•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This commentary responds to essays by two university presidents on the condition of the speech communication discipline. The author affirms concerns about the field’s longstanding struggle to define a coherent intellectual identity, noting that communication emerged historically as a coalition of underrecognized instructional areas rather than through shared conceptual foundations. While acknowledging that disciplinary ambiguity is not unique in academia and may coexist with creativity and public appeal, the essay questions whether ambiguity can remain viable amid changing higher education environments. The author critiques tendencies toward imitative scholarship and excessive methodological debate at the expense of substantive inquiry into rhetorical tradition, historical context, and enduring communicative questions. Concerns are raised about graduate education that neglects rhetorical heritage in favor of contemporary trends. Responding to calls for public relevance and institutional accountability, the essay emphasizes the need for rigorous scholarship, curricular clarity, and demonstrable student preparation. It concludes that persistent identity confusion, coupled with external pressures and competition from other fields, may threaten departmental stability unless the discipline articulates a shared intellectual core and sustained contribution to higher education.

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.