The moment has finally come. No one's counting, but this is my last ICA Newsletter column (Woohoo!). Recently, I had the privilege of delivering a speech at the semi-annual conference of the Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies. I was originally asked to speak on what the future of communication scholarship will look like, but I ended up sharing what I think we, as communication scholars, should study. After all, "the best way to predict the future is to create it." While these ideas reflect how communication scholarship has been defined and performed in South Korea, I hope they will resonate with you to some extent.
First, look beyond communication media. In their article published in the 50th-anniversary special issue of Human Communication Research, Drs. Demetriades, Walter, and Holbert highlight two well-known quotes when proposing guiding principles for communication research, one of which is "We cannot not communicate." As the authors note, this quote reminds us that communication is not always intentional, conscious, or successful. More importantly, it underscores the undeniable fact that communication is an integral part of any social process. The wide array of Divisions and Interest Groups of the ICA already attests to this simple truth, and I would encourage communication researchers to more actively identify and evaluate the significant role of communication in every social process, not bound to specific communication media, both old and new. Let's expand our territory!
Second, prioritize social engagement. As Lewin said, "There is nothing more practical than a good theory." More so than ever, we're witnessing that communication is seen as both a cause of and a solution to social problems. From inducing people to wear masks and get vaccinated, to educating people how not to fall for misinformation, to alerting people to the toxic consequences of hate speech, to making recommendations for human-centered AI systems, communication research is immensely instrumental in evidence-based policymaking. Our job is to provide solid evidence through high-quality scholarly work.
Third, promote "communication for good." Negativity bias is evident not only in how we, as individuals, select, process, and respond to messages but also in what we, as communication scholars, choose to study. While it is indeed critical to examine the effects of violence and sex in the media, the problematic use of the Internet, and false information, it takes more than just documenting the harmful consequences of communication for us to contribute to the betterment of society. Research on eudaimonic media use by Dr. Mary Beth Oliver and media prescription by Dr. Robin Nabi, for instance, seems particularly promising in this regard, and I'd love to see more work that informs us what to do, not just what not to do.
Fourth, humanize communication research. With the proliferation of non-human agents in every facet of social processes, it becomes even more important to understand how people relate to one another through communication. Especially in light of the so-called loneliness epidemic worldwide, the socio-emotional aspects of communication are of even greater relevance than before, which we know better than our peers in neighboring disciplines.
Fifth, connect the dots. Despite recurring concerns about the fragmentation within our own discipline, shared commonality under the surface of differences across research traditions has been noticed, and efforts are being made to synthesize theories once thought irreconcilable. Drs. Ramasubramanian and Banjo's attempt to bridge critical cultural scholarship and media effects scholarship by theorizing media effects that better reflect marginalized groups' experiences is one such example.
No matter what specific research topics we are passionate about, we all seek the truth, and by doing so, try to help people better understand the world. I'm incredibly proud to be a part of this extraordinary community, and eternally grateful for the honor to have served you as your President.