Women in Communication Research

Abstract

This entry establishes a historical milieu for women in communication. Women's significance to the field has been hard won, progressing over two lengthy stages: (1) in the early mid‐twentieth century, when women worked as part of a research team or couple, and (2) from the mid‐twentieth century until the 1980s, when women “jumped the fence” into stable academic positions. Currently, women have taken up positions of power in the field, but they are still the exception to the rule: More women than men earn PhDs in communication, yet fewer women move into the professoriate. This entry highlights the early history of the field and features interviews with Gertrude J. Robinson, Brenda Dervin, and Sue Curry Jansen, who have been powerful women in the field, yet who also assert that their scholarly legitimacy has still been at times a “challenge” to those defining communication research.

Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries

“…The United States and Canada appear to be the two countries where cumulative differences affecting female scholars in communication are not statistically significant. This might be due to a longer tradition of stable female careers in communication in both countries, where the first women to “jump the fence” [ 51 ] and gain full professorship positions did so already in the 1960s and 1970s, thus breaking glass ceilings sooner than in other geographical locations.…”

Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries

“…The United States and Canada appear to be the two countries where cumulative differences affecting female scholars in communication are not statistically significant. This might be due to a longer tradition of stable female careers in communication in both countries, where the first women to “jump the fence” [ 51 ] and gain full professorship positions did so already in the 1960s and 1970s, thus breaking glass ceilings sooner than in other geographical locations.…”

‘Were they nice people? Were they asking good questions?’: Searching for an ethics of love in the history of communication research

“…Particularly, we critically approach the historiography of communication research, a field that emerged in the early 20th century to analyze communicative phenomena, often intersecting with other areas, such as cultural studies, with which it shares common referents and historical connections (Morley et al, 1995). The historiography of the field of communication has been deemed masculinized (Dorsten, 2016), and individualistic (Pooley and Park, 2013), with a lack of regard toward the communitarian and emotional aspects of knowledge-production (Herrero, 2024). We argue that including some of the narratives of the individuals who have inhabited the diverse peripheries of the field's history is a step toward complexifying our historiographical stories, while also acknowledging how numerous ways of inhabiting academia have silently shaped the development of communication research.…”

“…To challenge the historiographical ‘white boys’ club’ of communication research (Mukherjee, 2020: 1), we propose a gendered study of the so-called second generation of women scholars in the field (those working in academic institutions between the 1960s and 1990s). These women were the first 2 to ‘jump the fence into stable academic positions’ (Dorsten, 2016: 1) within the masculinized faculty teams of the time, where their voices were ‘unexpected’. They were forced to navigate an ambivalent position that often positioned them in an epistemic in-between, where they were actively encouraged to join academic institutions, but simultaneously faced complex exclusions like sexual harassment (García-Jiménez and Herrero, 2022) and a lack of recognition as researchers whenever they did not adapt to hegemonic meanings, facing ‘ambivalent encouragement’ (Rossiter, 1995).…”

“… 2. The first generation of women scholars in communication research was mostly unable to reach senior research positions in universities/research centers (Dorsten, 2016). …”

De una “presencia invisibilizada” a ser “buenas chicas”: roles de mujeres investigadoras en el campo de la comunicación (1930-1990)

“…Para explorar los roles de las mujeres en comunicación vamos a tomar como referencia a la primera (años 30-60) y la segunda generación (años 70-90) de investigadoras (Dorsten, 2016), concretamente, a algunas de las que han liderado o realizado contribuciones de reconocido prestigio. La exploración de ambas generaciones se llevará a cabo a través de una doble aproximación metodológica, que combina una aproximación crítico-hermenéutica a la figura de investigadoras de la primera generación con el desarrollo de entrevistas en profundidad a investigadoras de la segunda generación.…”

Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries

“…The United States and Canada appear to be the two countries where cumulative differences affecting female scholars in communication are not statistically significant. This might be due to a longer tradition of stable female careers in communication in both countries, where the first women to “jump the fence” [ 51 ] and gain full professorship positions did so already in the 1960s and 1970s, thus breaking glass ceilings sooner than in other geographical locations.…”

‘Were they nice people? Were they asking good questions?’: Searching for an ethics of love in the history of communication research

“…Particularly, we critically approach the historiography of communication research, a field that emerged in the early 20th century to analyze communicative phenomena, often intersecting with other areas, such as cultural studies, with which it shares common referents and historical connections (Morley et al, 1995). The historiography of the field of communication has been deemed masculinized (Dorsten, 2016), and individualistic (Pooley and Park, 2013), with a lack of regard toward the communitarian and emotional aspects of knowledge-production (Herrero, 2024). We argue that including some of the narratives of the individuals who have inhabited the diverse peripheries of the field's history is a step toward complexifying our historiographical stories, while also acknowledging how numerous ways of inhabiting academia have silently shaped the development of communication research.…”

“…To challenge the historiographical ‘white boys’ club’ of communication research (Mukherjee, 2020: 1), we propose a gendered study of the so-called second generation of women scholars in the field (those working in academic institutions between the 1960s and 1990s). These women were the first 2 to ‘jump the fence into stable academic positions’ (Dorsten, 2016: 1) within the masculinized faculty teams of the time, where their voices were ‘unexpected’. They were forced to navigate an ambivalent position that often positioned them in an epistemic in-between, where they were actively encouraged to join academic institutions, but simultaneously faced complex exclusions like sexual harassment (García-Jiménez and Herrero, 2022) and a lack of recognition as researchers whenever they did not adapt to hegemonic meanings, facing ‘ambivalent encouragement’ (Rossiter, 1995).…”

“… 2. The first generation of women scholars in communication research was mostly unable to reach senior research positions in universities/research centers (Dorsten, 2016). …”

De una “presencia invisibilizada” a ser “buenas chicas”: roles de mujeres investigadoras en el campo de la comunicación (1930-1990)

“…Para explorar los roles de las mujeres en comunicación vamos a tomar como referencia a la primera (años 30-60) y la segunda generación (años 70-90) de investigadoras (Dorsten, 2016), concretamente, a algunas de las que han liderado o realizado contribuciones de reconocido prestigio. La exploración de ambas generaciones se llevará a cabo a través de una doble aproximación metodológica, que combina una aproximación crítico-hermenéutica a la figura de investigadoras de la primera generación con el desarrollo de entrevistas en profundidad a investigadoras de la segunda generación.…”

Gender differences in representation, citations, and h-index: An empirical examination of the field of communication across the ten most productive countries

“…The United States and Canada appear to be the two countries where cumulative differences affecting female scholars in communication are not statistically significant. This might be due to a longer tradition of stable female careers in communication in both countries, where the first women to “jump the fence” [ 51 ] and gain full professorship positions did so already in the 1960s and 1970s, thus breaking glass ceilings sooner than in other geographical locations.…”

‘Were they nice people? Were they asking good questions?’: Searching for an ethics of love in the history of communication research

“…Particularly, we critically approach the historiography of communication research, a field that emerged in the early 20th century to analyze communicative phenomena, often intersecting with other areas, such as cultural studies, with which it shares common referents and historical connections (Morley et al, 1995). The historiography of the field of communication has been deemed masculinized (Dorsten, 2016), and individualistic (Pooley and Park, 2013), with a lack of regard toward the communitarian and emotional aspects of knowledge-production (Herrero, 2024). We argue that including some of the narratives of the individuals who have inhabited the diverse peripheries of the field's history is a step toward complexifying our historiographical stories, while also acknowledging how numerous ways of inhabiting academia have silently shaped the development of communication research.…”

“…To challenge the historiographical ‘white boys’ club’ of communication research (Mukherjee, 2020: 1), we propose a gendered study of the so-called second generation of women scholars in the field (those working in academic institutions between the 1960s and 1990s). These women were the first 2 to ‘jump the fence into stable academic positions’ (Dorsten, 2016: 1) within the masculinized faculty teams of the time, where their voices were ‘unexpected’. They were forced to navigate an ambivalent position that often positioned them in an epistemic in-between, where they were actively encouraged to join academic institutions, but simultaneously faced complex exclusions like sexual harassment (García-Jiménez and Herrero, 2022) and a lack of recognition as researchers whenever they did not adapt to hegemonic meanings, facing ‘ambivalent encouragement’ (Rossiter, 1995).…”

“… 2. The first generation of women scholars in communication research was mostly unable to reach senior research positions in universities/research centers (Dorsten, 2016). …”

De una “presencia invisibilizada” a ser “buenas chicas”: roles de mujeres investigadoras en el campo de la comunicación (1930-1990)

“…Para explorar los roles de las mujeres en comunicación vamos a tomar como referencia a la primera (años 30-60) y la segunda generación (años 70-90) de investigadoras (Dorsten, 2016), concretamente, a algunas de las que han liderado o realizado contribuciones de reconocido prestigio. La exploración de ambas generaciones se llevará a cabo a través de una doble aproximación metodológica, que combina una aproximación crítico-hermenéutica a la figura de investigadoras de la primera generación con el desarrollo de entrevistas en profundidad a investigadoras de la segunda generación.…”