In 1996 when Argenti wrote his “Corporate Communication as a
Discipline” article, he was accurately describing one of the problems with
creating a new academic discipline. This problem, which apparently continues
today because the author of our textbook, Joep Cornelissen, says that corporate
communication is still not fully understood. Argenti also has a corporate
communication textbook (6th edition; copyright 2013) in which he
speaks with a voice that assumes the discipline has been established and is
thriving. Given that Argenti was the first to offer a definition of corporate
communication in an academic journal, this stance is not surprising. (BTW: I
choose the Cornelissen over the Argenti because the Argenti costs $125!). But
common to both textbooks is the emphasis on the practical versus research
(theoretical) perspectives about communication.
Communication (wherever it’s located in academia or
industry) has long been viewed as a practical discipline, mainly, I think,
because the instruction in communication was always focused on how to
communicate effectively. I’m always bothered by the practical versus the
theoretical (research) perspective because it suggests that practical does not
have a theoretical function. Many people regard communication instruction as
the “how to” while the content function (research, theory) as the “how to
think.” I’ve thought about this problem quite a bit because my own field,
Technical Communication, continues to fight this battle, as you all will see
during the second half of the semester. I’m continually conflicted with this
battle because one piece of advice I give to students (whether they are English
or Technical Communication majors) is that they have to find the industry in
which they want to work and learn its ways of being. If someone wants to write
instructions for a living, for example, the software industry is an ideal
choice. Does this advice suggest that I am separating practical from
theoretical? Am I suggesting that the software industry is the theoretical and
communication is the practical? I don’t think I am because writing instructions
requires theoretical perspectives themselves in addition to the software
theoretical perspectives. One would have to know both.
I’m a little bothered by Cornelissen’s voice in the first
two chapters. He seems to have taken on what I think of as the distanced
textbook voice, presenting information as if it is neutral or objective. At one
time, he even cites Van Riel who defined corporate communication as the
“instrument of communication.” In my field, we discuss the
“instrumentalization” of communication; the term, “instrumental,” objectifies
communication as if it can be separated from its context. His discussion about
the history of communication as well as his argument for a more integrated
approach to communication in organizations lacks a discussion of ethics. Given
the copyright (2014), I expected to read something that suggests that the
recessed economy and bloated CEO incomes are problematic, separating, I think, a
discussion about communication and context. Is it possible to talk about
mission, identity, reputation, and strategies without considering the public
view of corporations, especially after taxpayers footed the bill for the
bailout in 2008. I’m curious to see how you all read his discussion.
