•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This essay evaluates arguments offered by four communication subfields regarding their place within the liberal arts and proposes a broader strategy for program justification in contemporary higher education. The author contends that while the contributing essays aim to demonstrate disciplinary value, they pursue divergent goals and do not provide persuasive grounds for resource allocation by senior administrators. Situating the discussion within shifting institutional priorities, the essay notes that colleges have increasingly blended liberal and vocational learning in response to changing student demand and external pressures. The author argues that communication’s diversity can be a strength, as the discipline engages both humanistic inquiry and professional skill development, but that administrative separation of subfields often weakens the ability to present unified justification. The essay reviews the distinct contributions and limitations of theatre, speech communication, communicative disorders, and mass communication, emphasizing the need to articulate unique disciplinary value in terms recognizable within institutional missions. It concludes by outlining principles for effective program justification, including alignment with institutional direction, clear identification of strengths and weaknesses, awareness of internal and external forces, and development of evidence based arguments that demonstrate relevance, distinctiveness, and service to broader university goals.

Download

Share

COinS
 

Accessibility Statement

This item was created or digitized prior to April 24, 2026, or is a reproduction of legacy media created before that date. It is preserved in its original, unmodified state specifically for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the University Libraries provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request an accommodation for this item, please submit an accessibility request form.