当前位置: X-MOL 学术Review of Communication › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Reviewing and repurposing: the next iteration of ROC
Review of Communication Pub Date : 2019-10-02 , DOI: 10.1080/15358593.2019.1667582
Kathleen McConnell 1
Affiliation  

Progress is enchanting. I felt its charms when I learned that I would be the next editor of this journal, news that I took as proof of personal and professional growth. I have embraced its aspirations while setting goals for my term: making the journal’s new format a success, increasing its readership, assembling an inspiring board of editors, and showing the potential of its online format. The promise of progress shaped these and my primary goal: to affirm the value and legitimacy of my colleagues’ work in the face of claims that the academic project declines whenever it modifies its traditions. Progress is the sense that we are moving in a clear direction with actions that order, correct, repair, right, shed, and expand. I find those actions deeply satisfying, and they will not achieve the goals I have set. Holding space for difference requires a different set of movements. It has not and will not compromise the academic project to include work by and about people of color, women, people with disabilities, and people who identify as transgender, queer, lesbian, gay, or pansexual. Neither is securing space for that work a matter of progress. In a 1999 special issue of Communication Theory on enchantment and disenchantment with academia, Brenda J. Allen, Mark P. Orbe, and Margarita Refugia Olivas shared mixed feelings about the profession and questioned “the appropriateness of what is normalized at the center of the academy,” including “the common deprecations and institutionalized isolations.” Their discussion dispels the sense that now—the present moment—is one step in a linear progression toward a more inclusive project; that we can look back at the field of communication studies 20 years ago and see great strides leading up to today; that we can see each step forward drawing more and more people from the margins to the center; or that our current trajectory will lead to even greater gains for all. These beliefs, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing explains, rest on “the assumption that the trope of progress is sufficient to know the world, both in success and failure.” But progress, and its blueprints, Tsing goes on to say, “is not the only plan for making worlds.” Indeed, the academic world-making that Allen, Orbe, and Olivas propose looks less like inclusive strides forward and more like a complete re-orientation. They draw a distinction, for instance, between centering diversity and “doing difference,” and they locate their own disenchantment in their experiences with colleagues who support the former but who see the latter as threatening or simply unworthy of scholarly attention. Academic institutions and associations only reify their traditions when “progress” means the celebration of firsts without acknowledgment of lost opportunities, expansion without change to framing assumptions, or inclusion instead of “something entirely different,” to borrow a phrase from Karma R. Chávez. These alternative measures of diversity—acknowledgment of lost opportunities, changing framing assumptions, and expecting something different—suggest ways of re-orienting or re-directing academia as Sara Ahmed has theorized those terms. They offer, for instance, a starting point from which to take up the aims of this journal and re-view communication. I believe those measures might become practice were we to adopt the same expectations of editorships that we have for scholarship, were we to not assume that white, able-bodied, heteronormative, gendernormative people working behind closed doors will hold ourselves accountable to stated commitments to equity and inclusion, and were we to stop equating

中文翻译:

回顾和重新定位:ROC的下一个迭代

进步令人着迷。当我得知自己将成为该杂志的下一任编辑时,我感到了它的魅力,这是我个人和职业成长的证明。在设定我的任期目标时,我已经接受了它的愿望:使该期刊的新格式取得成功,增加其读者群,组建一个鼓舞人心的编辑委员会,并展示其在线格式的潜力。进步的希望塑造了这些和我的主要目标:面对声称学术项目每改变其传统都会遭到拒绝的主张,确认同事工作的价值和合法性。进步就是我们朝着一个明确的方向前进,即采取有序,正确,修复,正确,脱落和扩大的行动。我发现这些行动令人非常满意,它们将无法实现我设定的目标。保持差异的空间需要一组不同的动作。它不会也不会损害学术项目,以包括有色人种,妇女,残疾人以及被标识为变性者,同性恋者,女同性恋者,同性恋者或同性恋者的工作。确保为这项工作留出空间也不是进展问题。在1999年关于与学术界的结界与结界的传播理论特刊中,Brenda J. Allen,Mark P. Orbe和Margarita Refugia Olivas对专业抱有不同的看法,并质疑“在学校中心规范化的内容是否适当” ”,包括“常见的弃用和制度化隔离”。他们的讨论消除了这样的感觉,即现在(当前时刻)是朝着更具包容性的项目迈进的线性一步。我们可以回顾20年前的传播研究领域,看到直到今天的巨大进步;我们可以看到向前迈出的每一步,从边缘到中心吸引了越来越多的人;或者我们当前的轨迹将为所有人带来更大的收益。青衣安娜·罗文豪普特(Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing)解释说,这些信念基于“这样的假设,即进步的秘诀足以使世界了解成功和失败。” 但是,进展及其蓝图继续表明,“这并不是创造世界的唯一计划。” 确实,艾伦(Allen),奥伯(Orbe)和奥利瓦斯(Olivas)提出的学术界的发展看起来不像包容性的进步,而更像是完全重新定位。例如,他们在集中多样性和“做差异,”,他们在与支持前者的同事的经历中发现了自己的困惑,但他们认为后者威胁或根本不值得学术关注。学术机构和协会只有在“进步”意味着庆祝第一而没有承认失去的机会,扩展而不改变框架假设或不包容而不是“完全不同”的情况下,才从Karma R.Chávez借用一句话来改变其传统。这些替代性的测量方法是:承认失去的机会,改变框架的假设以及期望有所不同,这是重新定位或重新引导学术界的建议方法,正如萨拉·艾哈迈德(Sara Ahmed)理论化的那样。例如,它们提供了一个起点,从这个起点开始着手处理本期刊的目的并重新审视交流。
更新日期:2019-10-02
down
wechat
bug