizational capacity, proximity to knowledge needs applied to the ever expanding industrial and cultural sectors, the centrality of its objects of study and its predictive potential were only possible by means of a socially agile behaviour, a great capacity for renewal, and a permanent discussion about its disciplinary field. Therefore, the use of theory in communication research occupies a central position in its ability to explain, interpret and understand communication processes. The disputes between the organization of instrumental theories and the development of comprehensive, critical or emancipatory theories have always focused the interest of communication researchers with a common goal: achieving dominance in the discipline. In this paper we analyse the evolution of the so called “dominant paradigm” in three moments of dispute with critical and interpretative theories: the period started with the interventionist and predictive social policies of the New Deal, its renewal process against the balkanization of media research during the sixties, and the formulation of a rejuvenated dominant paradigm in the present times of globalization. We will focus on this last period of new 146 |institutionalization and standardization of international communication research.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ADORNO, T.W. (2003). Consignas. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu. Primera edición en alemán de 1969.
  • ADORNO, T.W.; HORKHEIMER, M. (1979). Teoría de la pseudo-cultura. Sociológica. Madrid: Taurus, pp. 175–201. Edición original de 1959.
  • ADORNO, T.W.; HORKHEIMER, M. (1988). Dialéctica del iluminismo. Buenos Aires: Sudamérica. Edición original de 1944.
  • BAUER, A.R. (1959). Comments on "The State of Communication Research". Public Opinion Quarterly, 23 (1), pp. 14–17.
  • CARRASCO-CAMPOS, A.; SAPERAS, E. (2011). La institucionalización del concepto de industrias culturales en el proceso de debate sobre políticas culturales en la Unesco y el consejo de Europa (1970–1982). AdComunica, 2, pp. 143–159.
  • CASTELLS, M. (1999). La era de la información: economía, sociedad y cultura. vol. 1. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
  • CRAIG, R.T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9 (2), pp.199–161.
  • FABBRI, P. (1973). Le comunicazioni di massa in Italia: sguardo semiotico e malocchio della Sociologia. Versus, 5.
  • GERBNER, G.; SIEFERT, M. (eds). (1883). Ferment in the Field: Communication Scholars Adress Critical Issues and Research Tasks of the Discipline. Journal of Communication, 33 (3).
  • GITLIN, T. (1978). Media sociology: the dominant paradigm. Theory and Society, 6 (2), pp. 205–253.
  • GOFFMANN, E. (1959): The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre Press.
  • HABERMAS, J. (1986). Ciencia y técnica como ideología. Madrid: Tecnos. Primera edición en alemán de 1968.
  • HALLIN, D.; MANCINI, P. (eds). (2012). Comparing Media Systems Beyond de Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • HANITZSCH, T. (2013). Writing for Communication Theory. Communication Theory, 23 (1).
  • HOGGART, R. (1957). The uses of litteracy: aspects of working class life. Londres: Chatto & Windus.
  • HORKHEIMER, M. (2003). Teoría tradicional y teoría crítica. Madrid: Amorrortu. Primera edición en alemán de 1937.
  • KATZ, E. (1987). Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, pp. S25–S45.
  • KEYNES, J.M. (1931). An open letter to President Roosevelt. The New York Times, 31 de diciembre.
  • KLAPPER, J.T. (1960). The Effects of mass communication. An analysis of research on the effectiveness and limitations of mass media in influencing the opinions, values, and behavior of their audiences. Nueva York: The Free Press.
  • LAZARSFELD, P.F. (1941). Remarks on Administrative Rearch and Critical Communications Research. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 9.
  • LAZARSFELD, P.F.; KATZ, E. (1955). Personal Influence, The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Glencoe (Illinois): The Free Press.
  • LEVY, M.R.; GUREVITCH, M. (eds.) (1993). The disciplinary Status of Communication Research. Journal of Communication, 43 (3). LOWERY, S.; De FLEUR, M.L. (1995). Milestones in mass communication research. White Plains (NY): Longman. Tercera edición.
  • MacDONALD, D. (1969). Masscult y Midcult. En VV.AA. La industria de la cultura. Madrid: Alberto Corazón. Edición original de 1960.
  • McLUHAN, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • McLUHAN, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • McQUAIL, D. (2010). Mass Communication Theory. Londres: Sage. Sexta Edición.
  • MERTON, R.K. (1949). On sociological theories of the middle range. En Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press, pp. 39–53.
  • MERTON, R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press. Tercera edición ampliada.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet