Communication is a fundamental process of human life, something that we all practice, and as Wilbur Schramm describes, “the mechanism through which human relations exist and develop” (McAnany 2014). The origins of its systematic study with the formation of speech, symbols and modes of communication traces back thousands of years to Plato, Aristotle and Confucius (Creative Commons 2016). It wasn’t until the 1940s however, in the crucial years post World War II, that Mass Communications entered Western Universities as a dedicated field of study (McAnany 1998). 

In under ten years, Mass Communication became considered a social science in its own right with evolving theories and research methodologies specific to the field. Through this period communication problems shifted from being tackled across various disciplines of journalism, political science or linguistics, to having dedicated schools, institutions, textbooks and of course the first suite of academics to identify as communications scholars first and foremost. As Emelie McAnany (1980, 81) puts it, this was the point in which academia explored “how mediated and interpersonal communication belong to the same phenomenon, if not the same university departments”.

Schramm a founding force

This was most notably due to the efforts of American humanistic and social scientist Wilbur Scrhamm (1907-1987), who is considered to have not only imagined a new field but helped make it a reality by putting fundamental structures and curricula in place (McAnany 1998, 112). Key to this was his establishment of the first Institute of Communications Research at the University of Illinois that formed the nucleus of an interdisciplinary doctoral program in “mass communications.” He was also responsible for two key texts that formed the basis of communication curriculum and set the direction of the field for years to come, Communications in Modern Society and Mass Communications.

While the extent of his contribution has been explored by many (Simpson 1982, Glander 1996, Everett Rogers), there is notable agreement that Schramm was central to the founding of academic communication programs that universities practice across the world today. His influence was attested to by the Association for Education in Journalism, which awarded him the Paul J . Deutschmann award for outstanding contributions to the field. While he was only one of many scholars exploring communication problems at the time, he was able to bring together leaders from diverse studies, successfully generate government and university funding, and navigate the university structures to pioneer this field of scholarly endeavour (McAnany 1998, 113).

Shcramm pays homage to the vast number of scholars whose academic pursuits and fields of knowledge led to his work and the valuable foundations of the field. Along with journalism, the 20 or so key scholars Schramm notes came from cybernetics, sociology, political science, anthropology, social psychology, economics and behaviour science. In fact, his development of the first communications postdoctoral study directly involved consulting with Raymond Nixon, Ralph Nafziger and Ralph Casey from journalism; Carl Hovland, Paul Lazarsfeld, Edgar Dale and Bernard Berelson from social sciences; and Elmo Wilson and Hugh Beville from the communications industry. 

In his memoir, The Beginnings of Communication Study in the United States (1980), Schramm in particular attributes the founding of the field to four notable scholars from different social science traditions. This included sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld (1901-1976), political scientist Harold Lasswell (1902-1978), social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) and psychologist Carl Hovland (1918-1961). The intensified appetite for studying the media and mass communication was well and truly apparent in the formative years post World War II as these scholars worked to confront “real world” problems that society came face to face with (Schramm 1980, 74).

To this end, three of four of the scholars had in fact migrated to the United States directly following anti-semeticism and war in Europe that had made their previous pursuits untenable. The fourth, Carl Hovland, while born in America, was also keenly shaped by World War II developments. His career in social psychology in particular took a turn when the United States War Department sought his skills to build military morale and apply social psychology learnings to improve the uptake of instructional training.

Lazarsfeld’s –  Sociologist and Mathematician with Two-Step Information Flow

With a mathematics PhD from the University of Vienna, Lazarfeld drove forward formative research into the influence of media, applying techniques such as survey research, sampling and developing an automatic tally calculator to assess program preferences. Through this he explored who was listening, how and why they were listening, and most importantly, how they then used what they had heard. In applying this to better understand the role of media in presidential elections in the US, Lazarfeld found that mass media does not in itself serve as a necessary cause of audience effects. Rather he found that they ordinarily operate and persuade through mediating factors and influences (Schramm 1980, 79). This is most known as a two-step information flow, which describes how media affects an influencer who then imparts that perspective on others by confirming existing ideas in circulation.  

Lasswell – Political Scientist with Content Analysis 

As a political and behavioural scientist, Lasswell wrote between four to six million words of scholarly prose in his career, with a significant focus on propaganda and the use of press and symbols by elites to hold power and influence. His works include three vast volumes of Propaganda and Communication in World History and the lecture series The structure and Function of Communication in Society, which became paramount to the study of Communications (Schramm 1980, 75). As a young teacher, Lasswell particularly pioneered a framework of content analysis that he used to better distil and understand propaganda in political persuasion. His students across economics, linguistics and sociology went on to produce further scholarly works that built on this work and contributed to the field.

Lewin – Social Psychologist with Consistency Theory 

With new developments in psychology at the time, Lewin was strongly influenced by the teachings of freud and applied historical contexts to address group psychology problems. He looked at group processes and worked to understand every bit of human behaviour in their context (Schramm 1980, 76). Schramm notes his vital role in founding group dynamics studies where he explored the role of group discussion and decision making to help formaluate views and set the predominant norms of a collective. Establishing the Group Dynamic Centre at MIT, Lewin was also responsible for the development of the Consistency Theory that helped to explain the influence of ideas on others (et al).  

Hovland – Psychologist on Attitude Change 

Finally, Schramm emphasises the vital role of Psychologist Carl Hovland in the establishment of the field. From working in traditional psychology studies using rats in scientific studies at Yale, Hovland went on as the Chief Psychologist and Director of Experimental Studies for the research branch of the United States War Department. Here he was tasked with developing practical guidance on messages for morale building and effective instructional materials. Through this he challenged Goebbels theory of one sided persuasion, and highlighted the value of providing a two-sided argument to influence a group (Schramm 1980, 80). He then went on to found the Yale program of research on Communication and Attitude Change that continued to offer critical learnings on fear appeal, inoculation against propaganda and group allegiances.

The wider appetite for dedicated studies 

Three of four of these scholars had been directly influenced by WWII, migrating to the United States following anti-semeticism and war in Europe. Meanwhile, Hovland, while born in America, was also shaped distinctively by his time working at the United States War Department. Much of their work helped to better understand the role of mass communications, media and messages in forging power and shaping shared norms. This was coupled at a time described as immense university expansion in America and significant investment in communication research and institutes from the likes of broadcast managers, Rockerfellers and the US government (Bell 1982).

Momentum continues with the Cold War and the emergence of the Television

Communication problems may be imperative to many disciplines in the past however, the period post World War II was ripe for the advancement of the field as its own recognised discipline in the United States. Scholars from various fields brought heightened critical interest, as well as significant government funding to explore the mechanisms of propaganda and mass media. This is something that only continued as the Cold War brought new government and military interest in adopting mass media and communication in proven ways to shape attitudes towards communism, and increasingly shape voter preferences.

While the dedicated study Mass Communication indeed came under question by academics and institutions after its initial establishment, the field in fact only gained further momentum with the emergence of transformative communication technology. Extending mass media and broadcast to the emergence of the Television brought new potential to advertising and social sciences. Subsequently, corporate investment poured into research into techniques to influence consumer behaviour and adopt emerging technologies like this.

As advancements in psychology continued into the second half of the 20th century, the field has grown in scientific richness to better explain how group attitudes and behaviour are shaped. The field has since extended to different tangents such as social behaviour change communications, C4D, social marketing and corporate communications. As a relatively young social science, the scholarly background of Media and Communications continues to broaden and equip social actors interested in influencing group perspectives.

Most notably its theories and frameworks have helped not only organisations but social movements and government bodies to navigate the fast evolving media landscape and emerging technologies to forge shared health, social and political outcomes.

SOURCES

Communication in the Real World An Introduction to Communication Studies. Minneapolis: Open Textbook Library, 2016.

Bell, Daniel. The Social Sciences Since the Second World War.New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1982.

Glander, T (1996), “Wilbur Schramm and the founding of communication studies.” Educational Theory Board of Trustees / University of Illinois, 46:3, 373-391. 

McAnany, E (2014) “Wilbur Schramm: Beginnings of the communication field.” Communication Research Trends, 33: 4, 3-16. 

McAnany, E (1988). “Wilbur Schramm, 1907–1987: Roots of the past, seeds of the present.” Journal of Communication 38.4: 109–122.

Schramm, W (1980), “The Beginnings of Communication Study in the United States.” Annals of the International Communication Association, 4:1, 73-82.

Tankard, J (1988),  “Wilbur Schramm: Definer of a Field.” The Journalism Educator, 43:3, 11-16.