PRECONFERENCE #8

Title:  Bridging Scholar/Activist Divides in the Field of Communication

Time:  Thursday, May 21, 13:00 – 17:00

Limit:  60

Cost:  $40 (Includes afternoon refreshments)

“Communicating for social impact” requires deliberate attention to the role that scholarship plays in affecting social change. This preconference addresses the divides between research and advocacy in the field of communication, specifically in issue areas such as public health, media diversity, communication policy, global communication and Internet governance, journalism, technology usage and diffusion, and political communication.

When it comes to connecting research and advocacy, the field of communication often seems driven by contradictory impulses. On the one hand, the field has long lamented its historically marginalized position in the academy, and in policymaking, relative to economics, sociology, political science, and other established disciplines. Yet communication scholars often share a hesitancy to engage with policymakers or policy advocates out of fear of sacrificing academic objectivity, or out of a desire to avoid “applied” scholarship, though foundational scholars in the field ranging from Harold Lasswell to James Carey have consistently advocated more public engagement by communication researchers – particularly in relation to policy issues. In communication policy, the size and diversity of the issue-advocacy community in the U.S. and internationally has increased considerably in recent years, as have the needs of this community for high-quality research to ground their claims for a more democratic and just media.

The intensification of activism around communication-information policy issues suggests that scholars conducting research on those issues have exciting opportunities to link up with advocacy communities or to directly engage with journalists, government, and industry policymakers with research that proposes or supports particular policy solutions. There are, however, a range of practical and institutional impediments that prevent such linkages and discourage scholars from advocating policy positions derived from their work. These impediments include institutional disincentives within academia (particularly within the social sciences) for “applied” or “engaged” scholarship; a dearth of fora and communication channels linking advocacy and academic communities; and sometimes divergent perspectives among scholars, advocates, and policymakers on the appropriate role and function of research in policymaking.
 
This preconference seeks to build upon recent successes forging tighter linkages between researchers and advocates (see, for example, Robert McChesney’s work via Free Press; the National Consortium for Media Policy Studies [COMPASS]; the Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere project at the Social Science Research Council; the Global Internet Governance Academic Network, or GigaNet; the Collective Behavior and Social Movements division of the American Sociological Association; Sociologists Without Borders; the Civil Society Practitioner Program at the Oxford Internet Institute; the post-graduate diploma in Media Advocacy being offered by the Centre for Culture; Media and Governance in New Delhi; and other organized forms of engaged scholarship), with an eye toward developing concrete solutions that could contribute to an environment in which researchers and advocates are better able to engage in mutually beneficial collaborations, and in which, ideally, the traditional distinctions that have existed between scholars and advocates can be diminished.

We encourage participation from individuals or groups in academe, journalism, industry, government, and civil society who are engaged with advocacy issues or conducting research on those issues. The goal is to coalesce a set of concrete proposals for institutional change that can lead to tighter linkages between research and issue advocacy.

The tentative plan is for the meeting to be organized along three tracks:

Track 1: Bridging Organizational Cultures

What aspects of the cultures of advocacy groups and academic researchers inhibit stronger linkages between research and advocacy? What specific institutional changes are needed to facilitate changes in these organizational cultures? Are there lessons to be derived from specific disciplines, or from specific national contexts, that can illuminate possible approaches to bridging research and advocacy? Can the overlaps and distinctions between “applied,” “engaged,” and “public” scholarship as they relate to communication research be clarified in ways that could reduce scholars’ inhibitions related to engaging in advocacy-related work? Can graduate programs be implemented in ways that better incentivize and acculturate researchers on how their research can have social impact?  Are there other forms of training/certification that could be implemented to nurture scholar/advocate hybrids? Findings from the SSRC’s Collaborative Grants project and other systematic efforts at bridging research and advocacy will be shared.

Track 2: Mapping Research Needed for Social Impacts

What are the key policy questions (local, national, regional, global) being addressed by advocates and movement leaders that would be helped by research attention? What mechanisms currently in place have successfully facilitated the kind of information exchanges, networking, and coordination that would create a strategic complementarity between research scholars and advocacy communities? When has this relationship failed to work properly and why? Are there new types of bridging organizations that are – or that should be – in place to facilitate this exchange?

Track 3: Engaging in Public Scholarship: Communicating Social Impacts

What strategies and tactics can best move the results of scholarship out of the academy and into the hands of decision makers? What are the key barriers to communicating scholarship to various constituencies (the press, policymakers, NGOs, industry, funders/donors, the specific constituencies, etc.) that need to be overcome? Are there particular exemplars in terms of institutional structures or programs that can inform and guide efforts in the communications research field?

This half-day preconference will take a workshop format, with selected participants asked to give very brief, informal presentations that trigger active conversation and informed discussion related both to their presentation and to the presentations of the other conference participants across all three tracks.

Participants will also be asked to contribute to a process of issue mapping and sharing of models and ideas ahead of the meeting, via a wiki and/or other tools such as the SSRC’s Media Research Hub (http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org). This will be hosted by the SSRC, as part of its ‘Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere’ program. If there is independent interest in continuing these conversations, these services can be maintained (or spun off).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organizers:

Minna Aslama and Joe Karaganis, Social Science Research Council

Becky Lentz, New York University

Philip Napoli, Fordham University

Agenda:

1-1:15              Kickoff

1:15-1:30         Overview of each Track

1:30-3:30         Breakout groups into Tracks 1, 2, and 3

3:30-3:45         Bring groups back together and summarize action steps (Rapporteurs)

3:45-4:00         Wrap up

Track 1: Bridging Organizational Cultures

What aspects of the cultures of advocacy groups and academic researchers inhibit stronger linkages between research and advocacy? What specific institutional changes are needed to facilitate changes in these organizational cultures? Are there lessons to be derived from specific disciplines, or from specific national contexts, that can illuminate possible approaches to bridging research and advocacy? Can the overlaps and distinctions between “applied,” “engaged,” and “public” scholarship as they relate to communication research be clarified in ways that could reduce scholars’ inhibitions related to engaging in advocacy-related work? Can graduate programs be implemented in ways that better incentivize and acculturate researchers on how their research can have social impact?  Are there other forms of training/certification that could be implemented to nurture scholar/advocate hybrids? Findings from the SSRC’s Collaborative Grants project and other systematic efforts at bridging research and advocacy will be shared.

Moderator: Joe Karaganis, Social Science Research Council (USA)

Conversation starters:

§       Joel Kelsey, Consumers Union (USA)

§       Evan Light, University of Quebec - Montreal (Canada)

§       Rohan Samarajiva, LIRNEasia (Sri Lanka)

Discussant: Sandra Ball-Rokeach, USC and Carmen Gonzalez, USC; Barbara Osborne, Liberty Hill Foundation (USA)

Rapporteur: Bill Herman , University of Pennsylvania (USA)

Participants:

Christina Standerfer, University of Arkansas (USA)

Jeffrey Peterson, Washington State University (USA)

M. Kathleen Milberry, Simon Fraser University (Canada)

Marianne Franklin, University of London (UK)

Seeta Peña Gangadharan, Stanford University (USA)

Stefanie Milan, European University Institute & Arnie Hintz, Central European University (Hungary)

Track 2: Mapping Research Needed for Social Impacts

What are the key policy questions (local, national, regional, global) being addressed by advocates and movement leaders that would be helped by research attention? What mechanisms currently in place have successfully facilitated the kind of information exchanges, networking, and coordination that would create a strategic complementarity between research scholars and advocacy communities? When has this relationship failed to work properly and why? Are there new types of bridging organizations that are – or that should be – in place to facilitate this exchange?

Moderator: Phil Napoli, Fordham University (USA)

Conversation starters:

§       Hannu Nieminen, University of Helsinki (Finland)

§       Bu Wei, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (China)

Discussant: Danilo Yanich, University of Delaware (USA)

Rapporteur: Christina Dunbar Hester, Fordham University (USA)

Participants:

Aarti Shahani & Sushma Seth, Families for Freedom  (USA)

Alan O’Connor, Trent University (Canada)

Ali Asghar Kia, Allameh Tabataba’i University (Iran)

Alison Powell, Concordia University (Canada)

Ariel Dougherty, Media Equity Collaborative (USA)

Jimmie Manning, Northern Kentucky University (USA)

Katja Wittke, Center for Social Media, American University (USA)

Mary A. Bock, University of Pennsylvania (USA)

Radhika Gajjala, Bowling Green State University (USA)

Robert Hershorn, Simon Fraser University (Canada)

Shannon Daub, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Canada)

Terri Lynn Cornwell, Liberty University (USA)

Track 3: Engaging in Public Scholarship: Communicating Social Impacts

What strategies and tactics can best move the results of scholarship out of the academy and into the hands of decision makers? What are the key barriers to communicating scholarship to various constituencies (the press, policymakers, NGOs, industry, funders/donors, the specific constituencies, etc.) that need to be overcome? Are there particular exemplars in terms of institutional structures or programs that can inform and guide efforts in the communications research field?

Moderator: Becky Lentz, New York University (USA)

Conversation starters:

§       Dale Kunkel, University of Arizona: "Linking Research and Advocacy in Children’s Media Policy"  (USA)

§       Jeremy Shtern, Gregory Taylor, and Bram Abramson: Media@McGill: "Converging In Parallel: Linking Communications Research and Policy in Emerging Canadian Scholarship" (Canada)

§       Biswajit Das, Centre For Culture, Media and Governance in New Delhi, India: "Teaching Communication: Challenges of the New Millenium" (India)

§       Monroe Price, Susan Abbott, Libby Morgan, Lauren Kogen, and Iginio Gagliardone, Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication: "Closing the Gap Between Research and Policy Making: Case Studies of Jordan and Sudan"  (USA)

Discussant: Patrick Burkart, Texas A&M University (USA)

Rapporteur: Lauren Kogen, Annenberg School for Communication (USA)

Participants:

Alison Henderson et al., University of Waikato (New Zealand)

Amit Schejter et al., Penn State University (USA)

Carolyn Byerly, Howard University (USA)

Jimmie Manning, Northern Kentucky University (USA)

Leslie Shade, Concordia University (Canada)

Marilyn Gittell, City University of New York (USA)

Saman Talib, University Management Sciences (Pakistan)