1 page summarizing work - for Essays Guru

assessing communication in practice. Finally, the axioms can be used as a frame for

recommending, reinforcing, or teaching (Condit, 2009) communication behaviors.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our alternative question uses the term ensure, and we are well aware the

problems this word imposes on our recommendation. Nothing we do will be a guarantee

that the centrality of communication will be fully understood and appreciated by those

outside the discipline. By building a common framework with the public, we will be adapting

our message to the audience. By providing better ways of assessing behavior, we hold true to

our ontological focus on interaction. Thus, our discipline will hold true to itself, which is

essential for communication research to have a positive effect on communication practice.

References

Condit, C. M. (2009). You can’t study and improve communication with a telescope.

Communication Monographs, 76, 3�12. Eisenberg, E. M., Goodall, Jr., J. L., & Trethewey, A. (2010). Organizational communication:

Balancing creativity and constraint (6th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Frey, L. R. (2009). What a difference more difference-making communication scholarship might

make: Making a difference from and through communication research. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 37, 205�215. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2000). Management of organizational behavior:

Leading human resources (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Seeger, M. (2009). Does communication research make a difference: Reconsidering the impact of

our work. Communication Monographs, 76, 12�19.

Wikipedia as Public Scholarship: Communicating Our Impact Online1

Elizabeth K. Rush & Sarah J. Tracy

To contribute to the forum asking ‘‘Has Communication Research Made a Difference?,’’

this essay examines whether communication scholarship makes a difference (a) to those

Elizabeth K. Rush (M.A., Arizona State University, 2010) is a doctoral student at the University of Colorado at

Boulder and an Affiliated Research Associate for the Project for Wellness and Work-Life in The Hugh Downs

School of Human Communication at Arizona State University. Sarah J. Tracy (Ph.D., University of Colorado at

Boulder, 2000) is an Associate Professor, Director of the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program, and Director of The

Project for Wellness and Work-Life in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State

University. Correspondence to: Elizabeth K. Rush, Department of Communication, University of Colorado at

Boulder, 270 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Wikipedia as Public Scholarship 309

who search for information online, (b) in the sense that a primary way our research can

make a difference is through its accessibility, and (c) by using the criteria of its presence

(or absence) on Wikipedia. In this essay, we reason that Wikipedia is a useful benchmark

for online accessibility of public scholarship in that it provides immediate, freely available

information to today’s diverse global public seeking online answers to questions and relief

from problems.

Keywords: Public Scholarship; Wikipedia; Communication Research

We attend to the question, ‘‘Has Communication Research Made a Difference?,’’ by

examining our disciplinary research presence on Wikipedia*the non-profit, web- based encyclopedia that allows anyone with an Internet connection to write, edit, and

contribute. Wikipedia is the sixth most frequently used website worldwide and the

only not-for-profit top 10 site, situated behind big names like Google, Facebook, and

YouTube (Alexa: The Web Information Company, 2009). Its growth can be attributed

to Wikipedia’s optimized search position in Google, causing Wikipedia to regularly

show up in the top 5�10 search results (Metz, 2009). Clearly, when journalists, researchers, students, employees, retirees, or children search for information,

Wikipedia is one of the first accessible sources.

We recognize that using the benchmark of Wiki-(Hawaiian for ‘‘quick’’)-pedia may

be controversial. A search through higher education journals as well as our own

CRTNET listserv indicates that many scholars criticize Wikipedia, question its

reliability, and connect its use to lazy undergraduates unwilling to venture into the

library for primary sources (Cummings, 2009). In the mean time, the use of

Wikipedia continues to soar for everyday web users, journalists, students, and

academics alike (Kittur, Chi, & Suh, 2009; Lih, 2004; Prescott, 2006). As of December

5, 2009, Wikipedia hosted more than 3.1 million articles in English. In 2008, 12% of

the entries were on topics associated with society and social sciences, an 83% jump

since 2006 (Kittur et al., 2009).

As Condit (2009) noted in her essay in this forum, ‘‘Communication theory only

changes the world by changing how people communicate, and that can be done

primarily by teaching millions of people how to communicate better’’ (p. 8). We

believe Wikipedia grants such opportunities as it serves as a ‘‘global community of

passionate scribes’’ (Lih, 2009, p. 217), providing a venue to reach audiences beyond

the classroom and library*to the millions worldwide who seek out knowledge from their homes, workplaces, community centers, coffee shops, and iPods. Even critics of

Wikipedia admit that this online resource is a helpful placeholder for bibliographic

information, quickly leading users to scholarly references. Thus, we sought to find

out how communication research fared on this popular website. All searches and

references to content were conducted in December 2009.

We began our investigation by searching Wikipedia with the entries of ‘‘commu-

nication,’’ ‘‘communication studies,’’ and ‘‘communication theory.’’ The ‘‘commu-

nication’’ entry displayed an information-transmission definition saying, among

310 E. K. Rush & S. J. Tracy

other things, that, ‘‘Communication is a process whereby information is enclosed in a

package and is channeled and imparted by a sender to a receiver via some medium’’

(Wikipedia, 2009a). While this transmission model is certainly present in our

textbooks (Griffin, 2008; Littlejohn & Foss, 2008; Trenholm, 2007), contemporary

conceptualizations include social constructionist, ritual, constitutive, and transac-

tional approaches. These more complex definitions were included on Wikipedia’s

‘‘communication theory’’ entry*a search term that is more likely to be used by students and academics than practitioners and journalists (Wikipedia, 2009d).

Someone reading only the ‘‘communication’’ entry, however, would not discover that

communication is as much about meaning, interaction, culture, and community as it

is about the effective transmission of dyadic messages.

The ‘‘communication studies’’ Wikipedia entry overviewed the discipline, various

topic areas, and our history through the 1980s (Wikipedia, 2009c). However, the

field’s most contemporary research was missing, and readers could easily assume the

communication discipline has stagnated in the last 30 years. Additionally, the site

characterized communication studies as a field marked by ‘‘intellectual incoherence’’

and ‘‘confusion about what does and does not constitute communication.’’ The entry

claimed that ‘‘ongoing debates’’ exist about whether communication is ‘‘a discipline, a

field, or simply a topic.’’ Nothing was mentioned about the expertise of commu-

nication researchers or the various ways a communication degree is useful in multiple

careers, including those of the rich and famous noted by Frey (2009) in his earlier

forum essay.

What did Wikipedia have to say in terms of specific communication research areas?

To interrogate this question, we chose several exemplar topics that were convincingly

demonstrated by the original authors of this forum to make a difference: (a) social

skills, (b) communication apprehension, and (c) diffusion of innovations. Hum-

mert’s essay (2009) offered the work of Segrin and co-authors on social skills as an

example of communication research with real effects at the micro level (Segrin &

Flora, 2000). The ‘‘social skills’’ Wikipedia entry focused solely on children’s social

skills and behavioral therapy (Wikipedia, 2009j). Missing was Segrin’s research about

the connection of social skills to depression, loneliness, and anxiety among people of

all ages. Segrin’s work was also absent on Wikipedia’s ‘‘social anxiety’’ entry*a search term likely to be used by those experiencing depression (Wikipedia, 2009i).

Next we investigated McCroskey’s communication apprehension (CA) theory,

cited by Seeger (2009) as being ‘‘featured in virtually all’’ (p. 14) introductory

communication and courses. Despite its prominence in our curricula, the CA

Wikipedia entry was labeled by the Wikipedia staff as an ‘‘orphan, as few or no other

articles link to it’’ (Wikipedia, 2009b). The site offered a short definition, claimed that

CA is a problem in elementary school classrooms, and briefly listed causes,

influencing factors, and prevention and treatment. McCroskey’s extensive research

(McCroskey, 1970; McCroskey, 1997; McCroskey & Andersen, 1976; Toale &

McCroskey, 2001) was absent from the references.

Similar to the social skills entry, a reader of the communication apprehension page

would likely assume that CA only pertains to young children, despite the wealth of

Wikipedia as Public Scholarship 311

communication research that indicates CA’s ubiquitous role beyond adolescence.

Adults seeking aid could easily believe our field lacks solutions to problems associated

with CA or social skills. Furthermore, journalists pursuing stories on these topics

would likely contact disciplinary societies in psychology or education, rather than

communication, in order to find expert testimonies.

Last, we analyzed the book and theories of Diffusion of Innovations by Everett

Rogers, cited by Seeger (2009) as an exemplar of difference making research. First

published in 1962 and now in its fifth edition (2003), Google Scholar estimates that

this text has been cited 25,944 times, mirroring the Institute for Scientific

Information’s awarding it with a Citation Classic award in 1990 (Rogers, 2003).

When we searched for ‘‘diffusion of innovations,’’ an eloquent Wikipedia entry

appeared as the first hit on Google (Wikipedia, 2009f ). Rogers’ name and work were

prominent, and the entry offered easily comprehendible diagrams, definitions, and

summaries from his text. Even when searching via Google for just the term

‘‘innovation,’’ the Wikipedia page came up first (Wikipedia, 2009h), and its fifth

section was dedicated to diffusion of innovations, which was hyper-linked to the

‘‘diffusion of innovations’’ site featuring Rogers. The Wikipedia entries make this

information instantly and freely available to a range of people, therefore magnifying

its impact.

So, where do we go from this brief analysis of the presence of communication

research on Wikipedia? Wikipedia provides an immediate, direct, and relatively

inexpensive route for communication research to make a difference. However, if

Wikipedia is a benchmark, communication research does not make nearly the

difference that it could. We are not suggesting that public scholarship is a quick and

easy fix, or that missing data on Wikipedia is the individual fault of specific scholars.

Indeed, we have personally learned that updating Wikipedia takes time and practice.

However, we provide some ideas about how to improve our Wikipedia presence.

As noted, anyone*scholars, students, NCA staff and leadership, or editorial board members*can add a new topic to Wikipedia or enhance an existing page. Instructions are available through Wikipedia, YouTube, and printed volumes (Ayers,

2008). Entries must be ‘‘notable’’*meaning that the person, topic, theory, or idea must reference multiple secondary sources, including major academic journals or the

mainstream media. Wikipedia discourages original research essays and entries

featuring not yet notable concepts or people. Entries are organized by topic and

showcase the topic’s different perspectives, sources, and constructions.

Updating Wikipedia could be integrated as a form of public scholarship into

various aspects of our (a) research, (b) teaching, and (c) service. Scholars could

submit or add to a Wikipedia page that is connected to journal articles. Authors in

the journal RNA Biology are now required to submit a Wikipedia entry that the

journal then peer reviews and publishes to Wikipedia (Butler, 2008). The possibilities

for broader access and impact could be substantial if the communication discipline

followed a similar practice.

We can also incorporate Wikipedia into our undergraduate and graduate courses.

At Arizona State University, we regularly ask graduate students to augment Wikipedia

312 E. K. Rush & S. J. Tracy

sites on seminar topics. Such an assignment*especially if given to those new to research*has the effect of simultaneously illustrating the potential reliability problems with Wikipedia while demonstrating that anyone with access to the

Internet and secondary sources can contribute to knowledge.

Finally, we urge our professional association staff and leadership to update and

enlarge entries such as ‘‘communication,’’ ‘‘communication studies,’’ and their own

association pages. Interest groups in our professional organizations could appoint

service positions for scholars to add or update entries on their division members’

research. Such an effort could be especially significant if our communication research

was incorporated within Wikipedia entries that speak to commonly searched-for

problems like ‘‘communication anxiety,’’ ‘‘divorce,’’ ‘‘child abuse,’’ ‘‘addiction,’’ or

‘‘racism.’’ Updating Wikipedia could also be a commitment of individual departments

or universities seeking ways to become more entrenched in public scholarship.

As a part of our own commitments along with other researchers in The Project for

Wellness and Work-Life (PWWL) at ASU, we have begun to contribute to Wikipedia

by adding our own and others’ scholarship, as well as website resources, to entries

such as: ‘‘workplace bullying’’ (Wikipedia, 2009l), ‘‘emotional labor’’ (Wikipedia,

2009g), ‘‘work-life balance’’ (Wikipedia, 2009k), and ‘‘crystallized self ’’ (Wikipedia,

2009e). Some entries are still considered ‘‘stubs’’ or ‘‘orphans,’’ whereas others are

more complex, heavily trafficked, and have led to interaction with journalists,

consultants, and potential research participants. At the least, our work to enhance

Wikipedia entries has provided a larger range of interested parties with references to

relevant scholarly sources, our website, and email addresses.

Of course, if we want our communication research to make a difference through its

public online accessibility, we must institute relevant structural motivations. Such

conversations are occurring across a number of disciplines. Waldrop (2008), for

instance, suggests that for physical scientists’ contributions to collaborative academic

wiki sites to be most effective, they must ‘‘crack the credit assignment problem, and

provide some ways for scientists’ efforts . . . to be identified, recognized, cited and shown to funding agencies and tenure committees’’ (2008, p. 25). Frey (2009) echoes

these structural needs in the communication discipline in his call in this very forum for

implementing difference-making standards for evaluating our research.

In conclusion, we share Seeger’s (2009) notion that research that makes a difference

‘‘shares the broad goals of addressing real problems in ways . . . that improve social conditions’’ (p. 15). When today’s diverse global public seek answers to questions and

relief from problems, they often turn to information most immediately and freely

available. By increasing our Wikipedia presence, communication scholars could more

significantly make a difference to those most needing our expertise. And we can begin

to immediately do so*one entry at a time.

Note

[1] This essay is part of a joint Communication Monographs and Journal of Applied

Communication Research special project titled, ‘‘Has Communication Research Made a

Wikipedia as Public Scholarship 313

Difference?’’ The other responses to the joint forum can be found in Communication

Monographs, Volume 77, Issue 4 and the Journal of Applied Communication Research, Volume

38, Issue 3.

References

Alexa: The Web Information Company. (2009). Top sites: The top 500 sites on the web. Retrieved

from http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Ayers, P. (2008). How Wikipedia works: And how you can be a part of it. San Fransisco: No Starch

Press.

Butler, D. (2008, December 16). Publish in Wikipedia or perish: Journal to require authors to post

in free online encylopaedia. Nature News. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com.ezproxy1.

lib.asu.edu/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html

Condit, C. (2009). You can’t study and improve communication with a telescope. Communication

Monographs, 76, 3�12. Cummings, R. E. (2009). Lazy virtues: Teaching writing in the age of Wikipedia. Nashville: Vanderbilt

University Press.

Frey, L. R. (2009). What a difference more difference-making communication scholarship might

make: Making a difference from and through communication research. Journal of Applied

Communication, 37, 205�214. Griffin, E. (2008). A first look at communication theory (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hummert, M. L. (2009). Not just preaching to the choir: Communication scholarship does make a

difference. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 215�224. Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., & Suh, B. (2009, April 8). What’s in Wikipedia?: Mapping topics and conflict

using socially annotated category structure. In CHI 2009: Proceedings of the 27th international

conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1509�1512). Boston: ACM. Retrieved from http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/�echi/papers/2009-CHI2009/p1509.pdf

Lih, A. (2004, April 17). Wikipedia as participatory journalism: Reliable sources? Metrics for

evaluating collaborative media as a news resource. Paper presented at the meeting of the 5 th

International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://

jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf

Lih, A. (2009). The Wikipedia revolution: How a bunch of nobodies created the world’s greatest

encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Thomson Wadsworth.

McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37(4),

269�277. McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, and self-

perceived communication competence: Conceptualizations and perspectives. In Daly et al.

(Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, & communication apprehension

(pp. 75�108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McCroskey, J. C., & Andersen, J. F. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension

and academic achievement among college students. Human Communication Research, 3,

73�81. Metz, C. (2009, January 26). Google and the great Wikipedia feedback loop: The information

triumvirate monolith. Retrieved from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/26/britannica_

slaps_google/

Prescott, L. (2006, October 17). Wikipedia and academic research. Retrieved from http://

weblogs.hitwise.com/leeannprescott/2006/10/wikipedia_and_academic_researc.html

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

314 E. K. Rush & S. J. Tracy

Seeger, M. (2009). Does communication research make a difference: Reconsidering the impact of

our work. Communication Monographs, 76, 12�19. Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2000). Poor social skills are a vulnerability factor in the development or

psychosocial problems. Human Communication Research, 26, 489�514. Toale, M. C., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). Ethnocentrism and trait communication apprehension as

predictors of interethnic communication apprehension and use of relational maintenance

strategies in interethnic communication. Communication Quarterly, 49, 142�159. Trenholm, S. (2007). Thinking through communication: An introduction to the study of human

communication (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Waldrop, M. (2008, September 4). Wikiomics. Nature, 455(4), 22�25. Wikipedia. (2009a, December 3). Communication. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Communication

Wikipedia. (2009b, August 3). Communication apprehension. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Communication_Apprehension

Wikipedia. (2009c, December 3). Communication studies. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Communication_studies

Wikipedia. (2009d, November 24). Communication theory. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Communication_theory

Wikipedia. (2009e, December 8). Crystallized self. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Crystallized_self

Wikipedia. (2009f, November 28). Diffusion of innovation. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

Wikipedia. (2009g, December 10). Emotional labor. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Emotional_labor

Wikipedia. (2009h, December 4). Innovation. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Innovation

Wikipedia. (2009i, December 9). Social anxiety. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Social_anxiety

Wikipedia. (2009j, November 7). Social skills. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Social_skill

Wikipedia. (2009k, December 9). Work�life balance. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Work-life_balance

Wikipedia. (2009l, December 10). Workplace bullying. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Workplace_bullying

Wikipedia as Public Scholarship 315

Copyright of Journal of Applied Communication Research is the property of National Communication

Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.