Body of Knowledge -- Connecting history to the future -- by Christina

It is essential to understand and encompass the body of knowledge in any communication research study. It is a fundamental component. I think the most important function of a connecting the body of knowledge to mass communication research is it gives credibility and justification for the research. A proper literature review shows that the researcher understands the history and important parts of the existing literature. All researchers must understand what came before them in order to move any research forward. The results of a research study should add to the existing body of knowledge either by proving a hypothesis or answering research questions that are a continuation of the current body of knowledge or that rebut other published research.

For example, George Gerbner, one of the pioneers in the communication field, founded cultivation theory. However, his work did not come without critics. Conducting research to refute Gerbner’s findings, were Michael Hughes and Paul Hirsch. Each believed Gerbner's research was flawed and oversimplified. A literature review covering cultivation theory would obviously cover Gerbner’s work, extensions of his work, as well as the works by Hughes and Hirsch. This is actually a fun theory, because there are many published articles with the authors arguing back and forth, from year to year. The fall 1980 Public Opinion Quarterly and 1980, 1981 Communication Research are two journal's these published arguments are found in. Also, the Media Awareness Network re-covered this debate in 1997, long after Gerbner’s passing in 1989.

I think the biggest misconception about the body of knowledge is that it is only present in the literature review. That is by far not true. I feel for research to be conducted thoroughly the researcher must also understand the history and “body of knowledge” behind research methodologies. For example Bernard Berelson and Klaus Krippendorff are two experts in understanding and conducting a content analysis. To ensure reliability and validity in conducting a content analysis, a very through understanding of the history and “body of knowledge” over content analysis must be conducted. Leaning and understanding the research over content analysis will again lend credibility and justification to the research at hand. The point here is that mass communication theories are not the only important part of the body of knowledge. Also, as our own Dr. Charles Self pointed out, the body of knowledge also comes from experts and organizations in the actual communication field, specifically for my research published work from the Public Relations Society of America and International Association of Business Communicators are included throughout my research.

There are many pros to having a vast understanding of the body of knowledge, however I cannot think of very many cons except that it only causes more work. One of the major pros is that you can find holes in the current research and it lends credibility to the research. The con is that you might and probably will find some research that does not agree with your ideas and you will have to include that research in the coverage of the body of knowledge. Using research like this is the ethical and right decision, even though you may have to note it as a potential limitation or find a way to disprove it.