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.
Recommended Citation
Smith, Donald
(1986)
"Presidents Look at the Field of Speech Communication: A Commentary,"
Association for Communication Administration Bulletin: Vol. 55, Article 12.
Available at:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/aca/vol55/iss1/12
