Summary A Historical Overview of Research in Communication Science

Laying a Foundation

Delia’s 1987 chapter, “Communication Research: A History,” is treated as a foundation to build upon. The authors aim to synthesize Delia’s legacy, incorporate other historians’ insights, and offer a specialized historical overview of subdisciplines that have evolved since the original Handbook (Berger & Chaffee, 1987). Delia positioned the origins of modern communication studies in a progressive historical era, noting that in the early decades of the field—roughly from $1900-1940$—fragmentation reigned because investigations occurred across diverse social science and humanities disciplines. The sole common thread Delia identified across these embryonic inquiries was ca conception of direct, undifferentiated, and powerful effects (p. $21$). In trying to classify early scholarly developments, Delia identified five major fields of research, each with its own theoretical foundations and methodologies:

• Research on communication and political institutions, incorporating propaganda analysis (notably Lasswell, per Schramm, 1963), analysis of political and social themes in public communications, qualitative and quantitative message analyses, and public opinion research.

• The Chicago school of sociology, influential for studying communication effects through empirical research and field investigations, valued descriptive richness and sensitivity to individuals’ experiences within their social contexts.

• Social psychological studies introduced experimental approaches to communication research but maintained a focus on effects, adopting mediational concepts to understand reception and effects.

• Research on communication and education concentrated on technology’s impact and instructional strategies.

• Commercially focused communication research traced advertisers’ interests in audience size, composition, and the effectiveness of marketing.
  By $1940$, Lazarsfeld, via the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia, helped cement the bridge between academic and commercial interests in communication research and established the relevance of applied problems to theory (p. $51$).

The period $1940-1965$ marks a consolidation of interdisciplinary study, driven by World War II, which drew scholars from many fields. Personal connections among leading researchers (e.g., Lazarsfeld and Hovland) fostered a coalescence of viewpoints, and the field leaned toward a core emphasis on theory development and a linear-effects perspective as its organizing framework (p. $69$). Tensions emerged as American survey, experimental, and statistical research took precedence, often marginalizing European, historical, cultural, and non-statistical approaches. The integration of humanistic methods with the empirical framework began to reappear as journalism education and speech departments were more fully integrated into the field. Delia notes that graduate faculties and the expanding membership of the National Society for the Study of Communication (later ICA) spurred the social scientific expansion within journalism schools and speech departments, while humanistic methods such as historical analysis and rhetorical criticism were folded into the established process-and-effects framework.

Other Historical Overviews

Wartella (1996) identified Delia’s historical synthesis as part of a broader set of ‘‘received histories’’ compiled during the 1970s-1980s h. These histories shared several common claims:

• The field’s early attention centered on the effects of mass media, yielding Lasswell’s model of direct, powerful, and undifferentiated media effects.

• The 1940s saw Lazarsfeld and colleagues challenging the notion of powerful effects, contributing to the two-step flow model.

• The canonical history emphasizes postwar institutionalization (1950s–1960s) of communication research within universities and professional associations. Wartella argues that this received history has been criticized for underplaying scholarship outside the United States and for portraying a unidirectional shift from powerful to limited effects; in reality, media effects scholarship has historically cycled between strong and nuanced claims depending on context.
  Wartella contends that classic effects studies must be understood within their historical contexts and social circumstances. Dennis and Wartella’s American Communication Research: The Remembered History (1996) broadened the scope beyond Delia, emphasizing transnational influences and the cross-pollination of European and North American ideas. Lang (1996) stressed that research techniques often labeled as American originated in Europe and highlighted a German influence beginning in the mid- to late-19th century with Knies’s telegraph studies. Robinson (1996) described continuous cross-border borrowing and intellectual exchange, including German influence and subsequent Canadian, French, and British theoretical crossovers in the 1960s–1980s, underscoring a pluralistic scholarly landscape since the 1970s. Glander (2000) provided a historical context that emphasized the Cold War era’s propaganda concerns and the societal forces shaping mass communication’s institutionalization. He credited Berelson, Stanton, Cantril, Hovland, and Dodd with establishing communication research on campuses and recognized Lazarsfeld and Schramm as pivotal figures in creating research institutes that linked university work to societal needs (p. xxx). Rogers (1994) similarly highlighted Schramm’s central role and the European roots of the field, with McCroskey and Richmond (1996) foregrounding speech and interpersonal communication alongside mass communication.
  Rogers’s later work on public communication technology, including the influence of Innis and McLuhan, further popularized the field in the 1970s. McCroskey and Richmond (1996) distinguished relational and rhetorical traditions and emphasized the ICA’s formation as a turning point. Bryant and Miron (2007) extended the historical lens across antiquity to contemporary times, identifying an East–West dichotomy (rooted in Aristotelian rhetoric versus Asian philosophical traditions) and noting that the 20th century’s political use of media contributed to normative theories of mass-mediated communication. They argued that the rise of new electronic media in the late 20th century blurred distinctions among content, function, interpersonal, and mass communication, and that the 21st century brought ongoing efforts to reconcile interpersonal and mass approaches as well as to address the implications of digital media on social life (Campbell & Ling, 2009). They also highlighted the German influence on early 20th-century scholarship due to Nazi-era exiles, and the broader trend of reinterpreting media effects in light of new technologies and social contexts. As the century turned, Bryant and Miron observed that the field encountered new theoretical problems spawned by electronic media and by debates over the scope and methods of inquiry in the digital era.

Specialized Areas of Communication Inquiry

As the field matured, several subdisciplines emerged with their own identities and methodologies. The major tracks include Interpersonal Communication; Language and Social Interaction (LSI); Organizational Communication; Intercultural Communication; Political Communication; Journalism; Health Communication; Visual Communication; Instructional and Developmental Communication; Communication and Technology; Public Relations; and other specialized topics within the ICA and NCA families. Each section below sketches origins, key themes, and notable shifts.

Interpersonal Communication

The roots trace to the 1920s-1930s with studies on social interaction and workplace relationships, children’s interactions, symbolic interactionism, and semantics (Knapp, Daly, Albada, & Miller, 2002). The 1940s-1950s$contributed nonverbal communication and psychology of interpersonal relations, but the field truly coalesced in the$1960s$as an identifiable discipline. Early work emphasized persuasion and social influence; group dynamics appeared in some studies (Berger, 2005). The$late 1960s-1970s$saw shifts toward understanding social interaction’s role in relationship development, maintenance, and deterioration. By the$1980s-1990s, cognitive structures and processes of social interaction gained prominence, with rapid growth in theory and model development, and institutionalization via university courses, textbooks, and associations. Berger (2005) outlines six major theoretical foci in recent decades: interpersonal adaptation, message production, uncertainty, deceptive communication, dialectical issues, and computer-mediated social interaction, the last of which has grown as technology becomes pervasive. Berger also anticipates ongoing growth in topics like routines of social interaction across contexts, emotions in social interaction, message reception and interpretation, and social interaction competence, although he notes a need for stronger theoretical development across these areas.

Language and Social Interaction

LSI, emerging in the last three decades, is described as a multidisciplinary confederation within the field (Fitch & Sanders, 2005). It includes subfields such as language pragmatics, conversation analysis, language and social psychology, discourse analysis, and ethnography of communication. The evolution started in the National Communication Association’s Speech and Language Science division, which gradually shifted toward social interaction-based research as speech-language pathology scholars moved to their own organizations. In 1987, the ICA formed a Language and Social Interaction division, reflecting its institutional identity. LSI research expanded beyond message processing and intimate relationships to examine social forces in diverse contexts. The late 1990s and early 2000s saw an increase in discourse-centered journals and cross-pollination with organizational communication and rhetoric, signaling a robust, multidisciplinary field.

Organizational Communication

Organizational communication traces back to ancient rhetoric but formal study began in the first half of the 20th$century. The$1900-1950$“era of preparation” focused on prescriptive training for effective organizational communication; the$1940-1970$era of identification and consolidation involved graduate programs, seminal articles, and the formation of professional organizations that would become the NCA and ICA. The$1970s marked maturity and innovation, with widespread graduate programs and edited books (e.g., Goldhaber & Barnett, 1988; Jablin, 1987; McPhee & Tompkins, 1985). Contemporary challenges include theoretical and methodological innovation, ethics, macro-level issues, new structures and technologies, change management, and diversity and intergroup communication (Jones, Watson, Gardner, & Gallois, 2004).

Intercultural Communication

Intercultural communication grew from the post-WWII rise of the United States as a global power and the UN’s global village emphasis. Inquiry in the 1950s-1960s$focused on cross-cultural understanding and non-Western communication practices (Kim, 2005). Early scholars included Peace Corps workers, and the field gained organization in the$1970s-1980s$with divisions in the SCA (now the NCA) and ICA. The field is inherently multidisciplinary, drawing on anthropology, linguistics, sociology, psychology, and related disciplines. Current themes center on five areas: psychological processes, intercultural communication competence, adaptation to unfamiliar cultures, cultural identity in intercultural contexts, and power inequality. Kim calls for a common foundational set of notions to unify diverse theoretical traditions.</p><h4 id="fbf3fb0b-e329-4a94-a585-a05bc66d175d" data-toc-id="fbf3fb0b-e329-4a94-a585-a05bc66d175d" collapsed="false" seolevelmigrated="true">Political Communication</h4><p>Rooted in classical political theory (Plato and Aristotle) and propagandas studies (1940s-1950s), political communication was recognized as its own discipline by the$1950s$. The$1970s$saw the emergence of focused university courses, dedicated journals, and the ICA’s Political Communication division. The field solidified in the$1980s-1990s with influential books and resources (e.g., Nimmo & Sanders, 1981; Swanson & Nimmo, 1990). The main perspectives guiding research typically include: rhetorical/critical/interpretive; effects; agenda setting; and uses and gratifications (Kaid, 1996). Topics include political debates, political advertising, rhetoric, media coverage of campaigns, and civic learning. New media technologies have opened new research questions about civic participation versus elite control, with further study needed in policy formation, press freedom, media socialization, campaign communications, user-friendly interfaces, and network analyses (Graber, 2005).

Journalism

The definition of journalism, as Adams (1993) notes, centers on reporting and commentary in public media about events and ideas in the here-and-now. Although journalism practice dates to the 15th century, formal study is younger. Journalism education began in the 1870s$, with separate schools in the$1908$era and PhD minors in journalism; graduate education and research expanded in the$1940s$. Lasswell’s 1927 propaganda research shifted journalism toward social scientific inquiry from the 1930s–1950s. The$1950s-1980s$featured three currents: sociological studies of relationships, behavior, and effects; historical inquiry; language and journalism; political role in the making of news; and cultural analyses of contextual factors shaping practice (Zelizer, 2004). Zelizer also warned that the expanding forms and technologies of news undermine the relevance of older scholarship, urging broader definitions of journalism and more cross-disciplinary integration. The ICA journalism division’s growth in the 21st century signals improved research breadth and international contributions.</p><h4 id="2cc10fa4-d820-43a7-9490-323205d776c0" data-toc-id="2cc10fa4-d820-43a7-9490-323205d776c0" collapsed="false" seolevelmigrated="true">Health Communication</h4><p>Health communication traces to the 18th century with inoculation promotion but lacked theoretical grounding early on. An ICA interest group formed in the$mid-1970s$, marking formal emergence. Rogers (1996) identified the Stanford Heart Disease Prevention Program (SHDPP), launched in$1971$, as a birth point for health communication research, from which a family of programs addressing heart disease, substance abuse, cancer, teenage pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS proliferated. The AIDS epidemic intensified health promotion and disease prevention research. Between$1971$and$1996$, universities established health communication programs and research, drawing on diverse fields (communication, public health, medicine, marketing, social psychology, anthropology). Key topics include doctor-patient communication improvements, campaigns promoting healthy lifestyles (e.g., smoking cessation), and media portrayals of health issues. Since$1996$, growth has been rapid, with effectiveness research—especially on HIV/AIDS and smoking cessation—dominating, alongside examination of health issue portrayals in news, advertising, and entertainment media, and exploration of new ICTs for health communication. Parrott (2004) notes neglected topics such as mental health, health-care economics, and informed consent as future research directions.</p><h4 id="bcd829b7-bc43-40b8-a57a-f7c86f7c3032" data-toc-id="bcd829b7-bc43-40b8-a57a-f7c86f7c3032" collapsed="false" seolevelmigrated="true">Visual Communication</h4><p>Visual communication (VisCom) research extends from long-standing art criticism and philosophy traditions. The late$1950s$saw scholars from various fields theorizing about visuality in culture. In the$1960s-1970s$, studies on spatial/nonverbal cues in anthropology and the application of art theory to advertising contributed to VisCom. The$1970s-1980s$saw the formation of VisCom divisions within AEJMC and the rise of dedicated visual studies journals. The 1990s are viewed as a maturation period, with the ICA establishing a Visual Communication Interest Group (1993) and journals like Communication and Journalism Education devoting issues to VisCom. Three primary strands of VisCom theory emerge: (i) rhetorical studies viewing images as persuasive tools; (ii) pragmatic approaches focusing on production and reception processes; and (iii) semantic analyses of internal image structures. The field increasingly studies new technologies as visual texts. Barnhurst, Vari, and Rodriguez (2004) caution against fragmentation across disciplines but anticipate integration of historical and semantic methods as a future cutting edge.</p><h4 id="c955f1f5-880a-4564-ad84-59d80e2e822c" data-toc-id="c955f1f5-880a-4564-ad84-59d80e2e822c" collapsed="false" seolevelmigrated="true">Instructional and Developmental Communication</h4><p>Instructional communication has been studied since the existence of academic departments, with the journal Communication Education founded in the$1950s$. In$1972, ICA established a division dedicated to instructional communication. Early topics included teacher and student characteristics and teaching strategies (Staton-Spicer & Wulff, 1984). The past two decades have seen exponential growth in scope. Waldeck, Kearney, and Plax (2001) identified twelve major theories and six research foci: student communication, teacher communication, mass media effects on children, pedagogical methods, classroom management, and teacher-student interaction. McCroskey and McCroskey (2006) anticipate continued growth, including technologically mediated instructional communication, cross-cultural instructional communication, and investigations beyond the United States. Developmental communication emerged in the mid-1980s as a subdivision of ICA, prompted by caucuses on communication and aging at the 1979 NCA conference (Nussbaum & Friedrich, 2005). Foundational work in the late 1980s and early 1990s emphasized communication across the life span (children to elderly) and called for broadened adolescence and midlife study and long-term methodological approaches.

Communication and Technology (ICT)

Technological channels of communication trace back to the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television, with modern interest focusing on information and communication technology (ICT) processes and social impacts. Beginning in the 1970s$, when personal computers and ARPANET emerged, scholars from multiple disciplines scrutinized ICTs’ economics, social change, and transformations of traditional media. The mass communication-effects paradigm quickly became the dominant lens in ICT research. The$1980s-1990s saw rapid expansion with new ICTs—microcomputers, videotext/teletext, teleconferencing, cable, VCRs—and the diffusion of innovations and social impact, especially with the Internet’s rise. Two critiques persist: (i) many studies rely on traditional medium-to-medium comparisons rather than fully explicating Internet-specific characteristics; and (ii) research remains nationally bounded rather than globally comparative. Lievrouw & Livingstone (2002) urged internationalization to enrich understanding of ICTs and their societal consequences.

Public Relations

Public relations (PR) traces to ancient practices but is a relatively young academic field. By the end of the 19th century$, PR had become a global professional practice, yet scholarly public relations work has only flourished in the last$25 years. Early theory-building began with J. E. Grunig’s (1984) four models of public relations (press agentry/publicity, public information, two-way asymmetric, two-way symmetric) and foundational integration with Heath’s (2001, 2005) work on PR as an information-persuasion-ethical-relationship discipline. Botan & Taylor (2004) argued for a paradigm shift toward cocreation, wherein PR is the instrument enabling relationships and shared meanings. They posited that the field’s future depends on which cocreationist model best serves theory and practice. PR has become a global enterprise; Sriramesh & Vercic (2003) noted that theory-building remains most developed in the United States and Western Europe, but descriptive cross-national data on PR practices have grown worldwide.

Other Specializations Within Communication

Numerous ICA divisions and NCA sections cover additional topics. Given space limits, this survey acknowledges ongoing progress in many diverse areas, and recognizes the breadth and depth of contemporary research beyond the highlighted subfields.

Reflections and Conclusions

Delia’s claim in 1987 that the field was a “debtor nation”—importing most theory from other disciplines—has shifted substantially. Rice (2007) documented a growing export of communication theories, evidenced by the high proportion of citations to communication journals in major outlets and the prominence of communication-centric sources within psychology, sociology, and public health. In Delia’s era, fewer than 20 ext{% ext{ of }375}$sources were communication journals; in the contemporary chapter, more than$50 ext{%}$of citations are to communication-related sources. The increasing specialization has produced a robust set of journals (the Journal Citation Reports listed$44$communication journals in the mid- to late-2000s, compared with$13$in 1987), reflecting a field that has diversified rather than diminished. A notable change has been the de-emphasis of macro-theory as a single unifying framework; conferences in the late$1980s-1990s$$ highlighted macro-theory, but by the mid-2000s there was a tempered belief that pluralism and subdisciplinary diversity better reflect the field’s epistemological, methodological, and disciplinary breadth.

Overall, the authors argue that Berelson’s fear that the field was withering away did not come to pass; rather, communication science has matured and thrived in the digital era. The emphasis has shifted from a dominant building of a single overarching theory to embracing a pluralist, cross-disciplinary, and technology-infused landscape. The chapter ends on a forward-looking note: while acknowledging subdisciplinary specialization and the complexities of new media, the field has come of age and continues to evolve in response to social, technological, and ethical challenges.

References (selection)

• Adams, G. C. (1993). Notes toward a definition of journalism: Understanding an old craft as an art form. St. Petersburg, FL: The Poynter Institute.

• Atkin, C., & Marshall, A. (1996). Health communication. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 479–495). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Barnhurst, K. G., Vari, M., & Rodriguez, I. (2004). Mapping visual studies in communication. Journal of Communication, 54, 616–644.

• Berelson, B. (1959). The state of communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, 1–6.

• Berger, C. R. (2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415–447.

• Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

• Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communication, 54, 645–661.

• Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2007). Historical contexts and trends in the development of communication theory. In B. B. Whaley & W. Sampter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 403–431). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Bryant, J., & Thompson, S. (1999). Graduate communication programs. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Leadership in times of change: A handbook for communication and media administrators (pp. 135–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Bryant, J., & Vorderer, P. (Eds.). (2006). Psychology of entertainment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Campbell, S. W., & Ling, R. (2009). Effects of mobile communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 592–606). New York: Routledge.

• Glander, T. (2000). Origins of mass communications research during the American cold war: Educational effects and contemporary implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Lace-like references omitted for brevity; the original transcript provides a complete bibliography corresponding to the historical discussion.