THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE INTERNET

The Body of Knowledge and the Internet

by JR

I’’ll admit it-since I have started graduate school I have not physically handled one journal to find my research. How many people in class have? I’ve gone to the library to look for books but I have yet to actually crack a spine on a journal like this one or this one. I won’t ask for a show of hands to see if I am the only one who hasn’t but I would bet I am not alone.

Connecting to the body of knowledge begins with connecting my computer to the Internet. Like many others in class I also use Google, Google Scholar, and LORA for my research. Part of my development as a researcher has been in refining my Article1st, and EBSCO keyword selection. I use Google and Google Scholar because the search functions generally yield better results than the libraries databases. What has this done to my ability as a researcher if I haven't dug through dusty tomes of knowledge in the back of the library?

I wanted to bring up another idea that is related to key word search for journal articles. I believe that it was in Conceptual Issues class that we talked about journals and conferences and the perceived notion that some journals and conferences have more prestige than others. What happens to this idea of prestige and credibility when a generation or two of researchers have grown used to research by key word rather than journal?

In Conceptual Issues class we also talked about journals vs. conferences. I have seen that the debate of which is a more desirable method to connect to the body of knowledge depends on the field of study. In JMC, getting published in a journal is the goal of many researchers and conferences hold sort of a 2^nd tier status in the body of knowledge. In my work with RISE, which is concerned with underrepresented minority students in engineering education, conferences are the goal for researchers and journal articles generally fall into the lower tier. The best explanation that I have been given for this preference is that education conferences are looking for ideas, practices, and theory that can be directly tested or implemented in an educational setting .

For my topic, advergaming, I have used journals that are found in a traditional print version as well as online only journals. The Journal of Interactive Advertising was founded in 2000 and is an online refereed journal that is open to submissions and is free to access. This is a different model than the online sites of many print-based journals that require a pay per download or subscription to access. Like many others in class, after Google has done its work, I switch over to LORA to find an appropriate database to find the article since I have already paid (through my school tuition) to access the journal and download the research for free. Is free the way of the future?

Having access to online journals and print journals available online I believe is beneficial to the development to the body of knowledge. Being able to tap into the work of the field anywhere, anytime makes it that much easier for people to enter the academic conversation in a way that was not previously possible.

P.S. play this Indiana Jones-inspired advergame from Legos-it is harder than it seems (check out the Lego-skulls in background!)

Life After Research

Yes, there is life after the completion of a thesis. In fact, I think life after a thesis/project and/or dissertation is more fulfilled because you know you have the intellectual ability to perform academic scholarship. Adding to the body of knowledge on a topic important to you and to the industry you love is an honor. Accomplishing this goal is an amazing feat; one that many people want to quit during the process. However, ultimately accomplishing this goal will make the researcher/student feel a sense of greater understanding and contribution.

I actually plan to use my topic and the information I generated in this course to continue my academic studies in the Gaylord College’s Ph.D. program. I was accepted into the program beginning in the fall, so I’m really excited to actually begin my 6000-level coursework this summer. In addition, I will continue to use the information I learned in the class as a journalism professor at Oklahoma City University and as adviser of the university's Student Publications staff.

Once I complete my Ph.D., I hope to use my dissertation and smaller “break out” types of studies from inside it to make presentations regarding the idea of journalists experiencing trauma as a result of the everyday violent events they cover. Specifically, I would love to present information through the Dart Center for Journalists and Trauma. I also hope to make information from my studies available through the Dart Center’s Web site so others can learn from the work I’ve done. I also would love to publish information about my work in professional journalism publications like the Society of Professional Journalists' Quill and Columbia Journalism Review.

Ironically I also discovered a secondary area of research I’m very interested in during the course of the class. I hope to begin studying (post Ph.D.) the idea of mediated communication and how things like e-mail and instant messaging are changing the traditional ways reporters gather the news. I think methods of news gathering, not just reporting, are changing as we become more multi platform. I look forward to delving into this area once I feel that I’ve done fair justice to the topic about which I’m most passionate.

Research for the sake of research?

Conducting research so that it connects to the body of knowledge in journalism and mass communications studies, to me, is about two key issues: 1) knowing what information is “out there” and 2) understanding the industry in a way that helps the researcher know what type of information is needed.

Knowing what type of research exists on your individual topic begins as soon as a researcher thinks of an area he/she would like to study. For me, I decided I wanted to study the idea that journalists could become secondary victims as a result of the things they cover. As soon as I identified that concept as something I was interested in, I immediately began to research. My initial researcher was really about typing the keywords “journalists’ and “victims” into a Google search. By doing that, I was able to find a variety of sites that focused on the concepts of victims and trauma as they surround journalists. Many of the sites, such as the Poynter Institute online, the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma and the Victims and the Media Program have helped me not only as primary resources, but also in identifying other resources to use in my research. After realizing that there was data available on my topic of interest, I then began doing a variety of keyword searches on Academic Search Elite. Through this academic search engine, I was able to identify the articles that made up the initial stages of my Review of Literature on the topic. I also was able to identify the most important pieces of research in the field, and use their bibliographies to find additional academic resources on the topic. In this way, knowing what information is “out there” helped me to shape my idea and to understand in what way it was worthy of exploration.

To me, “connecting to the body of knowledge” means not only researching a topic that is academically sound, but also providing those working practically in the industry with a foundation for a new way of thinking or approaching an issue. I knew that studying journalists as victims was a worthy cause in a newsroom because I worked in a newsroom and saw journalists who were trauma victims when I generated the idea. I think seeing firsthand what these people experienced helped me understand the true potential of the research. In other words, I could do research that could support a change in the industry. This change would allow for more training and counseling in newsrooms and creating a more mentally stable profession. Working in the newsroom helped me identify a need for information. The experience also keeps me focused because I assigned faces of people I care about to the issue. I’m not just doing research for a nameless, faceless person or group. I’m doing research to benefit people I know and consider friends. Observing the phenomenon also helped me identify social learning theory as a theoretical framework for my study interest.

I think it absolutely is important to connect your research to the body of knowledge in the field. If you don’t, what is the purpose of the research? Research for the sake of research doesn’t make much sense to me. In my mind, the best research is that which can by applied to daily operations in the industry and be used to make a difference in the way those working in the field function. The positive aspect of this, of course, is that your industry can be used to make a difference for people working in the industry. The negative of making your information “applicable” to the field is that those working in the industry are likely to find holes in your theoretical arguments or research methodology. They are closer to the reality of the work than you. However, identifying flaws in your research is not the greatest issue, it just means that there are more areas to develop further. I guess this could be seen as a flaw because it means that you have more work to do; almost never ending work. However, adding to the body of knowledge has to be seen as a positive to the researcher, otherwise, why would they choose to perform research?

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.

BODY OF KNOWLEDGE

BODY OF KNOWLEDGE

The first thing that comes to my mind when I listen to these words is a huge pile of books and readings. The body of knowledge is vast and inexplicable. The journey of research starts with finding an appropriate topic which not only interests you but also contributes to the body of knowledge. I came from India with the eagerness to learn and explore. I did learn a lot in my first semester and I think that it is continuing and progressing well. My interactions with the faculty and the students introduced me to many new facets of mass communication. I plan to do my masters in strategic communication (public relations). I did read a lot about the latest things going on in PR, the theories of PR and much more.

As a part of my core classes, I did a literature review on Karl Weick’s “sense making” and “leadership”. All the readings and knowledge did give me some direction to where I should go. I plan to study and explore the Situational Theory given by Grunig. I also plan to combine it with the Dialogic Theory and see how the field of PR is undergoing a paradigm shift. The process of deciding a research topic follows a deductive approach, where one starts from an abstract idea and then comes down to a more concrete one. I plan to add new dimensions to both the theories and contribute to the body of knowledge. The basic assumption of Grunig’s Situational theory is that publics form around specific situations or issues produced by the consequences that organizations have on people outside the organization. This theory also explains when and how people communicate about the situations in which they are involved. Public relations practitioners utilize a dialogic approach when building organization-public relationships because a dialogic approach builds relationships that serve both organizational and public interests. This can be combined with the situational theory to better understand the publics. I think these theories when studied together in context with one another will contribute and refine the PR field.

Adding to the JMC body of knowledge

Adding to the JMC body of knowledge--Deb Wallevand

The "body of knowledge" is ubiquitous. The "body of knowledge" is broad. The first daunting step to take when conducting research in such a way that it connects to the "body of knowledge" in journalism and mass communication is identifying what is missing or lacking in the existing literature. Research is finding out what you do not already know. No one knows everything, but everybody knows something. By writing a literature review, the researcher can convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Reviewing the field allows the researcher to build on the platform of existing knowledge ad ideas. Additionally, this process is important because it demonstrates that the researcher is not re-inventing the wheel (doing research that has already been done).

A literature review is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries. A good literature review requires the following attributes: the ability to conduct exhaustive bibliographic searches, the ability to organize the collected data meaningfully, describe, critique and relate each source to the subject of the research, present the organized literature logically, and last, but not least, to correctly cite all sources mentioned.

It is necessary to consult a wide range of information sources in the process of connecting to the "body of knowledge." Some of these sources include, but are not limited to scholarly journals, books, newspapers, standards, statistics, maps, and government legislation. For example, I utilize Google Scholar quite a bit to find articles regarding women's sports and the media. Not only does this allow me to find articles, but it shows me how many times a certain article has been cited. This in turn tells me if that piece of academia is considered important by those scholars who contribute to "the body of knowledge."

There are cons to doing research because it carries with it an inherent danger to those who are close minded or comfortable in their preconceptions. There are people, including researchers, who reject anything that contradicts, or at least doesn't support, their views of the world. Research may show that what you already know is incorrect. This is a hard thing to accept.

On the other hand, the pros of this process of conducting research certainly outweigh the cons. As I mentioned earlier, a literature review shows where the new research fits into the existing body of knowledge. It justifies the research. The body of knowledge is ever-evolving and it is kind of exciting to think about the fact that your work will help shape the field and the direction that it is headed. Your research may help refine, refocus or even change the field.

Contributing to the Body of Knowledge

Contributing to the Body of Knowledge

When conducting research during undergraduate course work, there is no need to really think about the field as a whole, you pick a topic, conduct minor research and put together a paper of 5-7 pages. Starting out in graduate school, I was quite surprised on day one to hear that my first paper would be between 20-25 pages. The research was so different, and I realized quickly that my undergraduate studies had done little to help me think on a theoretical level.

Soon after starting graduate school, I began hearing this term “body of knowledge” being thrown around. I realize now that the body of knowledge is the world around us, what the past and present researchers have studied and that this body has natural holes within it where new researchers (or graduate students) can find their niche within it.

Journalism and mass communications is in a unique situation compared to other fields. The field is still young (in comparison to other fields) and there is much spill over from other bodies of knowledge that relates to out field. For example, for my professional project I must look into areas such as human resources, job recruitment and gender roles in order to develop a sufficient literature review to work from.

The body of knowledge is important because of the starting place it provides the future researchers. It also points towards new areas of study, giving even more potential areas for those unsure of what they wish to study. The body of knowledge is by no means complete, and never will be as journalism and mass communication is an ever evolving field.

I plan to conduct my professional project on the subject of recruiting more women into the field of sports information directing within higher education institutes. I feel this will connect me to a very large gap in the current body of knowledge, seeing as there is little existing research in the field of sports information directing. I find it interesting that so many female public relations students express interest in working in the sports information directing industry, but the current research shows that very few women are within the field.

Finding these sorts of holes is key when conducting research which you wish to use as a contribution to the body of knowledge for any subject. Our field is lucky because the body of knowledge is continuously growing into new areas, continuously adding new gaps that require study and rapidly changing with the technology. It is unfortunate that this idea of contributing to the greater good of the journalism and mass communication field is not introduced to undergraduate students more often. I believe that all higher education students should be introduced to this idea much sooner, and should begin understanding that what they choose to research can be a contribution to the greater body of knowledge for the entire field.