In The Communication
Journal Collection, much was made of the fact that there is little sense of
continuity or agreement as to the function and purpose within the field of
communications. The debate rages
regarding the identity of the field and it has been likened to an adolescent in
that it is struggling to make its own way.
(Popoff, 2006, 70). This may be
true but I wonder why other social sciences do not share this same
struggle. Sure, each of the other social
sciences we studied this semester have different schools of thought within the
discipline, yet the discord within communications seems more prevalent. Is it
because they are more willing to communicate the dissonance?
In discussing the lack of agreement on the key journals of
the field and the presentation of journals and information in the databases Communication Abstracts and ComAbstracts, the sentiment that kept
echoing in my head as I read was eloquently stated regarding the opinion of
Thomas F. Gordon (the editor of Communication
Abstracts), “For him, and for those who take an inclusive approach to
communication journals, the loss caused by restricting research to core
communication journals demands to great a sacrifice for the discipline.” (Popoff,
2006, 76).
Popoff suggests that it is imperative for librarians working
in an institution of higher education to understand the definition of
communication held by the faculty and scholars of communication within their
institution (2006, 70). This seems to be
the cautious and conservative approach and yet like Gordon, I cannot help but
feel that this conservative approach may limit future scholars. Of course, it is a fine line to walk and I do
not profess to have the answers. It is
important to understand the process by which communication scholars access and
assess information and to understand that the limitations set forth by one
database with a stringent interpretation of the field may not exist in another.
This will allow librarians to direct information seekers to other sources of
information. This difference of
presentation within databases is likely common in other disciplines as
well. For example, when creating my
pathfinder for Juvenile Justice, it was apparent that different databases
valued different information within the field.
As long as a librarian is aware of the differences and keeps an open
mind to positions beyond the immediate definition of the field (if it is a
limiting definition), the needs of the communications scholar will be met by
utilizing a variety of sources and also by accessing sources that are not
technically labeled “communications.”
References
Popoff, D. (2006).
Collection management. Collection Management, 30: 3, 67-85.
No comments:
Post a Comment