Advertisement

A Threefold Approach for Enabling Social Change: Communication as Context for Interaction, Uneven Development, and Recognition

  • Gloria Gómez DiagoEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

In a context where research aimed to intervene on an increasingly unequal society is very necessary, we are bringing a theoretical framework intended to enable social change. The frame presented here is conceived for assessing environments communicatively, and it is articulated through a proposed paradigm (communication as a context for interaction) and two concepts: uneven development and recognition.

Keywords

Epistemology Communication research Methodology Recognition Social change Uneven development 

References

  1. Beniger JR (1993) Communication – embrace the subject, not the Field. J Commun 43:18–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01272.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berelson B, Lazarsfeld PF (1948) The analysis of communication content. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Bieler A, Morton D (2014) Uneven development, unequal exchange and free trade: what implications for labour?. Retrieved from http://adamdavidmorton.com/2014/02/uneven-development-unequal-exchange-and-free-trade-what-implications-for-labour/
  4. Cáceres MD, Caffarel C (1992) La Investigación sobre Comunicación en España. Un Balance Cualitativo. Telos 32:109–124. Retrieved from http://www.quadernsdigitals.net/datos/hemeroteca/r_32/nr_447/a_6136/6136.pdfGoogle Scholar
  5. Caffarel Serra C, Mohedano O, Moya G (2017) Investigación en comunicación en la universidad española en el período 2007–2014. El profesional de la información 26(2). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315639940_Investigacion_en_Comunicacion_en_la_universidad_espanola_en_el_periodo_2007-2014
  6. Curry Jansen S (1983) Power and knowledge: toward a new critical synthesis. J Commun. Ferment in the Field 33(3):342–354.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02434.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis DK, Jasinski J (1993) Beyond the culture wars: an agenda for research on communication and culture. J Commun 43(3):141–149.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01286.x. The Future of the Field Between Fragmentation and CohesionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erdogan I (2012) Missing Marx: the place of Marx in current communication research and the place of communication in Marx’s work. Triple C Cogn Commun Co-oper 10(2):349–391. http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/423Google Scholar
  9. Folch-Serra M (1990) Place, voice, space: Mikhail Bakhtin’s dialogical landscape. Environ Plaining Soc Space 8:255–254.  https://doi.org/10.1068/d080255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foucault B, Vashevko A, Bennet N, Contractor N (2014) Dynamic models of communication in an online friendship network. Commun Methods Meas 8(4):223–243. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273959298_Dynamic_Models_of_Communication_in_an_Online_Friendship_NetworkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedland LA (2001) Communication, community, and democracy. Commun Res 28(4):358–391.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028004002. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/AW57aXCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuchs C (2016) Critical theory of communication. University of Westminster Press, London.  https://doi.org/10.16997/book1.a. License: CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0. Retrieved from http://fuchs.uti.at/books/critical-theory-of-communication/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gómez Diago G (2015) Communication in crowdfunding online platforms. In: Zagalo N, Branco P (eds) Creative technologies: create and engage using art and play. Springer, London. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284044910_Communication_in_Crowdfunding_Online_PlatformsGoogle Scholar
  14. Gómez Diago G (2016a) The role of shared emotions in the construction of the Cyberculture. From cultural industries to cultural actions. The case of crowdfunding. In: Tettegah S (ed) Emotions, technology and social media. Elsevier, London/San Diego/Cambridge/Oxford, pp 49–62. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303791737_The_Role_of_Shared_Emotions_in_the_Construction_of_the_Cyberculture_From_Cultural_Industries_to_Cultural_ActionsGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez Diago G (2016b) Dissertation: for communication research. 400 ideas from the last three decades and a proposal to update the interaction paradigm. Dissertation defended on 22 Jan 2016. Awarded with the extraordinary award of doctorate (Sept 2014–Sept 2016) Rey Juan Carlos University. Supervisor: Professor Dr. Manuel Martínez-Nicolás. Abstract. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318969195_FOR_COMMUNICATION_RESEARCH_400_ideas_from_the_last_three_decades_and_a_proposal_to_update_the_interaction_paradigm
  16. Gómez Diago G (2017) The role of research in communication before citizen participation. Proposal to investigate understanding communication as a context for interaction. In: Herrero J, Mateos C (eds) From the verb to the bit, Cuadernos Artesanos de Comunicación, 2nd edn, pp 1879–1899.  https://doi.org/10.4185/cac116edicion2. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315671849_El_papel_de_la_investigacion_en_comunicacion_ante_la_participacion_ciudadana_Propuesta_para_investigar_entendiendo_la_comunicacion_como_contexto_para_la_interaccionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grandi R (1983) The limitations of the sociological approach: alternatives from Italian communications research. J Commun 33(3):53–58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02406.x. Fement in the FieldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris (2007) Uneven Development, The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd edn. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Honneth A (1995) The struggle for recognition. The moral grammar of social conflicts (Transl.: By Joel Anderson). The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Koschmann M (2010) Communication as a distinct mode of explanation makes a difference. Commun Monogr 77(4):431–434.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.523593. http://koschmann.webstarts.com/uploads/Koschmann__2010__comm_as_distinct_mode_of_explanation.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krippendorff K (1993) The past of Communication’s hoped-for future. J Commun 43(3):34–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01274.x
  22. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. In: International encyclopedia of unified science, vol 2(2). University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 1–210. http://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Kuhn_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.pdf
  23. Lasswell HD (1948) The analysis of political behaviour, an empirical approach. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Martínez-Nicolás M, Saperas E (2011) Communication research in Spain, 1998–2007. An analysis of articles published in Spanish communication journals, en Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 66: 101–129. Retrieved from http://www.revistalatinacs.org/11/art/926_Vicalvaro/05_NicolasEN.html
  25. Martínez-Nicolás M, Saperas E (2016) Research focus and methodological features in the recent Spanish communication studies (2008–2014). Rev Lat Comun Soc 71:1365–1384. Retrieved from http://www.revistalatinacs.org/071/paper/1150/70en.htmlGoogle Scholar
  26. Mattelart A (1983) Technology, culture, and communication: research and policy priorities in France. J Commun 33(3):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McQuail D (2013) Communication research paradigms reflections on paradigm change in communication theory and research. Int J Commun 7:216–229. http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1961/85Google Scholar
  28. Melody WH, Mansell RE (1983) The debate over critical vs administrative research: circularity or challenge. J Commun 33:103–116.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02412.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyrowitz J (1985) No sense of place. Amazon Kindle edn 2010. Oxford University Press, New York/OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyrowitz J (2009) Medium theory. An alternative to the dominant paradigm of media effects. In: Nabin R, Oliver MB (eds) The Sage handbook of media processes and effects. https://www.academia.edu/12688710/_Medium_Theory_An_Alternative_to_the_Dominant_Paradigm_of_Media_EffectsGoogle Scholar
  31. Monahan JL, Collins-Jarvis L (1993) The hierarchy of institutional values in the communication discipline. J Commun 43(3):150–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morris N (2005) The diffusion and participatory models: a comparative analysis. In: Hermer O, Tufte T (eds) Media & glocal change rethinking communication for development. Publicaciones Cooperativas, Buenos Aires. CLACSO. Retrieved efrom https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227975430_A_Compative_Analysis_of_the_Diffusion_and_Participatory_Models_in_Development_CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  33. Mosco V (1983) Critical research and the role of labour. J Commun Fement Field 33(3):237–348.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02424.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mosco V (2018) Social media versus journalism and democracy. Journalism 20(1):181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ninam Thomas P (2015) Communication for social change, making theory count. Nordicom Rev 36(Special Issue):71–78. Available in: http://www.nordicom.gu.se/en/node/35941
  36. Papadimitropoulos V (2017) The politics of the commons: reform or revolt? tripleC 15(2):563–581. Retrieved from http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/852/1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rist G (2010) Development as a buzzword (19–28). In: Cornwall A, Eade D (eds) Deconstructing development discourse. Buzzwords and Fuzzwords. Practical Action Publishing in association with Oxfam GB, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire. Retrieved from https://www.guystanding.com/files/documents/Deconstructing-development-buzzwords.pdfGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers EM (1976) Communication and development. The passing of the dominant paradigm. Commun Res 3(2)Google Scholar
  39. Rogers EM, Chaffee S (1983) Communication as an academic discipline: a dialogue. J Commun 33:18–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02402.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers EM, Kincaid DL (1981) Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. Free Press, New York, p 386Google Scholar
  41. Rothenbuhler EW (1993) Argument for a Durkheimian theory of the communicative. J Commun 43(3):158–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sassen S (2012) When the center no longer holds: cities as frontier zones. J Cities.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.05.007
  43. Schiller HI (1983) Critical research in the information age. J Commun 33(3):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schulz W (2004) Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. Eur J Commun 19(1):87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shepherd GJ (1989) Building a discipline of communication. J Commun 43(3):83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stevenson ARL (1983) A critical look at critical analysis. J Commun Ferment Field 33(3):262–269.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02427.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tehranian M (1991) Communication and theories of social change: a communitarian perspective. Asian J Commun 2(1):1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01292989109359538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tunstall J (1983) The trouble with U.S. communication research. J Commun,. Ferment in the Field 33(3):92–95.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02410.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van der Linden M (2007) The ‘law’ of uneven and combined development: some underdeveloped thoughts. Hist Mater 15:145–165. Retrieved from https://socialhistory.org/sites/default/files/docs/vanderlinden.docCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vásquez C, Cooren F (2013) Spacing practices: the communicative configuration of organizing through space-times. Commun Theory 23:25–47.  https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication Sciences and SociologyRey Juan Carlos UniversityFuenlabrada, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations