The Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma, in conjunction with the Department of Defense, has hosted the Department of Defense Communication Graduate Program since the 1970s (see http://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/overview.htm). The program has been part of the Military Public Affairs Community for over 37 years and draws public affairs professionals from all branches of the Defense Department as well as the Coast Guard. The goal of the program is to equip students with the basic principles of communication theory and research, and the ways in which these principles might be applied toward public affairs strategies and tactics. The nine hours of fully accredited coursework offered over a two-month period introduces students to the different areas of communication studies and culminates with a final project that seeks to resolve a military affairs problem. The capstone project emerging from the course has explored topics such as public perceptions of the military, deception research, credibility of the military, military recruitment strategies, media portrayals of wars etc. More recently, these capstone projects have examined the media portrayals of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the ways in which the embedding of journalists influence such portrayals, and have been published in prestigious communication journals such as Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly and Mass Communication and Society.
This type of embedding of academics in military communication research raises several vital questions regarding the role of the academy at war times (and peace times), the quality of the research that is conducted in the academy during war times (and peace times), and the believability of the findings that emerge from military-funded projects such as the capstone projects mentioned earlier. Each of these aspects of military funded scholarship ultimately raise questions about our roles as communication scholars in participating in the public affairs agendas of the military, the nature of the post-positivistic claims of scientific rigor that resonate through the social scientific strand of communication scholarship, and the role of values in shaping the nature of the findings we report in the social scientific studies rife with so-called numbers and hence "assumed" to be believable. Military-funded research and teaching also bring to the forefront the very politics of communication research and scholarship, suggesting the necessity to interrogate the more profound stories underlying the numbers that jump out at us from the journal articles published in our peer-reviewed journals.
Instead of simply mentioning the source of funding in a footnote or in a limitations section of a published manuscript in our top disciplinary journals, we need to raise more fundamental questions about what it means to engage in teaching and research that serve military agendas. To the extent that we as academics participate in military funded research, our research questions and agendas get fundamentally shaped by the agendas of the military. Therefore, topics such as deception research, public perceptions of military credibility, military recruitment strategies, and media relations strategies that might be used by the military ultimately are located within the broader goals and objectives of the military. To the extent that we participate in these broader agendas, we also need to ask more difficult questions regarding what it means to participate in these agendas, and whom does our participation ultimately serve. What are the types of research questions that get asked as a result of engaging in military funded work (both teaching and research) and what are the types of questions that remain unasked? Whom do we serve by the questions that get asked and the tools that we use to ask these questions? What are the moral and ethical ramifications of engaging in military funded research? What are the implicit benefits received by scholars and institutions that engage in military-funded work? What are the fundamental social ramifications of the embedding of academics in the military?What are the disciplinary ramifications of such embeddings? In the next few postings over the coming week, I will further explore this question of military-funded communication research.
This type of embedding of academics in military communication research raises several vital questions regarding the role of the academy at war times (and peace times), the quality of the research that is conducted in the academy during war times (and peace times), and the believability of the findings that emerge from military-funded projects such as the capstone projects mentioned earlier. Each of these aspects of military funded scholarship ultimately raise questions about our roles as communication scholars in participating in the public affairs agendas of the military, the nature of the post-positivistic claims of scientific rigor that resonate through the social scientific strand of communication scholarship, and the role of values in shaping the nature of the findings we report in the social scientific studies rife with so-called numbers and hence "assumed" to be believable. Military-funded research and teaching also bring to the forefront the very politics of communication research and scholarship, suggesting the necessity to interrogate the more profound stories underlying the numbers that jump out at us from the journal articles published in our peer-reviewed journals.
Instead of simply mentioning the source of funding in a footnote or in a limitations section of a published manuscript in our top disciplinary journals, we need to raise more fundamental questions about what it means to engage in teaching and research that serve military agendas. To the extent that we as academics participate in military funded research, our research questions and agendas get fundamentally shaped by the agendas of the military. Therefore, topics such as deception research, public perceptions of military credibility, military recruitment strategies, and media relations strategies that might be used by the military ultimately are located within the broader goals and objectives of the military. To the extent that we participate in these broader agendas, we also need to ask more difficult questions regarding what it means to participate in these agendas, and whom does our participation ultimately serve. What are the types of research questions that get asked as a result of engaging in military funded work (both teaching and research) and what are the types of questions that remain unasked? Whom do we serve by the questions that get asked and the tools that we use to ask these questions? What are the moral and ethical ramifications of engaging in military funded research? What are the implicit benefits received by scholars and institutions that engage in military-funded work? What are the fundamental social ramifications of the embedding of academics in the military?What are the disciplinary ramifications of such embeddings? In the next few postings over the coming week, I will further explore this question of military-funded communication research.
Comments