Abstract
This article analyzes how semantic framing of communication studies influences departmental legitimacy, governance, and program resilience within research universities. Employing narrative inquiry and institutional critique, it traces the precarious trajectory of a communication department subjected to severe program review, suspended doctoral admissions, and potential dissolution, then documents its strategic recovery through disciplined self definition, curricular clarity, and persuasive rhetoric to campus leadership. Comparative reflection on experiences at multiple institutions illuminates how labels such as discipline versus field and communication versus speech communication interact with administrative taxonomies, budget priorities, and faculty culture. The discussion integrates humanistic and social science perspectives, mapping historical shifts from rhetoric based pedagogy to empirically oriented scholarship while arguing that explicit identification as a comprehensive communication discipline, grounded in pragmatic symbolic research, enhances enrollment growth, resource security, and academic prestige. The article concludes with practical guidance for chairs navigating structural evaluation and institutional politics.
Recommended Citation
Bowers, John Waite
(1989)
"Saying the Right Things (But They Don't Always Work),"
Association for Communication Administration Bulletin: Vol. 70, Article 1.
Available at:
https://stars.library.ucf.edu/aca/vol70/iss1/1
