Download pdf - De-westernizing Communication Studies: A Reassessment

Communication Theory ISSN 1050-3293

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

De-westernizing Communication Studies:A Reassessment

Silvio Waisbord1 & Claudia Mellado2

1 School of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA2 Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso (PUCV), Valparaiso, Chile

The goal of this special issue is to revisit the terms of the debate about the “de-westernization”of communication studies and related issues such as the globalization, internationalization,cosmopolitanism, and indigenization of academic knowledge.

Keywords: Communication, Cosmopolitanism, De-westernization, Globalization.

doi:10.1111/comt.12044

This special issue of Communication Theory aims to offer new insights on the debateabout the “de-westernization” of communication studies and related issues such as theglobalization, internationalization, cosmopolitanism, and indigenization of academicknowledge.

Recent writings have moved the issue of “de-westernization” to the forefront inthe field of communication (Tapas, 2012; Wang, 2011). Calls for “de-westernization”invite scholars to reflect upon the broad conditions of intellectual production, andpropose an epistemic shift. It has become a new mantra in communication scholarshipthat has generated a significant amount of reflection. Undeniably, “de-westernized”knowledge is in, parochial and Eurocentric research out. Many may remain unmoved,but hardly anyone would say “de-westernization” is a bad idea or unnecessary at a timewhen the field has become increasingly globalized.

The goal of this special issue is to revisit the terms of the debate and test variousarguments. The first aspect to reconsider is that neither the meanings nor the factorsdriving calls for “de-westernization” are similar in the West and the rest of theworld. This should not be surprising considering that “de-westernization” refersto academic debates with different historical trajectories and concerns. Argumentsfor “de-westernization” are more recent in Western communication scholarship forobvious reasons. The field was born under the influence of disciplinary traditionsand theories that emerged in the United States and in some Western Europeancountries. Its canon (Craig & Muller, 2007; Katz, Peters, Liebes, & Orloff, 2003)is unmistakably Western, and only recently “de-westernization” became a centraltheme in communication studies.

Corresponding author: Silvio Waisbord; e-mail: [email protected]

Communication Theory 24 (2014) 361–372 © 2014 International Communication Association 361

De-westernizing Communication Studies: A Reassessment S. Waisbord & C. Mellado

Instead, communication scholarship in the rest of the world has historicallydrawn from quite different political, economic, sociocultural, and academic set-tings, notwithstanding the exposure to U.S. and European intellectual traditions.Just because of their locations and historical contexts, communication research inAfrica, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America confronted questions about theintellectual origins of frameworks and research questions much earlier than in theWest (Adhikary, 2014; Jouhki, 2008; M’Bayo, Sunday, & Amobi, 2012; Waisbord,2014a; Zayani, 2012). Intellectuals in the periphery were more likely to reflect uponthese conditions. This is why the appeal to “de-westernize” knowledge is hardly anovelty in areas of the world with centuries-old history of philosophical, religious,and political traditions that preceded and diverged from conventional notions ofWestern science and research. Myriad traditions have informed constant effortsto reassert intellectual distinctiveness and originality in contrast to and in dia-logue with Western knowledge. In fact, one cannot understand the evolution ofcommunication studies, or the social sciences and humanities in the global South(Humphreys, 1997), without understanding the long-standing engagement withWestern thought.

Not surprisingly, then, de-westernization lacks identical meanings around theworld. In the West, it refers to a shift in academic knowledge to broaden the analysisby considering experiences, research findings, and theoretical frameworks developedin the rest of the world. De-westernization is deemed necessary to enrich a fieldthat has been historically organized around analytical concepts, epistemologies,arguments, and evidence developed in the United States and Western Europe. It isunderstood as the inclusion of subaltern perspectives typically ignored in Westernacademia that question fundamental premises of the scientific enterprise under-pinning mainstream communication research. It embodies the need to repositionacademic research and local knowledge traditionally situated in the “margins.” Itis considered necessary to shake up certainties grounded in a narrow set of casesand analytical perspectives, and to break away from the provincialism of scholarlyresearch. It reflects broad impulses to decentralize academic knowledge amidstmassive shifts in the world’s politics, economics, and culture driven by globalizationand the coming of new powers and geopolitical blocs.

Outside the West, de-westernization is viewed as a necessary shift to reorient intel-lectual work against academic Eurocentrism. It is grounded in the belief that the studyof communication has been long dominated by ideas imported from the West. Theearly internationalization of communication studies led to the ascendancy of U.S. the-ories and debates, namely modernization and “media effects” studies. Both theoriesand subjects of inquiry were determined by Western, particularly U.S., scholarship.Underlying this position is the argument that “Western” theories and arguments areinadequate to understand local and regional communication processes and phenom-ena. Because it transfers foreign categories and perspectives, scholarship embedded inWestern premises carries particular ontological and analytical distortions. Therefore,strengthening indigenous traditions is needed to overcome the limitations of Western

362 Communication Theory 24 (2014) 361–372 © 2014 International Communication Association

S. Waisbord & C. Mellado De-westernizing Communication Studies: A Reassessment

paradigms and produce knowledge that reflects local realities, and is embedded inindigenous intellectual and cultural traditions.

“De-westernization,” then, appears as an intellectual shift with manymeanings—an act of cultural defense, an anti-imperialist strategy to nurtureacademic sovereignty, a call for embracing an analytical perspective that reflects ade-centered, dynamic contemporary world. Scholars have urged colleagues to beloyal to local values, cultivate a regional mindset and academic spaces, and rethinkconventional Western categories and arguments from indigenous perspectives (Chen,2006; Iwabuchi, 2014; Miike, 2010). This line of criticism is present in arguments toabandon Western notions of democracy, public sphere, journalism in the study oflocal communication processes for those ideas are premised on foreign notions ofagency and personhood (Chen & Miike, 2006; Nyamnjoh, 2011).

This debate is, certainly, not limited to the field of communication. With somevariations, it has also focused on similar issues across the social sciences and human-ities Gunaratne, 2010; Maty Ba & Higbee, 2012), namely, the universal validity ofWestern knowledge, the encounter between intellectual traditions, and the need forpluralist modes of academic engagements and theorizing.

What prompted our interest in editing this special issue was the belief that the sit-uation is ripe to revisit key questions. What specifically should be “de-westernized” inthe field of communication? Is the subject of study, the body of evidence, theoreticaland methodological perspectives, research inquiries, and/or academic professionalcultures? Can we legitimately cluster epistemologies and theories under the rubricof “Western” and “non-Western”? How do “non-Western” theories reframe ques-tions and arguments grounded in Western theories? What binds “non-Western”approaches together? Are non-Western perspectives necessarily opposed to Westernforms of knowledge? Is it still valid to think about academic knowledge on the basis ofgeocultural regions (“Asian” or “African” models of communication) given increasedglobal flows of ideas and scholarly networks and the hybridization of academicknowledge? Even if it considered normatively desirable to broaden research agendasand analytical perspectives, how is “de-westernization” possible?

This introduction maps out key points in the recent debate about the de-westernization of communication studies and situates the contributions of the fivearticles included in this issue.

What to “de-westernize”?

Although “de-westernization” is broadly utilized, its meanings are far from obvious.Here we propose to flesh out the idea of “de-westernization” in four dimensions: thesubject of study, the body of evidence, analytical frameworks, and academic cultures.

The subject of studyFirst, de-westernization means reassessing and expanding the ontological horizons ofcommunication studies by analyzing issues that are either understudied or absent inthe West or go beyond conventional geographical boundaries.



The underlying assumption is that the analytical subjects as well as questions inany given field of research reflect developments in societies where knowledge is pro-duced. Research is locally grounded even though it may be also inspired by theoreticalquestions and academic debates elsewhere. Local and national reality is a constantsource of research questions. As important as this is, it is necessary to open up atten-tion to issues that might be absent in the analytical radar of Western scholars, butare important in the non-Western world. Examples would be the study of commu-nication processes and institutions shaped by political, economic, social, and culturalforces that have been constitutive of societies in the global South. There is no shortageof forces and events to consider, such as colonialism and postcolonialism, ethnic andreligious heterogeneity, persistent internal conflict, humanitarian crises, high levels ofsocial exclusion, family and community structure, organization of economic activity,political authoritarianism, and statelessness.

Why does it matter? Foregrounding objects of study located outside the Westis helpful to expand the research agenda and probe the conventional analyticalparameters of Western-based scholarship. What kind of communication prevails insocieties that have long been multicultural? How does endemic social and politicalviolence affect democratic communication and the functioning of informationand communication institutions (e.g., journalism, the media)? How does criticalconsciousness emerge and is nurtured in contexts with abysmal social disparities?How does local knowledge shape conventional forms of communication? How iscommunication embedded in non-Western religions and cultures different from theWest? What are the limitations of individualistic approaches to communication andidentity formation amid strong collective values?

“De-westernizing” the subject of study also refers to the analysis of communi-cation phenomena that are not contained by specific countries and regions of theworld, namely, events, processes, and trends that transcend conventional geopoliticalboundaries. The global nature of the Internet, legacy media, international institutions,social movements, and civic organizations has ushered in new dynamics that exceednational and regional limits. These are platforms that have facilitated the emergenceand consolidation of forms of communication that are not anchored in conventionalgeographical and sociocultural settings. The consolidation of global media events anddigital participation and socialization attest to these processes. Putting the analyticalfocus on these phenomena does not mean to assume that modern constructions suchas nations and states are irrelevant in communication processes, but rather that atten-tion needs to be put on phenomena that are ontologically different for they are notcontained by traditional spatial boundaries (Brüggemann & Wessler, 2014).

The body of evidenceSecond, “de-westernization” refers to the expansion of the body of evidence in com-munication scholarship. It highlights the need to consider non-Western cases to pro-duce more complex and stronger conclusions (Downing, 1996; Thussu, 2009). Theunderlying issue is the presumed generalizability of findings and arguments when



examined in light of evidence from various settings. Universalistic pretensions basedon a narrow slice of context-specific cases need to be probed by considering evidencefrom the rest of the world. Do existing arguments travel well across the world? Whatevidence helps us produce more nuanced understandings about communication aswell as reject or confirm arguments originally produced in the West? Consideringevidence from non-Western countries help us to reach more solid conclusions andrefine theory by drawing a wider pool of different cases.

What is important is to promote a transnational dialogue around commontheoretical and empirical questions informed by global evidence. Opening thefield to a diversity of cases, however, does not necessarily stimulate a cosmopoli-tan academic mindset interested in common research questions. The presence ofnon-Western research in Western academia does not mean a true engagement withglobal exchanges. “World tours” as illustrated by English-language volumes thatbring together dozens of country cases and conference panels featuring multicountryexperts should not be seen as synonymous with “de-westernization.” They may beimportant steps to enrich arguments and the body of evidence, but they make limitedcontributions to “de-westernizing” the field if they do not raise common questionsor aim to cultivate cross-national analysis and conclusions. Making internationalresearch available does not change prevalent parochialism; in fact, it can existseparately in a crowded and fragmented field of research.

De-westernization demands a shift in the analytical mindset. It should makeresearchers curious about the applicability of concepts, theories, and argumentsacross settings, aware of the impact of particular conditions on academic production,and modest about the generalizability of conclusions based on single “national”cases. As Willems (2014) writes, “a higher degree of self-reflexivity among mediaand communication scholars in ‘the West’ about their own potential complicity inthe marginalization of knowledges from elsewhere could be a start towards a morepluriversal and truly ‘global’ field of media and communication studies.”

Reorienting research to consider a global set of cases, shaped by diverse political,economic, and sociocultural factors, should help to revisit fundamental aspects in thefield of communication. Are there universal understandings of bedrock concepts suchas communication, democracy, truth, language, journalism, and other notions thathave been central to the field in the West? If not, then, what are the consequences forcanonical ideas in the field? Do conventional arguments about sense-making, persua-sion, influence, civic participation, and identity formation still hold when examinedin different settings? (Al-Ghazzi, 2014).

Theoretical perspectivesThirdly, “de-westernization” refers to foregrounding theoretical perspectives originalto the global South that are absent in communication research in the West. One findsthis line of argument among scholars who champion indigenous forms of communi-cation and culture against Western forms of knowledge that underlie dominant viewsof communication. Scholars not only criticize the importation of Western theories on



the grounds that they are inappropriate to understand local processes. They also call tocultivate indigenous theories that reflect particular conditions and understandings ofnon-Western communities. As the argument goes, many native analytical frameworksoffer conceptions of communication that are different from conventional Westernmodels. These conceptions are embedded in particular cosmovisions, infused withviews from local religions and cultures, about fundamental matters such as life, com-munity, and identity.

Some authors vindicate the teachings of Islam, Hinduism, and Confucianism asthe basis for conceptualizing communication on the grounds that they offer desir-able normative visions about the “good life.” Religious conceptions of communicationare significantly different from the individualistic and scientific premises underpin-ning communication theories and research in the West. This line of argument dif-fers from Western scholarship on two important ways. It is ostensibly normative incontrast to customary positivist practices of separating personal ideologies and sci-entific research. Certainly, personal politics always underpins intellectual work yetreligious-based calls for de-westernization openly embrace specific normative mod-els as guide for academic work. Also, while Western communication research is largelysecular, some arguments for de-westernization deliberately propose to espouse reli-gious precepts in academic knowledge.

Other scholars believe that local cultures offer the source for challenging West-ern notions of communication for they are embedded in different conceptions aboutknowledge, humanity, identity, individualism, and community. Examples of this posi-tion are arguments in favor of putting Afrocentric and Asian cultures at the center ofcommunication research. As Willems (this issue) writes in the case of African com-munication scholarship, “many of these studies have critiqued the Eurocentric natureof existing research and called for a need to ensure that research is rooted more clearlyin African contexts.”

Finally, other scholars state that Western models of communication fail to capturelocal conditions, and believe that a critical engagement with local realities is funda-mental to produce “legitimate” knowledge. More than championing specific forms ofindigenous knowledge grounded in religious and cultural beliefs, this argument warnsabout the direct importation of theories and proposes hybrid forms of knowledge thatblend insights from different traditions.

What brings these positions together is the critique of Western research and thedefense of intellectual sovereignty uncontaminated by Western influences. They rejectthe universalistic pretensions of Western communication scholarship as embodied,for example, by the modernization paradigm. They fault modernization for assum-ing one path to modernity modeled after the Western experience, which disregardsthe particular experiences with and outside modernity across countries and regions.Modernization has been viewed as ahistorical and contemptuous of local histories andknowledge. Also, they criticize modernization for understanding communication interms of the dissemination of “modern” value and attitudes in “backward” societiesin the global South. This argument is premised on cybernetic, transmission models of



information dominant in the West, which go against communal conceptions of com-munication linked to community-building and dialogue. Furthermore, they chargeWestern academia for exercising a monopoly over the conditions of knowledge thatdetermines commonly acceptable forms of intellectual work (Gunaratne, 2010).

This line of argument has been challenged by authors who, although they rec-ognize the virtues of de-westernization, question the essentialism of the critique ofWestern scholarship (Fourie, 2008; Khiabany, 2003; Semati, 2011; Tomaselli, 2009).Essentialism presupposes that certain entities, in this case analytical and theoreticalframeworks, are absolute and permanent. Calls for de-westernization, then, tread onslippery ontological ground for they assume that the intellectual frameworks theychampion as well as the “Western” model they criticize are stable and fixed. Whiledifferences and particularities need to be highlighted, it is problematic to approachscholarly perspectives as if there were firmly organized around immutable premises.As Wang (2014) suggests “[just] as locking universality and particularity in a dualistmodel is part of the problem, drawing boundaries to concepts and theories will leadto further problems.”

These premises are questionable amid the globalization and hybridization of aca-demic work, and raise various questions. What do calls to cultivate specific regional(e.g., “Afrocentric,” “Asian”), country (e.g., Iranian, Indian) or religious (“Islamic”)approaches mean? One does not need to embrace principles of philosophical exis-tentialism, namely the idea that “being” is relational and unpredictable rather thanpredetermined, to question the essentialism underpinning calls for national, regional,and religion-centric perspectives on communication. Suffice to take a constructivistposition that approaches cultural formation, or for that matter academic knowledge,as socially situated within certain conditions rather than predetermined once and for-ever. Can we justifiably conceive regional or national perspectives as natural and uni-form constituted prior to the act of knowledge? If cultures are dynamic hybrids, can westill uphold specific epistemological perspectives as if they were pure and unchange-able? If national and regional identities are not fixed and invariable, but are sociallyconstructed, “imagined” in Benedict Anderson’s classic formulation, then is it legit-imate to envision firmly defined collective identities that inform academic research?Are not pleas for Afrocentric, Asian, or Islamic communication actually examples ofconstructivist efforts to constitute academic communities on the basis of presumablyshared ideas? Considering the heterogeneity of African and Asian cultures and manypotential interpretations of religious texts, what does it mean to foreground those per-spectives in communication research?

Another problem is essentializing “Western” communication scholarship as if itwere firmly and unequivocally organized around the same premises, namely posi-tivist, rational, self-interest and individualistic principles. Although those principlesinform so-called mainstream research grounded in the dominant model of West-ern science, slapping the label “Western” (and cognate ideas such as Eurocentric andEnlightenment) onto various theoretical and disciplinary approaches in communi-cation that originated in the West ignores important differences. It easily slides into



caricatures of Western thought that disregards vastly different philosophical, ethi-cal, and methodological premises as well as conceptualizations about the purposeof intellectual work. Can we reasonably suggest that the broad spectrum of theo-ries and models that make the analytical scaffolding of communication research areconsistently informed by identical assumptions (such as materialism and individual-ism)? Do they all equally posit that the individual is the source and subject of knowl-edge? Do they similarly endorse the paradigm of dispassionate, objective knowledge?Are various Western values (rationality, human rights, community, due process oflaw, social justice) underpinning communication models and research equally con-demnable? Considering that communication scholarship across the West is rooted indifferent traditions and models of scientific research, what makes them “Western”?

Another problem is espousing a binary opposition between Western and non-Western forms of academic knowledge and perspectives on communication research(Wang, 2011). One is hard-pressed to find common elements that would war-rant characterizations of theoretical frameworks and epistemological positionsin dichotomous ways. What is Western about positivism, the bête noire of muchnon-Western criticism of Western scholarship, and various branches of Westernantipositivism? What is Western about “administrative” and “critical” approaches,liberal-individualistic and communitarian theories? When authors make calls forepistemologies of the “global South,” what does the South mean? (Sousa Santos, 2012)What makes approaches that originated in the South all similarly “non-Western”?Where do we put “traveling theories” (Said, 1983) within binary constructionsconsidering a long tradition of using and reinterpreting “foreign” ideas in light oflocal conditions, theoretical sympathies, and ideological allegiances?

Viewing analyses through a binary lens cements “Orientalist” and/or “Occi-dentalist” perspectives, that is, following Edward Said’s (1981) influential analysis,understanding systems of knowledge as monolithic and stagnant while ignoring thediversity and dynamism of approaches situated at the margins and/or straddlingdifferent academic worlds. What is needed, instead, is to carefully peel away layersof traditions in communication research in different settings and avoid conclusionsdriven by ready-made geocultural labels.

This is why it is important to approach “de-westernization” critically. While thede-centering of academic scholarship is a welcome development for it questions dom-inant assumptions and broadens intellectual horizons, it is important that it is guidedby a hybrid, dynamic, and open vision of academic knowledge. A return to nation-and region-centric forms of knowledge may seem necessary to promote indigenousscholarship, but it goes against a necessary cosmopolitan sensibility to avoid the geo-cultural limitations of knowledge (Waisbord, 2014b). Reifying academic knowledgein dichotomous, geocultural spheres and championing closed and pure systems ofknowledge based on particular constructions of nations and regions is problematic. Itis not only unfeasible amid the porosity of globalized academic research. It may alsoevolve into dangerous dynamics of academic commissars patrolling the borders oflegitimate knowledge on the basis of arbitrary constructions of identity and belonging.



Defending a model of scholarship in close proximity to local realities should not veerinto outmoded and undemocratic conceptions of intellectual sovereignty. ReplacingWestern-centrism with any other from the global South is not precisely something tocheer for. It leaves unaltered the fundamental problems of essentialism and nativism,as Kuo and Chew (2009) correctly point out. It would be ironic if the critique of Euro-centrism and universalism slides into new versions of intellectual parochialism underthe rubric of critical thought.

Academic culturesA fourth dimension refers to the “de-westernization” of academic cultures. Academiccultures are understood as the network of interrelated and explicit beliefs about thepractice of teaching and research, and the social significance of these practices (Ringer,1992). It defines “the way scholars distinguish themselves in term of their own per-sonal characteristics, professional experiences, dedication to teaching versus researchand their scientific production” (Mellado, 2011, p. 366).

From a Bourdiesian perspective, academic cultures can be approached as fields ofpractice bound around a common core of values and practices and separated fromother institutions and professions. In her Bourdieu-inspired study of academic cul-tures, sociologist Michele Lamont (2009) demonstrates that academic performanceis rule-bound; rules act as constraints and regulators of behaviors, and are pragmat-ically recreated. They are learned through training in specific academic models andconstantly renewed and affirmed through promotion committees, conference presen-tations, journal and book reviews, and other key practices.

The chief issue to examine is the dynamics of the de-westernization of academiccultures, specifically, whether standards and common practices prevalent in UnitedStates and selected European countries increasingly define expectations across com-munication research globally. Put it differently, does the globalization of communi-cation studies carry a distinctive “Western” accent? Or does it lead to the affirmationof myriad academic cultures with varying standards and norms? On whose terms is“de-westernization” conducted?

It is questionable to talk about a single “Western” academic culture. Although adetailed analysis of this question in the field of communication is still lacking, we donot have sufficient evidence to conclude that there are uniform standards, practices,and expectations that define Western research. If Johan Galtung’s (1981) classic tax-onomy of academic cultures is still relevant, then, it is not obvious that “Western”research conforms to a common set of rules that are consistently observed. Galtung’sfour academic cultures (Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic, and Nipponic) are, certainly, a lim-ited sample and fails to recognize points of contact and overlap among them. It bringsinsightful observations, however, for discussing the sociology of knowledge in com-munication scholarship. It identifies strong professional currents and persistent dis-tinctions based on methodology, epistemology, research styles, mentorship relations,oral and writing skills, and other variables. These dimensions determine conventionalnotions of quality work, academic career, publication standards, and so on.



Studies on European academic cultures in communication research have con-cluded that those cultures do exist and that they persist and roughly map ontoGaltung’s typology (Averbeck, 2008). This is remarkable considering the transnation-alization of research networks, collaborative projects, publications, and organizations.Increased connectivity does not seem to have led to homogenizing academicstandards or watering down historical differences. Despite increased administra-tive expectations as well as opportunities to publish in internationally ranked,English-language journals and be active in global associations, it is not a foregoneconclusion that the values of specific academic cultures have become dominant(Mellado, 2011).

Although de-westernization has become emblematic of the recent international-ization of communication studies, it is a complex notion that refers to the diversi-fication of epistemologies, body of evidence, theoretical perspectives, and academiccultures. This is necessary to revisit fundamental assumptions about the field, such asthe subject of study, the validity and generalizibility of findings, the epistemologicalpremises of arguments and theories, and the standards of scholarly excellence.

It is important to move beyond simple calls for de-westernization and explore theconditions in which it happens (or does not). Opening up knowledge to non-Westernperspectives and academic cultures is not necessarily controversial. It can be jus-tified in the name of intellectual tolerance even by scholars who remain unawareor unconvinced about its merits. If experience serves as guidance, it is conceivablethat “de-Westernizing” becomes another silo in a multilayered field of researchthat, for decades, has aggregated theories and thematic interests in communicationresearch. De-westernization may have limited impact in the field at large, finding areceptive audience among scholars and subfields already predisposed to engage with“non-Western” research (e.g. intercultural communication, international communi-cation, social change and development), while leaving the rest of the field virtuallyuntouched. It might become what some scholars “do”—an area of specialization ormatter of scholarly interest, rather than a vision that crosses the many divides ofcommunication scholarship. It might add another separate, parallel compartmentwithout prompting a significant reconsideration of standard scholarship or redefiningthe field of communication across academic cultures.

This is why it is necessary to move beyond conventional arguments about why“de-westernization” matters. It is time to find ways to shake up all parochialisms,reflect upon the conditions of intellectual work, and diversify the conceptions, evi-dence, and analytical frameworks in the study of communication.

References

Adhikary, M. N. (2014). Re-orientation, ferment and prospects of communication theory inSouth Asia. China Media Research, 10(2), 24–28.

Al-Ghazzi, O. (2014). “Citizen journalism” in the Syrian uprising: Problematizing westernnarratives in a local context. Communication Theory, 24(4), 435–454.



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

Brüggemann, M., & Wessler, H. (2014). Transnational communication as deliberation, ritual,and strategy. Communication Theory, 24(4), 394–414.

Chen, G. M. (2006). Asian communication studies: What and where to now. Review ofCommunication, 6(4), 295–311.

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

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

Downing, J. (Ed.) (1996). Internationalizing media theory. London, England: Sage.Fourie, P. J. (2008). Ubuntuism as a framework for South African media practice and

performance: Can it work? Communicatio: South African Journal for CommunicationTheory and Research, 34(1), 53–79.

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

Gunaratne, S. (2010). De-westernizing communication/social science research:Opportunities and limitations. Media, Culture & Society, 32(3), 473–500.

Humphreys, S. C. (Ed.) (1997). Cultures of scholarship. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

Iwabuchi, K. (2014). De-westernisation, inter-Asian referencing and beyond. EuropeanJournal of Cultural Studies, 17(1), 44–57.

Jouhki, J. P. (2008). Korean communication and mass media research: Negotiating the West’sinfluence. International Journal of Communication, 2, 253–275.

Katz, E., Peters, J. D., Liebes, T., & Orloff, A. (2003). Canonic texts in media research: Are thereany should there be how about these. Cambridge, England: Polity.

Khiabany, G. (2003). De-Westernizing media theory, or reverse Orientalism: ‘Islamiccommunication’ as theorized by Hamid Mowlana. Media Culture & Society, 25(3),415–422.

Kuo, E. C., & Chew, H. E. (2009). Beyond ethnocentrism in communication theory: Towardsa culture-centric approach. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(4), 422–437.

Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

M’Bayo, R., Sunday, O., & Amobi, I. (2012). Intellectual poverty and theory building inAfrican mass communication research. Journal of African Media Studies, 4(2), 139–155.

Maty Ba, S., & Higbee, W. (2012). De-westernizing film studies. New York, NY: Routledge.Mellado, C. (2011). Examining professional and academic culture in Chilean journalism and

mass communication education. Journalism Studies, 12(3), 375–391.Miike, Y. (2010). An anatomy of eurocentrism in communication scholarship: The role of

Asiacentricity in de-westernizing theory and research. China Media Research, 6(1), 1–11.Nyamnjoh, F. (2011). De-westernizing media theory to make room for African experience. In

H. Wasserman & D. Thussu (Eds.), Popular media, democracy and development in Africa.London, England: Routledge.

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

Said, E. (1981). Orientalism. London, England: Routledge.



Said, E. (1983). The world, the text, and the critic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Semati, M. (2011). Communication, culture, and the essentialized Islam. Communication

Studies, 62(1), 113–126.Sousa Santos, B. (2012). Public sphere and epistemologies of the South. Africa Development,

37(1), 43–67.Tapas, R. (2012). To de-westernize, yes, but with a critical edge: A response to Gunaratne and

others. Media, Culture & Society, 34(2), 238–249.Thussu, D. (Ed.) (2009). Internationalizing media studies. London, England: Sage.Tomaselli, K. (2009). Repositioning African media studies: Thoughts and provocations.

Journal of African Media Studies, 1(1), 9–21.Waisbord, S. (2014a). United and fragmented: Communication and media studies in Latin

America. Journal of Latin American Communication Research, 4(1), 55–77.Waisbord, S. (2014b). De-westernization and cosmopolitan media studies. In C. C. Chan

(Ed.), Internationalizing “International Communication.” Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

Wang, G. (Ed.) (2011). De-westernizing communication research: Altering questions andchanging frameworks. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wang, G. (2014). Culture, paradigm, and communication theory: A matter of boundary orcommensurability? Communication Theory, 24(4), 373–393.

Willems, W. (2014). Provincializing hegemonic histories of media and communicationstudies: Toward a genealogy of pistemic resistance in Africa. Communication Theory,24(4), 415–434.

Zayani, M. (2012). Arab media Studies: Between the legacy of a thin discipline and thepromise of new cultural pathways. In T. Sabry (Ed.), Arab cultural studies: Mapping thefield (pp. 55–78). London, England: Tauris.
