Emile Durkheim taught us long ago that individuals matter in particular ways when they come together as collectives. So too with ICA. Two weeks ago, I took part in an ICA task force in Washington, DC to discuss the establishment of a press officer or communication director for the association so as to secure better visibility for its members both internally and externally. During our deliberations, one of the task force members voiced the view that most ICA members are amenable to promoting their own research but are timid -- or even indifferent -- about engaging in the same act of promotion on behalf of the group. In her words, we are strong scholars individually, but as a collective field, we are weak. And many of us do little to offset that asymmetry.
This is unfortunate, for the visibility and viability of the field of communication -- and of ICA as its standard bearer -- are instrumental to our individual functioning as scholars, researchers, and educators. In other words, the field's visibility makes the professional life of its individual members better: We will have an easier time getting research grants, making media appearances, securing recognition for our work, even selling books.
Why are we not more concerned about the field? In part, there aren't enough resources, energy, time in the day. But there also isn't enough incentive. Even those who do sign up for administrative tasks on behalf of the association find themselves hard-pressed to commit the effort that they had promised when agreeing to serve. We've all experienced how much easier it is to commit to tasks when they are scheduled 6 months away than when they are upon us.
Connecting the individual and collective requires a proactive mindset that recognizes the symbiosis between them. We need to move more seamlessly between what we do for ourselves and what we do for the association and the field. For instance, when we are interviewed by the media, how many of us make sure that the journalist who collects the information knows that she is interviewing not just "a professor" or "a professor from Loughborough University" but "a communication professor" to boot. How will we ever make the field visible if we don't give it props? Similarly, we might make it a priority to make available - and seek out -- media training for those of us who want to know how to better draw attention from the media and secure our place in the coverage they provide.
Not long ago, Clay Shirky and Evgeny Morozov conducted an online forum - an Edge Conversation - about digital power and its discontents. Missing from the forum were academics, and the reason the editors offered for their absence was "that communications theory has long been deemed to be a low-prestige discipline among academics. The best people are likely to be found outside academia."
We can - and should - do better than this. But until we recognize that our individual trajectories as scholars are dependent on the collectives in which we live, there isn't much promise that circumstances will change any time soon. At our upcoming conference in Singapore, we will be rolling out a proposal to establish a communication director for the association. Adopting that plan and making it work will require each of us to think proactively about how we can help the association - and by extension the field - be more visible. Earlier last month, an Italian commentator on the elections maintained that a "leap of collective responsibility was needed." Different circumstances notwithstanding, I couldn't concur more. Communication and ICA need every one of us to do more, so they can do more for every one of us.
