Revisiting paradigm talk in 1980s communication studies in Australia: the case of Robyn Penman

The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Communication as a Disciplinary Signifier in Australia: After the “Cultural Turn” and the “Digital Turn”

“…At first glance, this seems counter-intuitive: as Dwayne Winseck has argued (2020), the algorithmic sorting and content moderation practices of large social media platforms bear little resemblance to the editorial decision-making processes associated with traditional print and broadcast media. However, as has been observed by several authors (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; McQuail & Deuze, 2020; Turow & Couldry, 2018), digital platforms are in the business of aggregating audiences at scale so as to deliver particular demographics to prospective advertisers, even if approaches to this are premised upon behavioral targeting and predictive data analytics rather than the production and distribution of media content. It is therefore not surprising that a series of social, policy, and regulatory concerns that were associated with mass media have resurfaced around digital platforms, including social media influence, economic power associated with market concentration, harmful online content, digital media literacy (particularly of children), the accuracy of online news and information, and the impact of advertising on social behavior.…”

“…It is therefore not surprising that a series of social, policy, and regulatory concerns that were associated with mass media have resurfaced around digital platforms, including social media influence, economic power associated with market concentration, harmful online content, digital media literacy (particularly of children), the accuracy of online news and information, and the impact of advertising on social behavior. A range of “mass” media concepts and concerns have thus returned as the Internet has become increasingly platformized, and online interactions increasingly mediated through a relatively small number of powerful platform companies (Flew, 2021a; McQuail & Deuze, 2020).…”

“…In reviewing the history of communication research in Australia, Steven Maras has observed that the 1980s were a period of considerable contestation around the meaning of "communication" in the Australian context, and the theories and fields that would inform its development in the Australian context (Maras, 2004(Maras, , 2018. Prior to the formation of the ACA, there was only a limited sense of communication as an academic discipline or as a disciplinary field.…”

Conceptualising communication: a survey of introduction to communication university units

“…'Amorphous' is a frequent descriptor of the field (Penman, 2012;Putnis & Axford, 2002), given how the field encompasses cultural and media studies, communication praxis, and psychology, among others. Communication's stubborn refusal to coalesce into a 'unified' discipline remains the source of speculation and debate (eg, Maras, 2018;Paterno, 2017). The root of this refusal is identified as the two-paradigm tension that has informed communication studies in Australia since its inception, namely the contrast (broadly characterised) between the North American approach of interpersonal communication versus the British/European tradition of media and cultural studies (Maras, 2018, p. 132).…”