International Journal of Communication 10(2016), 868–886 1932–8036/20160005

Communication Studies Without Frontiers?

Translation and Cosmopolitanism Across Academic Cultures

SILVIO WAISBORD1
George Washington University, USA

This article discusses the translatability of communication scholarship in the context of

globalized academia and research traditions. The notion of translation is useful to reflect
upon the globalization of academic cultures in communication studies. The globalization
of academic cultures confronts matters that translation studies have long recognized:
the clash between dogmatism and difference, language slips and gaps, and the
possibility of (mis)understandings. Although globalization invites scholars to broaden
perspectives, it does not necessarily promote the rapprochement of epistemic
communities in communication studies or the values of universal, de-Westernized, and
cosmopolitan scholarship. We may hope communication research includes a plurality of
global voices, but we still lack a clear path to overcome different understandings about
quality standards, conceptual languages, and epistemological premises.

Keywords: translation, communication studies, globalization, academic culture

Between Fragmentation and Globalization

The field of communication studies is pulled in different directions—with constant fragmentation

of research interests and increased connectivity among scholars around the world. Fragmentation
intensifies centrifugal tendencies that drive inward-looking scholarship and deepen divides in
communication research. Globalization, instead, sets conditions for bringing closer traditions of
communication scholarship and expanding intellectual horizons beyond geographical and academic
divisions.

Located at the crossroads of the humanities and the social sciences, the field developed as the
result of the layering of disciplinary traditions and lines of inquiry concerned with issues broadly identified
as “communication” in the United States (Cobley & Schultz, 2013; Craig & Muller, 2007; Park & Pooley,

Silvio Waisbord: [email protected]

Date submitted: 2014–11–19

1
I am grateful to Paolo Sigismondi and the three reviewers for their careful reading of previous drafts and
insightful comments and suggestions.

Copyright © 2016 (Silvio Waisbord). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial
No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at http://ijoc.org.
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 869

2008). The field evolved as the meeting point for myriad disciplines with different theoretical foundations
and methodological approaches. Given this genealogy, the field developed without a common theoretical
or conceptual core. It has been a decentered field, stringing together strands of scholarship with dissimilar
intellectual provenance. Consequently, the field consolidated as the result of the aggregation of academic
interests in communication broadly defined—interpersonal, organizational, mediated, media industries,
cultural studies, information studies, language, rhetoric, intercultural, journalism, and media and
information policies, among others. Different approaches to communication gradually consolidated in
areas of specialization isolated from one another. This situation has raised concerns on the grounds that
academic fields need well-defined, common theoretical questions and concepts as well as shared lines of
research (Eadie, 2011; Nordenstreng, 2011), and it has motivated efforts to find cross-cutting theoretical,
analytical, and methodological commonalities (Craig, 2007; Stanfill, 2012).

Fragmentation continues apace, adding more lines of research under the golf-size umbrella of
communication studies. The “mediation of everything” (Livingstone, 2009) in contemporary societies has
spawned new empirical questions related to communication. The ubiquity of digital information and
communication technologies in everyday life is the subject of attention from distant corners of academia.
Communication research is hardly contained by the conventional frontiers of the field as various disciplines
are interested in communication issues. Today, one finds research about communication in information
science and philosophy, rhetoric and sociology, public policy and political science, psychology and
anthropology, as well as numerous interdisciplinary fields. Therefore, calls to find common theoretical and
conceptual ground confront a challenging situation—an ever-expanding, shifting field of research.

Simultaneously, the field of communication has become increasingly globalized in recent decades.
Here globalization is understood as a process by which scholars and academic programs around the world
become increasingly interconnected. The consolidation of international institutional networks of
professional associations, conferences, research projects, journals, and books links communication
scholarship across geographical borders.

The notion of academic globalization has a positive ring. As Sonia Livingstone observes (2007),
“If internationalisation means exchanging knowledge and understanding across borders, then we would
probably all sign up to it, confident that national approaches or concerns could find their place within this
larger forum” (p. 274).

Globalization conjures ideals dear to the current academic imagination (Brennan, 1997; Cheah &
Robbins, 1998; Stevenson, 2012). It represents an invitation to join common spaces for the exchange of
ideas beyond geographical boundaries. It is associated with de-Westernization and cosmopolitanism, an
intellectual shift to abandon provincialism and embrace multiperspective analysis unshackled by the
limitations of geography, place, or identity (Waisbord, 2015). It dislocates geo-academic centrism by
opening up perspectives beyond various forms of provincialism (e.g., geographical, theoretical,
conceptual). It conveys the cultivation of an open intellectual mind. It dovetails with lofty educational
ideals of shaping global citizens who are cognizant and open to the world beyond their immediate
surroundings. It promises a way of formulating arguments unrestrained by national borders. It crystallizes
a brand of academic multiculturalism that both recognizes and capitalizes on geocultural differences to
870 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

expand intellectual horizons and enrich knowledge. In summary, academic globalization carries the
promise of “knowledge without frontiers.”

A more pessimistic position views academic globalization as the handmaiden of the global
imposition of Western academic cultures. Observers have warned of the dissolution of differences across
“national” scholarships under the influence of norms and epistemologies associated with mainstream U.S.
research. Globalization is viewed as the consolidation of multiple-tiered global academia featuring the
supremacy of U.S. institutions and academic cultures and scholarly cultures from other regions in a
subsidiary role (Heilbron, 2014). Within this line of argument about a hierarchical globalized academia,
others believe that, rather than the supremacy of American academia, it signals the hegemony of
theories, methodologies, and styles of thinking and writing identified with particular academic cultures of
the North Atlantic.

Here “academic cultures” are understood as prevalent ways in which excellence is commonly
defined and understood in scholarly work—ways of thinking, argumentation styles, writing, public
presentation (Becher & Trowler, 2001). In Ringer’s (1992) definition, academic culture is “the network of
interrelated and explicit beliefs about the academic practices of teaching, learning, and research, and
about the social significance of these practices” (p. 13).

What actually happens in the global encounters among academic cultures, however, is more
complex than what either position expects and concludes. Hopes for de-Westernization, cosmopolitanism,
and multiculturalism do not necessarily crystallize in unified values embraced by all. Wonderful wishes do
not directly translate into actual norms and practices. It is akin to hoping for world peace and mutual
understanding without considering humanity’s disgraceful historical record. Nor is it obvious that
globalization necessarily crystallizes in the global domination of U.S. or Western European academic
cultures and the displacement of intellectual styles indigenous to the global South.

In the case of communication studies, globalization accelerates the encountering of academic

cultures, but impact on scholarly standards and perspectives cannot be determined ex ante. It might
shape common definitions and expectations or, instead, deepen the Babelian condition of the field. It
might cultivate cosmopolitan virtues or reaffirm local cultures. Just because scholars are globally
networked, it does not follow that they share the same academic culture. Global connectivity neither leads
to academic cosmopolitanism nor homogenized scholarship with strong Western accents.

These questions need to be approached from a sociology of academic knowledge interested in

understanding the historical weight of intellectual traditions and institutional conditions underpinning
scholarship. The dynamics of globalization are only intelligible within the concrete conditions of knowledge
production—namely, the institutional architecture and intellectual legacies that shape academic cultures.

The Meanings of Translations

My interest in this article is to discuss the translatability of communication scholarship in the

context of globalized academia and research traditions with different historical trajectories and cultures.
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 871

The notion of translation is useful to reflect upon the globalization of academic cultures in communication
studies. Translation is a “trans-cultural event” (Snell-Hornby, 1995) that deals with dynamics and
challenges that are intrinsic to the crossing of scholarly cultures. The globalization of academic cultures
confronts matters that translation studies have long recognized: the clash between dogmatism and
difference, language slips and gaps, and the possibility of (mis)understandings.

Here it is important to clarify a basic point. The issue of translation in the globalization of
academic cultures is frequently identified with the domination of English as the lingua franca. English’s
linguistic hegemony is viewed as inevitable (Ammon & McConnell, 2002; Harris 2011; Hyland, 2009; Lillis
& Curry, 2010; Ljosland, 2007). Pressure on scholars to publish in English has been growing in Europe and
other regions.

The consequences of this process are mixed. Just as a common language eases scholarly
communication across borders, it also presents challenges. English’s global dominance gives advantages
to scholars who are comfortable in oral and written English and/or trained in English-language
universities. Therefore, if language is a site of struggle for meaning and power, the predominance of
English favors specific scholars and academic communities in the permanent battle for understanding,
persuasion, and visibility. It elevates English-language journals, particularly those with higher usage and
citation index, to a prominent global position. It narrows participation by marginalizing scholars who do
not master English. This is not just a matter affecting the access of individual scholars; it also minimizes
the global presence of thematic subjects and areas of the world with small numbers of English-speaking
academics.

Also, the domination of English raises concerns about the epistemological consequences for the
production of knowledge. Such concerns are premised on Whorf’s (1956) classic argument about the
particularities of languages grounding interpretations and conceptualizations of the world. One does not
need to embrace Heidegger’s petulant conviction that true philosophical thinking is only possible in
German (and ancient Greek) to recognize that intellectual work is inseparable from specific linguistic
biases. Concerns about an English-dominated global academia are rooted in the notion that the biases of
any language shape academic discourse. Bennett (2014) observes that the domination of English erodes
traditional academic scholarship and discourses translated for an English readership. Original writing
embedded in particular epistemologies and languages are adapted to the rhetorical patterns of English
(Castelló & Donahue, 2012; Garcia-Ramon, 2003; Helms, Lossau, & Oslender, 2005). All languages
present specific semantic boundaries that underpin forms of knowledge. The hope of perfect, univocal
translations inevitably confronts the knowledge biases of languages. Therefore, publishing in English is not
simply partaking in a globalized community of scholars; it also entails joining a linguistic community with
specific biases grounded in linguistic and sociogeographical issues (Chovanec, 2012). No doubt, the
consolidation of English as the lingua franca of the globalized academia determines unequal conditions of
access and lays the ground for certain, language-embedded forms of thinking about the world.

Translation, however, entails issues beyond strictly linguistic matters. To use Paul Ricoeur’s
(2006) distinction, translation involves linguistic translations (between languages) and ontological
translations (between humans). Here I am interested in translation in the second interpretation,
872 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

specifically applied to translation across academic cultures in communication studies. My concern is not
with semantics and the biases of languages, although this is, unquestionably, an important issue. Instead,
my interest is in the translatability of differences across intellectual traditions and the institutional logics of
academe. The globalization of communication studies implies not only the accommodation and adaptation
of linguistic communities to the expressions and rhetoric of English-speaking academics. It also
foregrounds the possibility of resonance and harmonization of intellectual work across geographic and
academic cultures.

Translation, as Walter Benjamin reminded us, involves contact between languages and cultures.
Because any form of knowledge is socially situated (Haraway, 1988), it is necessary to understand how
translation works across academic communities that hold varying understandings of scholarly excellence.
What is interesting is whether and how translation happens in ways that facilitate or impede
understanding and agreement. Translation implies a process by which differences are not resolved or
harmonized but, rather, are overcome around common agreement about meaning. As Ricoeur writes,
translation entails “the search for optimum commensurability between the distinctive resources of the
receiving language and those of the original language” (2006, p. 4). From this perspective, we should not
only approach globalization in terms of connecting scholars across geographical settings but consider
questions about the translatability of differences, expectations, and standards across academic cultures.

I propose to discuss the globalization of communication studies by examining questions about

translation. How does translation work across academic cultures? On whose cultural terms does
globalization happen? Are we moving from polyphonic discourse to streamlined speech in the field of
communication? Does globalization foster the dominance of specific epistemologies defined by geocultural
origin (the West) and academic cultures? Can we legitimately talk about academic Western culture in the
singular considering the long-standing presence of academic tribes characterized by different
epistemologies, theories, and methodologies (Becher & Trowler, 2001)? Does globalization propel the
hybridization or juxtaposition of academic traditions? Or does academic imperialism ride roughshod over
scholarly diversity?

My argument is as follows: Although globalization invites scholars to broaden perspectives, it

does not necessarily promote the rapprochement of epistemic communities in communication studies or
the values of universal, de-Westernized, and cosmopolitan scholarship. Scholars may be more attentive to
research and findings produced in other countries and regions. This opening, however, does not
necessarily entail a fundamental shift in the ontologies of their work—the understanding of
communication, the conception of the research subject, the definition of research problems, and
theoretical and methodological sympathies. Globalization prompts dialogue and collaboration among
specific cultures of communication scholarship, yet it might have negligible impact on interaction among
different epistemic communities. Globalization does not necessarily push scholars to engage in the politics
of translation across academic languages.
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 873

The National Roots of Academic Cultures

The sociology of academic knowledge has demonstrated that scholarly work is moored in specific
institutionalized contexts of production. From Karl Mannheim (1936) to Pierre Bourdieu (1984), this line of
research has shown how social positions and institutional logics shape knowledge and ideas. Scholars are
not free-floating producers of knowledge; they are members of specific academic tribes with their own
rules and cultures. Despite long-standing claims and aspirations for scientific work unencumbered by
social forces (society, politics, culture, or economics), context and social institutions do matter. Academic
knowledge is inseparable from society, organizations, and group cultures and dynamics. Academic fields,
to use Bourdieu’s terminology (1966; Bourdieu, Passeron, & Chamboredon, 1991), feature values,
symbolic capital, hierarchies, and institutions.

The social rootlessness of academic work has been extensively studied. In her groundbreaking
work, Knorr-Cetina (1999) called attention to the presence and power of “epistemic cultures” with specific
criteria and expectations about the production of knowledge and the definition of quality standards.
Epistemic cultures are defined by shared affinities and a general consensus about methods of inquiry,
theoretical canons, research practices, ontological premises, and writing styles. These factors define
disciplines and fields as communities of academic knowledge and result in culturally specific academic
discourses.

In her book How Professors Think, Michele Lamont (2009) offers further insights into the
organization and performance of academic cultures. From a Bourdieusian perspective, Lamont is
interested in understanding the formation and maintenance of fields of knowledge. She discusses rules
that regulate behavior about acceptable practices as well as collective imaginaries about desirable norms
and practices. Rules are not determined once and forever; rather, they are permanently re-created by
members. Just as other professions and occupations establish and maintain “social worlds” (Becker, 1982)
through regular interactions and social norms, scholars similarly renew and transmit principles of
interaction and organizational norms. Academic norms are cultivated through educational programs and
reinforced by customary practices such as conference presentations, publications, and funding proposals.
Norms and practice are used to define legitimate boundaries of excellence and set disciplines and fields
apart from one another. They provide the criteria for carving out fields of knowledge, claiming particular
status vis-à-vis others, and validating standards.

Within this line of inquiry, studies have called attention to the national character of disciplines
and theories. The main conclusion is that there are no universal disciplines and sciences. Academic
knowledge is not bounded by disciplinary assumptions and rules constantly performed by scholars.
Instead, academic cultures are potted in uniquely historical national traditions. This is reflected in
conventional references to, among others, American and Austrian economics, French and German
sociology, and British and American anthropology.

Adding a national or regional label to disciplines and theories is an old matter of contention in the
humanities and social sciences. For every Schumpeterian argument about the desirability of science
detached from locality and culture, alternative positions have suggested that knowledge is unavoidably
874 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

national. The latter argument has two versions. One calls attention to the national allegiances of
intellectuals who position their work in terms of specific national visions and politics. Emile Durkheim’s
dream of sociology as a French science for the Third Republic is an example of this tradition. This
conception views academic knowledge as impregnated by national sentiments and/or mobilized in the
service of national goals. A different version sees the nationalism of academic knowledge differently—as
inevitably embedded in local conditions—from the insertion of academics in public life to the conception of
the mission of universities, from dominant intellectual traditions to the ideal models of scholars.
Knowledge is not suspended nowhere, but it is grounded in a combination of institutional, national factors.

Explaining the national character of disciplines and theories has attracted a good deal of attention
(Harwood, 2004; Heilbron, 2008). The common question is understanding why epistemological
approaches and analytical frameworks gained ascendancy and remained dominant in specific countries—
such as behavioralism in the United States, semiology in France, empiricism in Britain, and system-
thinking in Germany. The literature has underscored the importance of educational ideologies; the position
of universities vis-à-vis politics, states, and markets; and the position of specific intellectual traditions in
countries and regions. Philosophies about the mission of education espoused by academic institutions and
institutionalized in educational policies and enforced by upper management shape scholarly work. Visions
of higher education related to public service, elitist callings, market considerations, and national Bildung
have influenced the evolution of academic cultures.

The relationship of universities vis-à-vis politics and commerce also has shaped academic
cultures. Proximity to politics or market actors, reflected in universities’ management, priorities, and
funding, permeate expectations about research and publication. When universities lack autonomy vis-à-vis
partisan and state politics or are closely linked to specific market actors, then the boundaries of academic
work are narrower and blurred. Nonscholarly considerations weigh heavily in hiring, tenure, curricula,
programs, and so on. Historically, the closeness between universities and state-building in European
countries shaped the dominant understanding of academic research (Lindenfeld, 1997; Rocke, 2001).
Links to the state, particularly in terms of specific policies or public service, influenced the purpose,
funding, and uses of scientific and intellectual work and employment opportunities.

Finally, the peculiar position of disciplines within universities and public life also influences
academic work. Disciplines and theories with prominent positions cast a wide shadow not only in specific
fields of knowledge but in society and politics. Examples are the prominent position of philosophy in
France, analytical philosophy in prewar Britain, and neoclassical economics in post-1970s United States.
Aside from defining the standards of legitimate knowledge within a discipline, they set research questions
and debates across the social sciences and humanities. Also, they are the intellectual homes of prominent
public academics and influential schools of thought.

The amalgamation of these factors has resulted in distinctive national academic cultures. In his
pioneering analysis, Galtung (1981) differentiates among Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic, and Nipponic academic
cultures characterized by different paradigms, theories, ontologies, and styles of intellectual production.
Recent works have also underscored the unique national characteristics of disciplines, such as economics
(Fourcade, 2009), sociology (Calhoun, 2007; Kumar, 2001), international relations (Breitenbauch, 2013;
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 875

Rosch, 2014), and anthropology (Barth, Gingrich, Parkin, & Silverman, 2005). Despite hopes for unified,
global sciences, disciplines exhibit specific characteristics that result from particular national
developments—the social position of universities and their relation to the state and the ascendancy of
certain intellectual traditions in public life.

A Field in the (Re)Making

A similar argument could be made about the field of communication. Although the global
dimensions of the field have not yet been fully mapped, existing studies suggest that national factors
determined the particular characteristics of communication research across countries and regions.

Doubtlessly, unique national factors played critical roles in the emergence and consolidation of
the field in the United States. Nowhere else do we find the confluence of intellectual and institutional
factors that defined the field’s research directions and analytical scaffolding, particularly during the
interwar years and after World War II. Intellectually, the field developed from the sedimentation of the
tradition of sociological studies on public opinion media effects coupled with growing interest in
information science and social psychology set the intellectual parameters of the field (Dennis & Wartella,
2013). Also, the combination of philanthropic and government interest in specific communication
questions shaped research agendas and charted analytical directions. As sponsors of landmark studies on
media effects and propaganda, they gave the field an initial push that left a long-lasting imprint (Simpson,
1994).

Because similar conditions were absent, the field of communication developed differently
elsewhere. Averbeck (2008) argues that the different historical evolution and roots of communication
studies in France and Germany explains the primary different theoretical paradigms and disciplinary
influences in each country. Whereas communication was initially aligned with culturalist and semiological
perspectives and information studies in France, it grew out of studies of public opinion and philosophy in
Germany (Löblich & Scheu, 2011). Other national histories draw similar conclusions about the particular
genealogies and combination of factors in the history of communication studies (Alsina & Jimenez, 2010;
First & Adoni, 2007).

Like the field of communication in general, particular areas of specialization developed differently,
too. The study of intercultural communication in France, Germany, and the United States reflected
distinctive intellectual debates and disciplinary traditions in each country (Averbeck-Lietz, 2013).
Significant differences are also found in the study of intercultural communication in the United States and
other countries (Asante, Miike, & Yin, 2013; Martin, Nakayama, & Carbaugh, 2011). Nor did organizational
communication develop along similar intellectual lines in the United States, France, and Germany (Cooren
& Grosjean, 2010; Schoeneborn & Wehmeier, 2013; Taylor, 2011). The study of organization
communication in Europe has not only a shorter history in Europe but different intellectual roots (Theis-
Berglmair, 2013). Likewise, the emergence of health communication at the crossroads of social
psychology, communication studies, and social marketing in the early 1970s was unique to the United
States (Kreps & Bonaguro, 2009).
876 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

Outside the West, the field of communication also had different historical trajectories and
intellectual progeny. Although it evolved similarly as an offshoot of various disciplines in the social
sciences and the humanities, nowhere did media effects and social psychology have as strong a presence
as they did in the United States. And the field developed in close contact with trends in communication
research and other disciplines in the United States and some European countries, notably France and the
United Kingdom. Cultures of communication research were not insular, but they have been connected to
intellectual trends in the West (see Wang, 2010).

Communication studies in the global South developed from the blend of local philosophical,
political, and religious traditions with influences from external intellectual trends. Although some scholars
remained convinced that the field largely reflected external paradigms and concerns, the field has not
been simply a projection of foreign paradigms. Exposure to and dialogue with Western research generated
hybridized local scholarship.

For example, communication studies in the Middle East have been located at the intersections of
the different influences by U.S. and Western European scholarship (Ayish, 2012). In Latin America, the
blend of indigenous traditions and historical conditions coupled with influences, originally, from continental
Marxism and French semiology, and, later, from British cultural studies, produced a distinctive current of
communication thought (Waisbord, 2014b). The Latin American school of communication attests to the
dynamic formation of academic cultures in which the transborder traffic of ideas is reinterpreted in light of
local contexts and indigenous intellectual traditions. In Africa, varied Western intellectual influences have
been reinterpreted in light of local developments and indigenous insights (Skjerkal, 2013; Tomaselli,
2012).

In summary, the field of communication developed differently across countries and regions. It
was embedded in different intellectual trajectories and the histories of the social sciences and the
humanities. The field has not only been characterized by theoretical and methodological pluralism, as in
the West (Levy & Gurevitch, 1993); it also has also comprised multiple analytical foci. The study of
communication has been associated with mass communication, media industries, media occupations,
interpersonal and mediated communication, information studies, cultural studies, and semiology.

The National in Communication Studies

Questions about the globalization of communication studies need to be placed in the context of
fragmented and national character of the field. What scenarios of translations are possible? If there is no
single common academic culture in communication studies, how is translation possible? If research
traditions are immersed in the particular national trajectories, what are the prospects for cosmopolitan
scholarship in communication studies? What is the “in-betweenness” among academic cultures, the place
where translation resides (Tymoczko, 2010)?

To address these questions, we need to be mindful of the national histories of communication

studies and the social sciences. Put in terms of a classic debate about the purpose of higher education in
the West, the Kantian ideal of cosmopolitan knowledge needs to be examined in the context of academic
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 877

cultures embedded in Humboldtian realities of national education and universities. It is not obvious that
the impact of globalization is similar across disciplines and countries. Neither cosmopolitan scholarship nor
the Americanization/homogenization of academic cultures is inevitable. The national character of academic
cultures acts as a buffer against global trends. It might reinforce inward-looking mind-sets unconcerned
with transnationalism or rebuff attempts to harmonize standards and rules identified with U.S. or
European academic cultures.

On this issue, recent studies about the impact of globalization of the social sciences draw
ambiguous conclusions. Some believe that the common use of English in international conferences and
top-tier journals resolves translation challenges by fiat rather than as the result of the negotiation of
meanings. Particular academic standards identified with U.S. academia become dominant due to several
factors: first-mover advantages, the sheer volume of academic production, and funding (Aalbers, 2004;
Bennett 2014; Jenkins, 2013; Paasi 2005). The establishment of a lingua franca forces global academic
cultures to conform to established norms and practices of U.S. scholarship (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley,
2009).

Yet globalization neither erodes national distinctiveness nor imposes American academic cultures.
The turn to globalized academia does not automatically lead to the adoption of common standards in
analytical frameworks, argumentation, styles of writing, and so on. Just because scholars are linked with
regional and international networks, it does not follow that academic cultures become diluted. The
strength of national factors explains long-term tendencies that precede the current push to
internationalization, such as the hybridization of theoretical frameworks as local academics adapt
“traveling theories” (Said, 1983) to domestic concerns and/or blend them with indigenous insights.
Consider the way British cultural studies was received and processed in the United States and other
countries (Straton & Ang, 1996), or the persistence of dissimilar approaches in health communication in
the global South (Obregón & Waisbord, 2012) despite the long-standing presence of social psychological
theories originated in the United States. These examples suggest that global connectivity among academic
cultures fosters unpredictable dynamics that result from blending and rearticulation of theories, concepts,
and methods. “Lost in translation” is always a possibility when theories leave their original home.

Early globalization of Western communication research met different reactions in the global
South. In Asia, whereas some scholars incorporated insights from foreign theories, others have argued for
the need to ground communication studies in indigenous paradigms, religions, and philosophies that
reflect local values and concerns (Chen & Miike 2006; Chen, Miyahara, & Kim, 2013; Hu, Zhang, & Ji,
2013; Miike, 2006). Similar reactions are found among communication scholars in Africa. Whereas some
incorporated theoretical frameworks and methodologies originally developed in the West, others urged to
embed communication studies in local and regional ethics (Ngomba, 2012; Nyamnjoh, 2005; see
Tomaselli, 2012).

In Latin America, the consumption of Western paradigms generated dissimilar reactions (Lander,
2000). The field did not hold all foreign paradigms equally suspicious in the name of preserving national
and regional intellectual purity. Western communication and social theory was not distrusted or
condemned in absolute terms. Rather, scholars selectively considered the suitability of theories and
878 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

questions for studying communication in the region. A line of argument has long questioned the
ideological premises of the behaviorist and social psychological approaches to communication studies
developed in the United States (Beltrán, 1975). This argument was originally grounded in the politics of
the late 1960s and early 1970s, a time when the critique of capitalism, imperialism, and ideology in
academic quarters spilled over the emergence of communication studies (Zermeño, 2012. Situated in
university campuses that rejected the ivory tower model of higher education, communication research was
conceived as part of the ideological battles in the region against dominant, administrative views of
communication studies. Instead, a different position was taken vis-à-vis other Western theories such as
European Marxism, French structuralism and semiology, and British cultural studies. These paradigms
were embraced because they shared local intellectual politics. Whereas Marxism and structuralism
resonated with critical approaches that shaped the field in the region, mainstream U.S. communication
scholarship was criticized for its individualistic and functionalist ontological premises that ignored power,
class, and geopolitics in global capitalism (Waisbord, 2014).

Past interactions between traveling research and local academic cultures offer no solid evidence
to conclude that increased connectivity leads to the unification of the field, the disappearance of diversity,
or the ascendancy of monocultural scholarship. A process of localization and adaptation of foreign theories
seems more likely than streamlined global research under the domination of Northern paradigms (Connell,
2014; Paradeise & Thoenig, 2013; Suomela-Salmi & Dervin, 2009).

Globalization does not pull academic cultures away from local dynamics. Scholarship remains
grounded in local academic cultures with particular expectations and codes. These are the “tribes” that
influence or ultimately make decisions about employment and tenure and provide intellectual recognition
and professional belonging. Academic cultures are nested in local institutions and power dynamics that are
not easily transformed by internationalization.

Despite calls for studying global issues, interest in specific subject matters remains attached to
particular development and problems in countries. This should not be surprising. Scholars, just like fellow
citizens, live in localized worlds with specific preoccupations and priorities. Research strongly drifts toward
the national even though globalization has penetrated academic structures. We live at a time when cross-
national comparative research has received attention (Esser & Hanitzsch, 2012), and the notion that “we
should be all comparativists” is appealing. Calls to “think global” and “de-Westernize” are common in the
literature (Waisbord & Mellado, 2014). Methodological nationalism is condemned for perpetuating narrow
national agendas that ignore planetary challenges and essentializing visions that step over
multiperspective and minority views.

Yet the national refuses to go away from research agendas. This is neither positive nor negative.
We should not fall into a maximalist position that believes that only global issues are worth studying or
that dismisses national cases as outdated, modernist leftovers in today’s global world. National studies can
be virtuous or problematic, depending on how they are approached and positioned in a body of literature.
They provide limited evidence for theory building and generalizability, but they might yield valuable
theoretical and conceptual insights. They might be embedded in false universalism and neglect of
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 879

historical and contextual factors; or, instead, they might motivate cross-national studies to assess the
applicability of conclusions to specific local or national cases.

The problem is not the focus on the national per se but, rather, the dissimilar presence of
national research agendas in the globalized academia. Certainly, globalization opens opportunities for
scholarship from the global South to gain broader attention and to engage in South-to-South dialogue.
However, it does not flatten inequalities in the position of various traditions and perspectives in social
research (Mosbah-Natanson & Gingras, 2014). Globalization further raises the international profile of
theories and questions that originated in the West. It catapults U.S. scholarship to a prominent position
and consolidates a transnational European field of research. Linguistic advantage coupled with the
strength of existing professional and research networks reinforce the position of scholarship based in the
North Atlantic.

This situation expectedly favors specific national research agendas. It gives prominence to
thematic interests among U.S.-based and Europe-based scholars. To provide examples close to my
expertise in the study of news and politics, interest in news coverage of election campaigns and war and
the reporting of Big Data in newsrooms have attracted a great deal of attention from U.S.-based
journalism and political communication scholars. Likewise, European researchers have paid close attention
to the impact of media systems and news content on trust and political knowledge as well as the
mediatization of politics. No question, these are important issues that deserve close inspection. However,
global attention to issues that are of interest to Western scholarship marginalizes questions that are
relevant in other regions—the complex relationships between journalism, religion, and ethnicity; media
clientelism; media and armed conflict; news and humanitarian crises; corruption in the news media; and
so forth. Therefore, the danger is that Western thematic preoccupations overshadow non-Western
questions in the globalized academia.

Translation and Cosmopolitanism

Recent trends suggest that the dynamics of internalization dovetails better with the forces of
specialization and fragmentation than unification in the field of communication. Various specializations
have become internationalized, although with a strong North Atlantic accent. Specialized journals across
communication areas (e.g., health communication, digital media, news/journalism and politics, media
industries and cultures, feminist media studies, public relations, language) have become more receptive to
research produced in different regions of the world. Also, increased interest in cross-national, comparative
studies has been visible within particular areas and divisions in the field (see Esser & Hanitzsch, 2012). It
is harder to find, however, a similar trend across theoretical, epistemological, and methodological
communities.

Translation studies gives us insights to explain this disparity. Translation demands commonalities
as well as a willingness to overcome differences. Thematic specializations share theoretical and empirical
questions and conceptual vocabulary that connects geographically dispersed scholars. These connections
facilitate translation—what Walter Benjamin (2012) called the interlaying of meaning among different
languages. To specialists, the appeal of globalization is obvious: It widens the pool of findings and
880 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

arguments around specific theoretical and empirical questions—news framing, the impact of information
campaigns on ideational factors, the dynamics of confirmation bias, the perpetuation of “echo chambers”
in information settings. It does not encourage, however, crossing academic cultures. Globalization does
not inevitably stimulate the sensibility of translation—doubting that meanings and affiliations are obvious
across cultures and occupying an in-between place to transcend difference.

Translation across disciplinary cultures of communication research is exceedingly more

complicated than across thematic specializations. The former are divided by conceptual terminology,
theoretical affiliations, epistemological premises, normative allegiances, and methodological diversity.
Lacking a common canon, these cultures are more resistant to cross-bridging scholarship. Translatability
demands, as Benjamin affirms, the kinship of languages. Translation assumes that differences can be
bridged by transplanting meaning across formal systems, whether linguistic systems or academic cultures.
It invites scholars to work in between traditions (Aalbers, 2013). Yet it is hard to envision how translating
works if the communities of communication research lack intellectual kinship. Without common elements,
it is hard to find ways to reconcile differences and develop common values. Specific cultures of
specialization are not obviously commensurable.

Increased global connectivity lays the institutional foundations for a globalized academic field. It
fosters comparative studies and cross-cultural exchanges and diversifies the analytical pool. These are not
insignificant outcomes considering that the field of communication historically developed in a limited
geographic area and drew from particular national experiences and questions. A globalized field, however,
does not inevitably lead to a shift in intellectual temperaments anchored in disciplinary positions and
national academic cultures. The pool of available data grows more diverse, at least in English-language
publications and conferences. Yet it does not inevitably stimulate interest in translating differences across
epistemological branches and parallel lines of communication research. Bridge crossing might be
desirable, but it will not gain much traction as long as scholars are, at best, mildly interested in finding
intellectual kinship across difference. Without kinship, there is no translation—no search for commonness
among difference.

Finding and nurturing intellectual kinship requires openness to others. A dialogue between self
and stranger, translation requires mutual curiosity and the welcoming of differences, as Ricoeur (2006)
points out. It demands that participants are willing to engage with others and be open to mutual
understanding. Interscholarly interest, cultural open-mindedness, and receptiveness to difference are
basic conditions for translation across academic cultures.

This understanding of translation recalls the ideal of cosmopolitanism. Understood as the

possibility of imagining oneself as part of a broader community, cosmopolitanism entails unshackling
minds from the harnesses of tradition and provincialism. A cosmopolitan perspective is characterized by
reaching out to different others guided by the values of sympathy and togetherness. It is aimed at
nurturing common bonds by recognizing differences and shared conditions. Intransigent minds do not
make good cosmopolitan academic citizens. Translation is a mode to articulate and express reciprocal
relationship across difference that requires the kind of inquisitive, decentering, other-orientedness that
defines cosmopolitan scholarship.
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 881

Thus, translation and cosmopolitanism demand similar dispositions: recognizing and overcoming
difference. Neither one can be reduced to simply tolerating difference or acknowledging the diversity of
languages and academic cultures. Accepting different academic cultures based on national variables or
disciplinary foundations should not be seen as translation. Translation demands a cosmopolitan eagerness
to cultivate zones of contact and to engage with others and supersede cultural differences.

Conclusion

The global mobility and connectivity of scholars should not be mistaken for bridging disciplinary
and ontological differences. Rose-tinted glasses are not particularly useful to get a good view of the
impact of academic globalization on the field of communication. Panglossian idealism and cursory
observations about cosmopolitan scholarship are of little help if they are not complemented with insights
about how to overcome ingrained insularity and academic nativism.

Globalization makes it possible for ideas and scholarly cultures to meet (Duszak, 1997), but it
does not necessarily adumbrate postnational sensibilities. Transgeographical connectedness alone does
not spearhead the kind of transformations in academic cultures identified with cosmopolitanism, such as
appreciating multiperspective scholarship or reassessing the nationalistic assumptions of research
paradigms. The field can become internationalized without engendering perspectives that transcend
geographical, disciplinary, or epistemological divisions (see Hafez, 2013). Just as it does not dislocate
nation-centered academic cultures, globalization does not inevitably forge a cosmopolitan sensibility.
Actually, it drives mixed reactions. It might prompt nativist opposition against academic
internationalization and essentialist calls for national thought. Or it might have limited impact on the field,
drawing interest mostly from quarters already interested in international/intercultural scholarship.

We may hope communication research includes a plurality of global voices, but we still lack a
clear path to overcome different understandings about quality standards, conceptual languages, and
epistemological premises. Translation demands assessing whether and how particular differences across
academic cultures can be negotiated. Or, perhaps the field is bound to be the home of multiple tongues, a
situation which, to borrow Derrida’s (1991) observation about the Tower of Babel, limits the possibility of
translation. Like the post-Babelian world, an open academic field with scattered, multivocal specializations
makes common understanding and unified meaning impossible.

The question is whether academic interest in promoting dialogue across intellectual heteroglossia
is as strong as the desire to live comfortably within homophonic academic tribes. If the way the field
historically developed foreshadows the future, then globalization will continue to facilitate conversations
among specialized academic cultures around the world, but it might not prompt wide enthusiasm in
transcending difference. In a field brimming with academic diversity cultures, difference may be tolerated,
yet toleration might not imply actual engagement with difference and the politics of translation.
882 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

References

Aalbers, M. B. (2004). Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: A non-Anglo-

American view on publications, referees and language. Area, 36(3), 319–322.

Aalbers, M. B. (2013). What if we all work in between? Notes on the geography of geographical knowledge
production and consumption. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(2), 209–212.

Alsina, M. R., & Jiménez, L. G. (2010). Communication theory and research in Spain: A paradigmatic case
of a socio-humanistic discipline. European Journal of Communication, 25(3), 273–286.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Practices of publishing in English. London, UK:
Routledge.

Ammon, U., & McConnell, G. D. (2002). English as an academic language in Europe. Frankfurt am Main,
Germany: Lang.

Asante, M. K., Miike, Y., & Yin, J. (Eds.). (2013). The global intercultural communication reader. London,
UK: Routledge.

Averbeck S. (2008). Comparative history of communication studies: France and Germany. Open
Communication Journal, 2(1), 1–13.

Averbeck-Lietz, S. (2013). Pathways of intercultural communication research: How different research

communities of communication scholars deal with the topic of intercultural communication.
Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 38(3), 289–313.

Ayish, M. (2012). Cultural studies in Arab world academic communication programmes: The battle for
survival. In T. Sabry (Ed.), Arab cultural studies: Mapping the field (pp. 79–100). London, UK:
I. B. Tauris.

Barth, F., Gingrich, A., Parkin, R., & Silverman, S. (2005). One discipline, four ways: British, German,
French, and American anthropology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of
disciplines. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Becker, H. S. (1982). Art worlds. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Beigel, F. (Ed.). (2012). Academic dependence and autonomy: Scientific research and higher education in
Chile and Argentina. International Sociology, 27(2), 196–198.

Beltrán, L. R. (1975). Research ideologies in conflict. Journal of Communication, 25(2), 187–193.

International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 883

Benjamin, W. (2012). The task of the translator: An introduction to the translation of Baudelaire’s
“tableaux parisiens” (H. Zohn, Trans.). In L. Venuti (Ed.), Translation studies reader (pp. 75–83).
New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1923)

Bennett, K. (Ed.). (2014). The semiperiphery of academic writing: Discourses, communities and practices.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Bourdieu, P. (1966). Champ intellectuel et projet créateur. Les temps modernes, 246, 865–906.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris, France: Minuit.

Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J. C., & Chamboredon, J. C. (1991). The craft of sociology (R. Nice, Trans.). New
York, NY: De Gruyter. (Original work published 1968)

Breitenbauch, H. (2013). International relations in France: Writing between discipline and state. London,
UK: Routledge.

Brennan, T. (1997). At home in the world: Cosmopolitanism now (Vol. 15). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Calhoun C. (Ed.). (2007). Sociology in America: A history. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Castelló, M., & Donahue, C. (Eds.). (2012). University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies.
Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Cheah, P., & Robbins, B. (Eds.). (1998). Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Chen, G. M., & Miike, Y. (2006). Ferment and future of communication studies in Asia: Chinese and
Japanese perspectives. China Media Research, 2(1), 1–12.

Chen, G. M., Miyahara, A., & Kim, M. S. (2013). East Asian communication studies. In P. Simonson (Ed.),
Handbook of communication history (pp. 467–481). London, UK: Routledge.

Chovanec, J. (2012). Written academic discourse in English: From local traditions to global outreach. Brno
Studies in English, 38(2), 5–16.

Cobley, P., & Schultz, P. J. (Eds.). (2013). Theories and models of communication (Vol. 1). Berlin,
Germany: De Gruyter.

Connell, R. (2014). Rethinking gender from the South. Feminist Studies, 40(3), 518–539.
884 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

Cooren, F., & Grosjean, S. (2010, November). Organizational communication in France: An overview of
current research. Management Communication Quarterly, 607–611.

Craig, R. T. (2007). Pragmatism in the field of communication theory. Communication Theory, 17(2), 125–
145.

Craig, R. T., & Muller, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Theorizing communication: Readings across traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dennis, E. E., & Wartella, E. A. (Eds.). (2013). American communication research: The remembered
history. London, UK: Routledge.

Derrida, J. (1991). A Derrida reader: Between the blinds. (P. Kamuf, Ed.). New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.

Duszak, A. (Ed.). (1997). Culture and styles of academic discourse (Vol. 104). Berlin, Germany: De
Gruyter.

Eadie, W. F. (2011). Stories we tell: Fragmentation and convergence in communication disciplinary

history. Review of Communication, 11(3), 161–176.

Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of comparative communication research. New
York, NY: Routledge.

First, A., & Adoni, H. (2007). The never-ending story: Structural dilemmas and changing solutions in the
communication field. Mass Communication and Society, 10(3), 251–273.

Fourcade, M. (2009). Economists and societies: Discipline and profession in the United States, Britain and
France, 1890–1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Galtung, J. (1981). Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic
and Nipponic approaches. Social Science Information/sur les sciences sociales, 20(6), 817–856.

Garcia-Ramon, M. D. (2003). Globalization and international geography: The questions of languages and
scholarly traditions. Progress in Human Geography, 27(1), 1–5.

Hafez, K. (2013). The methodology trap: Why media and communication studies are not really
international. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 38(3), 323–
329.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial
perspective, Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 885

Harris, S. (2011). The university in translation: Internationalizing higher education. New York, NY:
Bloomsbury.

Harwood, J. (2004). National differences in academic culture: Science in Germany and the United States
between the world wars. In C. Charles, J. Schriewer, & P. Wagner (Eds.), Transnational
intellectual networks: Forms of academic knowledge and the search for cultural identities (pp.
53–79). Berlin, Germany: Campus Verlag.

Heilbron, J. (2008). Qu’est-ce qu’une tradition nationale en sciences sociales? Revue d’histoire des
sciences humaines, 1(18), 3.

Heilbron, J. (2014). The social sciences as an emerging global field. Current Sociology, 62(5), 685–703.

Helms, G., Lossau, J., & Oslender, U. (2005). Einfach sprachlos but not simply speechless: Language(s),
thought and practice in the social sciences. Area, 37(3), 242–250.

Hu, Z., Zhang, L., & Ji, D. (2013). Globalization, social reform and the shifting paradigms of
communication studies in China. Media, Culture and Society, 35(1), 147–155.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

Jenkins, J. (2013). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic
English language policy. London, UK: Routledge.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How scientists make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Kreps, G. L., & Bonaguro, E. W. (2009). Health communication as applied communication inquiry. In L. R.
Frey and K. R. Cissna (Eds.), Routledge handbook of applied communication research (pp. 380–
404). London, UK: Routledge.

Kumar, K. (2001). Sociology and the Englishness of English social theory. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 41–
64.

Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lander, E. (2000). Eurocentrism and colonialism in Latin American social thought. Nepantla: Views From
South, 1(3), 519–532.

Levy, M. R., & Gurevitch, M. (1993). The future of the field. Journal of Communication, 43(3).

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of
publishing in English. London, UK: Routledge.
886 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

Lindenfeld, D. F. (1997). The practical imagination: The German sciences of state in the nineteenth
century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Livingstone, S. (2007). Internationalizing media and communication studies: Reflections on the

International Communication Association. Global Media and Communication, 3(3), 273–288.

Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008. Journal of
Communication, 59(1), 1–18.

Ljosland, R. (2007). English in Norwegian academia: A step towards diglossia? World Englishes, 26(4),
395–410.

Löblich, M., & Scheu, A. M. (2011). Writing the history of communication studies: A sociology of science
approach. Communication Theory, 21(1), 1–22.

Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. Hove, UK: International Library of Psychology.

Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Carbaugh, D. (2011). The history and development of the study of
intercultural communication and applied linguistics. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook
of language and intercultural communication (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.

Miike, Y. (2006). Non-Western theory in Western research? An Asiacentric agenda for Asian
communication studies. Review of Communication, 6(1–2), 4–31.

Mosbah-Natanson, S., & Gingras, Y. (2014). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a
quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences
(1980–2009). Current Sociology, 62(5), 626–646.

Ngomba, T. (2012). Circumnavigating de-Westernisation: Theoretical reflexivities in researching political

communication in Africa. Communication, 38(2), 164–180.

Nordenstreng, K. (2011). Lost in abundance? Reflections on disciplinarity. In B. Zelizer (Ed.), Making the
university matter (pp. 194–205). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nyamnjoh, F. B. (2005). Africa’s media: Democracy and the politics of belonging. London, UK: Zed Books.

Obregón, R., & Waisbord, S. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of global health communication. Malden, MA:
Wiley.

Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international journal
publishing spaces. Environment and Planning, 37(5), 769–789.
International Journal of Communication 10(2016) Communication Studies Without Frontiers? 887

Paradeise, C., & Thoenig, J. C. (2013). Academic institutions in search of quality: Local orders and global
standards. Organization Studies, 34(2), 189–218.

Park, D. W., & Pooley, J. (Eds.). (2008). The history of media and communication research: Contested
memories. New York, NY: Lang.

Ricoeur, P. (2006). On translation. London, UK: Routledge.

Ringer, F. (1992). Fields of knowledge: French academic culture in comparative perspective, 1890–1920.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rocke, A. J. (2001). Nationalizing science: Adolphe Wurtz and the battle for French chemistry. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Rosch, F. (Ed.). (2014). Émigré scholars and the genesis of international relations: A European discipline
in America? Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Said, E. (1983). The world, the text, and the critic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schoeneborn, D., & Wehmeier, S. (2013, May). Organizational communication in the German-speaking
world: An introduction to the special topic forum. Management Communication Quarterly, 264–
267.

Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion: Communication research and psychological warfare, 1945–1960.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Skjerdal, T. S. (2013). Three ambitions for media and communication research in East Africa. African
Journal of Communication, 1(1), 6.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.

Stanfill, M. (2012). Finding birds of a feather: Multiple memberships and diversity without divisiveness in
communication research. Communication Theory, 22(1), 1–24.

Stevenson, N. (2012). Cosmopolitan education and cultural citizenship: A critical European perspective.
Cultural Sociology, 6(1), 113–128.

Straton, J., & Ang, I. (1996). On the impossibility of a global cultural studies. In K. S. Chen & D. Morley
(Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 360–392). London, UK: Routledge.

Suomela-Salmi, E., & Dervin, F. (Eds.). (2009). Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on
academic discourse (Vol. 193). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
888 Silvio Waisbord International Journal of Communication 10(2016)

Taylor, J. R. (2011). Communication is not neutral: “Worldview” and the science of organizational
communication. In C. N. Candlin & S. Sarangi (Eds.), Handbook of communication in
organisations and professions (Vol. 3, pp. 103–118). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Theis-Berglmair, A. M. (2013). Why organizational communication has not gained a foothold in German-
speaking communication studies—until now: An historical outline. Management Communication
Quarterly, 27(2), 268–279.

Tomaselli, K. G. (2012). Alter-egos: cultural and media studies. Critical Arts, 26(1), 14–38.

Tymoczko, M. (2010). Ideology and the position of the translator: In what sense is a translator “in
between”? In M. Calzada-Pérez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology (pp. 181–202). Manchester, UK: St.
Jerome Publishing.

Waisbord, S. (2014). United and fragmented: Communication and media studies in Latin America. Journal
of Latin American Communication Research, 4(1). Retrieved from
http://alaic.net/journal/index.php/jlacr/article/view/95/77

Waisbord, S. (2015). De-Westernization and cosmopolitan media studies. In C-C. Lee (Ed.),
Internationalizing “international communication” (pp. 178–200). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.

Waisbord, S., & Mellado, C. (2014). De-Westernizing communication studies: A reassessment.

Communication Theory, 24(4), 361–372.

Wang, G. (2010). Beyond de-Westernizing communication research. In G. Wang (Ed.), De-Westernising

communication research: Altering questions and changing frameworks (pp. 1–19). London, UK:
Routledge.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B.
Carroll, S. C. Levinson, & P. Lee, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zermeño, G. (2012). El concepto de intelectual en Hispanoamérica: Génesis y evolución [The concept of

intellectual in Spanish America: Genesis and evolution]. Historia Contemporánea, 27.