Advancing Communication Science: Reflections on My Editorship at Asian Communication Research

Is Communication Studies Making Progress?

In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), Thomas S. Kuhn made insightful arguments about the nature of scientific progress. He observed, “To a very great extent the term ‘science’ is reserved for fields that do progress in obvious ways” (p. 160). When asked whether science progresses, he answers that progress is what fundamentally defines science. He argued that even knowledge in the natural sciences is relative, bound within specific paradigms. However, within these paradigms, scholarly outcomes accumulate and advance gradually, a state he termed “normal science” (p. 10). Kuhn also emphasized that the accumulation and advancement of knowledge within a paradigm is not exclusive to hard sciences, such as physics. He recognized that certain social sciences also accumulate knowledge, advance, and thereby progress as sciences. For researchers questioning whether their discipline qualifies as a science, Kuhn posed a thought-provoking inquiry: “Why does my field fail to move ahead in the way that, say, physics does?” (p. 160).

Is knowledge in communication studies being accumulated and advanced? From a quantitative perspective, the answer appears to be yes. Over the past three decades, the number of publications produced across the social sciences has increased significantly, with communication studies being a particularly notable example. According to the Journal Citation Report (Clarivate Analytics, 2019), between 1992 and 2019, the number of communication journals indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index increased by 219% (from 44 in 1992 to 92 in 2019). Additionally, the number of articles published nearly quadrupled (from 1,110 to 4,300), and the aggregated impact factor rose by 253% (from 0.631 to 1.594). Communication research is undeniably expanding and accumulating as a “science.” The methods employed to test theories have become increasingly diverse and sophisticated. Studies now handle larger samples and often report multiple experimental results within a single paper. It is also evident that the completeness and quality of individual articles have significantly improved. For instance, I recently submitted a paper to Journal of Communication, which underwent four rounds of review and revision over the course of two years before receiving final approval for publication. This clearly demonstrates that our field is advancing and solidifying its scholarly rigor.

Where is the News on New Research?

Despite the quantitative advancements, skepticism remains about whether communication science is truly making progress. One of the reasons for skepticism about the progress of communication studies is the absence or scarcity of “news” about new research. Just as in any community, “news” and “stories” also exist among researchers. When a groundbreaking discovery occurs in a field, it quickly spreads among researchers, even without formal media coverage. Initially, such discoveries circulated within the group of researchers studying the specific topic. They then spread to adjacent research groups and, in some cases, to researchers in related academic fields and beyond. At this point, these studies often attract widespread media attention and are introduced to the broader public. When groundbreaking research is published, stories related to them naturally emerge and are passed on.

As an editor and an active researcher, I have always been attentive to such stories. Recently, it was particularly exciting to hear that several communication scholars published in Nature (Hopp et al., 2023; Sundar et al., 2024). It was also gratifying to see Timothy R. Levine’s book (2019) being referenced in a bestseller (Gladwell, 2021) and discussed among the general public. However, such news is rare in the field of communication studies and often remains confined within narrow boundaries, failing to reach a wider audience. When these stories extend to the broader public, people will begin to recognize the existence and value of our field. The lack of news about groundbreaking research raises the concern that communication studies may not be achieving significant qualitative growth.

Where are the Great “Old” Studies?

As a discipline progresses over time, the pivotal studies that drive this advancement—those that serve as milestones by elevating research to new levels—gain widespread recognition and appreciation from scholars. Over time, these foundational works become known as “the classics” within the field. In our field, it is not only rare to hear news about groundbreaking new studies, but also difficult to identify classic works. During the past two years, ACR published two special issues: Hidden Gems in Communication Studies (Carpenter, 2023) and Hidden Gems in Media Studies (Chung, 2024). This special issue invited leading scholars in our field to introduce significant yet underrecognized studies—works that could be considered classics but remain relatively unknown to researchers. Among the 22 hidden gem articles introduced in the two series, only seven were published in media and communication journals. The fact that many communication researchers, when asked to think of classic studies, tend to recall works from adjacent disciplines rather than from our own field gives us much to reflect on.

Of course, there are seminal studies that served as the foundation for major theories in media and communication. These studies are significant in that they introduced new concepts and explanations with fresh imagination. However, such ideas typically gain systematic structure and academic legitimacy as they are further developed by subsequent rigorous studies and thorough empirical testing, ultimately becoming established theories. Do we have such classic, milestone studies in our field? If such studies exist, are they widely recognized and appreciated by many researchers? Probably not. The scarcity of such classic and milestone studies in the field of communication raises doubts about whether our discipline is truly progressing and evolving as “science.”

Are Communication Theories Evolving?

Another reason for skepticism about the progress of communication studies is the lack of evolution in its theories. No theory can be perfect, and thus, all theories are expected to evolve. Scientific theories evolve by self-correction, progressing toward more advanced and refined forms. At times, theories encounter irrefutable falsifications, bringing their lives as a theory to an

end. The death of a theory, unable to withstand falsification, can also be considered progress in the advancement of knowledge. Newton’s theory of gravity evolved by negating itself through Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which in turn evolved into the theory of general relativity. The evolution of theories is not a spontaneous process but rather the result of collective efforts by researchers to refine, elaborate, and revise them.

The process of theory evolution can be easily observed in the social sciences as well. When Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) first proposed the theory of cognitive dissonance, it was a very simple model suggesting that counterattitudinal behaviors influence attitudes through cognitive dissonance. However, as numerous hypotheses were later proposed, debated, and tested, up to eight mediating variables between counterattitudinal behavior and attitudes were identified and validated (Cooper & Fazio, 1984). This process ultimately refined the model into a highly sophisticated theory.

Choice shift and group polarization (Friedkin, 1999, for a review) also serve as excellent examples of theory evolution. This theory began when Stoner (1968) serendipitously discovered that in decision-making scenarios involving risk, group decisions tend to shift not toward the average of individual opinions but rather toward more risktaking positions. Subsequent research revealed that group decision-making does not necessarily make opinions more risk-taking but rather intensifies initial opinions, leading to greater group polarization (Myers & Arenson, 1972; Myers & Lamm, 1975). Moscovici et al. (1972) discovered that these group polarization processes apply not only to individual opinions about risk-taking but also to attitudes on a wide range of issues. These works uncovered group-polarization processes and refined the model, and stand as a milestone in the evolutionary process of this theory.

Do the theories in our field demonstrate such evolutionary processes? Let us examine the thirdperson effect as an example. The third-person effect theory was first introduced as an idea by Davison in 1983 in Public Opinion Quarterly. Later in 1988, Cohen, Mutz, Price, and Gunter published a systematic test of this idea in the same journal, bringing it to the attention of many researchers. Subsequently, numerous studies on this theory were conducted and published, followed by a wave of further research over time.¹ In 2008, the third-person effect was ranked fifth on a list of “most popular theories” in 21st century communication research (Gunther et al., 2008). Research on the third-person effect peaked between 2006 and 2010, after which the number of published articles began to decline (see footnote 1). This decrease could indicate that the theoretical explanations have been sufficiently developed, leading to the establishment of a welldefined theory. Alternatively, it might suggest that the theory has reached the limits of its explanatory power and began to lose scholarly attention. In this regard, Shen et al. (2018) argue: “the TPP literature largely remains as a disentangled puzzle” (p. 2). According to this claim, despite numerous studies conducted over the past 30 years, the theory has failed to achieve progress through refinement and expansion.

The third-person effect theory consists of two main hypotheses. The first is the perceptual hypothesis, which concerns the gap between perceived media influence on others and on oneself. The second is the behavioral hypothesis, which posits that this perceptual gap influences attitudes or behaviors. Regarding the perceptual hypothesis, there was a debate over whether this perceptual gap is a form of optimistic bias (Gunther & Mundy,1993) or not (Wei et al., 2007). However, the issue remains unresolved and lacks clear conclusions.

The behavioral hypothesis has faced several critiques regarding the methods used to test the hypothesis (Chung & Moon, 2016; Schmierbach et al., 2008). However, there remains no clear consensus on which methods are most appropriate. Additionally, the academic community has yet to agree on the validity of the behavioral hypothesis itself (Chung & Moon, 2016). This lack of consensus stems from insufficient collective efforts to resolve these debates. Meanwhile, as leading researchers in third-person effect studies, Gunther and Storey (2003) proposed the Influence of Presumed Influence (IPI) model, describing it as “[a] more general model with broader application than TPE” (p. 201). Yet, this proposal was made without thorough evaluation of the existing third-person effect theory. If it is indeed a more generalized theory, it could certainly be regarded as theoretical progress—positioning the original third-person effect theory as the one possible instantiation of IPI, applicable only under specific conditions. In response, Sun (2012) argued that the third-person effect theory and the IPI model are incompatible and mutually exclusive frameworks, directly challenging Gunther’s assertion.

Despite these debates, discussions aimed at further developing these theories have been scarce since then. Both the third-person effect theory and the IPI model continue to be widely used with little critique or debate. Examining the progression of research on the third-person effect theory reveals a lack of debate, falsification, refinement, or confirmation processes essential to theoretical development. Consequently, the theory has stagnated, failing to evolve as it should and contributing to increased theoretical confusion.

The spiral of silence theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974)—the assertion that individuals are less likely to express their opinions publicly if they believe their views are in the minority out of fear of social isolation— is also one of the main theories in media studies. A search in the Communication & Mass Media Complete database for academic papers with “spiral of silence” in the title revealed a total of 274 papers, which is more than those related to the third-person effect theory.² Despite decades of scholarly attention and numerous empirical studies, is the spiral of silence theory evolving? Has the original model become more refined? Have researchers’ confidence in this model increased over time? Probably not.

In the spiral of silence theory, the fear of isolation plays a pivotal role as a mediating variable. Numerous studies have shown that fear of isolation decreases individuals’ willingness to express their opinions. However, existing research has revealed that fear of isolation has been measured in highly inconsistent ways (Hayes et al., 2013). Furthermore, many studies have assessed fear of isolation not as a state-based variable capable of functioning as a mediator, but rather as a stable characteristic of the individual across various situations (Wu & Atkin, 2018). If such issues exist in the measurement of fear of isolation, previous research findings will need to be reevaluated. Katz and Fialkoff (2017) argued that the spiral of silence should be considered one of the concepts that ought to be retired from the field of communication studies. However, the researchers who originally proposed this theory do not appear to have engaged in self-reflection, nor has there been rigorous debate regarding its validity. Consequently, the evolution of the theory also seems to have stalled.

Suggestions for the Progress of Communication Studies

Communication studies have undoubtedly experienced significant quantitative growth, yet it is challenging to assert that the field is truly progressing in a qualitative sense. While the volume of published papers has increased substantially, questions persist whether the research outcomes are having a significant impact within academia or broader societal contexts. Collective efforts are necessary to transform this quantitative growth into qualitative advancement. To achieve this, I would like to propose a few recommendations.

In Conclusion

Upon assuming the role of Editor-in-Chief of ACR, I outlined the journal’s direction of activities in Editor’s Note of the first issue published in April 2021 as follows:

[I]t is doubtful whether our understanding of communication and media at the collective level has deepened and widened as the amount of knowledge has increased. As individual and fragmented knowledge increases, what is more needed is to synthesize such particular pieces of knowledge, resolve discrepancies among findings and claims, and develop comprehensive theoretical frameworks to cover a wide range of phenomena. Such a process also involves the expansion, modification, or falsification of existing theories, which is an evolutionary process of theory development (Kuhn, 1970). Synthesizing fragmentary knowledge and making advances in theory development do not result from individual effects but rather collective efforts such as dialogue, collaboration, and debates. One of the main functions of academic journals is facilitating dialogue and debates among different ideas. ACR intends to make such an effort. ACR will organize special forums to discuss notable findings, claims, and theories and publish the outcomes of the forums. (Chung, 2021, p. 6)

Over the past four years, we have published three special issues and one forum to foster dialogue and debates among diverse ideas. However, I deeply regret that we were unable to create a broader, deeper, and more intense platform for academic debate. I hope the next ACR editorial board will prioritize identifying and recognizing new and outstanding research and further open up meaningful platforms for debate to further advance the field of communication studies.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the many authors who submitted their papers, the reviewers who evaluated them, the editors who collaborated, the managing editors who corresponded with authors and publishers, and the Korean Society for Journalism and Communication Studies for their financial support of the journal over the past four years.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.