***** LEWIS ************EJC/REC Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 1993 ****

ASIAN COMMUNICATION STUDIES IN AUSTRALIA[1]


Glen Lewis
Graeme Osborne
University of Canberra


        Abstract.  This article reports the results of
     a national survey of teaching and research in
     Asian communication studies in Australia sent
     primarily to communication scholars and
     secondarily to Asian studies scholars.  The
     survey, together with a literature search of two
     communication journals - _Media Information
     Australia_ and the _Australian Journalism Review_
     - and one Asian studies journal - _The Australian
     Journal of Chinese Affairs_ - suggests that
     although Australian communication scholars have
     fewer Asian language skills and on a range of
     indicators are less active professionally in the
     area than Asianists, they are engaged in a
     significant and increasing amount of research
     supervision.  The paper also discusses how the
     image of "Asia" is constructed differently by the
     two groups of scholars and makes suggestions for
     future research.

     There has been so much public emphasis on "Australia
becoming part of Asia" recently that this refrain is now
almost a cliche.  Yet so far there has been little
consideration of how Asian communication studies are
actually being researched or taught in Australia.  Existing
studies, such as Molloy's (1990) survey of courses,
Petelin's list of tertiary communication programs (1990),
and Norton's (1992) proposed Australian research agenda, do
not tell us much about the place of Asian communication
studies in Australian tertiary institutions.  Therefore one
of the aims of this paper is to report on a national survey
of Australian scholars in communication and in Asian studies
departments.  The survey was exploratory and its findings
cannot be generalised with certainty.  Nevertheless, the
results, together with a literature search of the Asian
content of several Australian communication and Asian
studies journals, at least provide a starting point to
further consider this issue.

          "What is 'Asian Communication Studies'?"

     This was the rather puzzled (and peevish) response from
at least one Asian studies scholar who completed the
questionnaire.  It was, of course, a reasonable initial
reaction.  There is a certain ambiguity which still persists
about the area of communication in tertiary studies.  In
fact, several assumptions about what might constitute Asian
communication studies in Australia as an intellectual field
were made by the researcher.

     First, there is a fairly widespread lack of agreement
between Australian communication scholars themselves about
what consititutes "communication studies" as a disciplinary
area.  The clearest evidence of this is the rather
widespread division between Australian courses based on U.S.
models, which usually split the field into contextual areas
such as interpersonal, organisational, mass communication,
and intercultural communication, and courses using British
cultural studies models which do not accept these contextual
frames.  A further division of the area in many Australian
programs is between those who see themselves mainly as
practitioners - e.g., journalists, public relations
specialists etc.  - and those who would more readily
identify themselves as scholars in communication considered
as an academic discipline.

     Second, it was also assumed that though there already
is considerable expertise in the area of Asian communication
studies in the Asian studies departments of many Australian
universities, these researchers would not readily choose to
identify their research primarily as concerning
communication studies.  Third, the frame of reference of the
survey was intentionally broad about the notion of "Asia" -
one of the most diverse regions of the world.  Because of
these assumptions the letter which introduced the survey did
not attempt to define "Asian communication studies" as an
intellectual field.  Rather, the aim was stated as being to
paint a "broad-brush picture" of the field.

                         The Survey

     The survey was mailed out to a judgement sample of
thirty-eight communication and Asian studies scholars in
Australia in May 1993.  The scholars were selected using two
criteria.  First, they were either editorial board members
of three journals considered important to the field - the
_Australian Journal of Communication_, _Media Information
Australia_, or _The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs_ -
or frequent contributors to those journals.  Second, some
scholars were selected on the basis of their interest in the
area as already known by the researcher.  These two criteria
were likely to bias the sample in favor of established
rather than younger scholars.

     Thirty-two questionnaires were sent to members of
Communication Studies departments or to Humanities and
Social Science faculties offering communication awards.  Six
other questionnaires were sent to scholars in Asian Studies
departments.  The rationale for this was that the main aim
of the survey was not only to explore communication
scholars' views on "Asian communication studies", but also
to compare the views of scholars involved in Asian studies
who might have an interest in communication issues.  The
response rate overall was 50 percent (19 of 38), while for
the Asian studies scholars (5 out of 6) it was higher than
the rate for communication scholars (14 out of 32).

     The survey was a two page, thirteen question instrument
(see Appendix A), with the main focus of the questions on
the scholars' own research and teaching interests in
relation to Asian communication topics.  There were also
other questions about their individual disciplinary
backgrounds and reading habits, as well as their links with
wider scholarly networks.  Respondents were also asked to
nominate future priority research areas.  Geographically,
the survey went to all Australian states except Tasmania,
South Australia, and the Northern Territory; demographically
and professionally, the scholars were mostly male (34 of
38), and mostly senior academics (7 Professors, 4 Associate
Professors, 3 Senior Lecturers, and 5 lecturers).
Respondents were assured of confidentiality and that the
data would only be published anonymously and in aggregate
terms.

     Because of the intentionally limited aim of the survey
and the confidentiality constraint, a detailed exposition of
the responses will be limited here to two key questions -
the scholars' main research interests and their ideas of
future priority research areas.  These are shown below in
Tables 1 and 2.

======================================================

                          Table 1:
   Main Research Interest in Asian Communication Studies

                   Communication Scholars

Mass Communication

- Australian TV exports to Asia (2)
- TV and video flows to S.E. Asia
- Communication and development in Asia
- Emergent media systems in China
- Hong Kong cinema

Communication Professions

- Globalisation and advertising
- Public relations in Asia
- Asian management and organisation studies
- Intercultural corporate communication

Australian-Asian Relations

- Australian newspaper editors attitudes to ethnic affairs
- Racism and ethnic conflict
- Cross-cultural communication in English
- Australian views of Asia

                         Asianists

- Chinese political economy
- Chinese theatre
- Japanese-Australian history
- The Indonesian press
- Culture and communication in South Asia

Total = Nineteen
===========================================================
===========================================================

                          Table 2:
             Future Priority Research Areas in
                Asian Communication Studies

         Communication Scholars (No nominations: 3)

Mass communication

- Globalisation (2)
- Telecommunications & broadcasting
- International TV and video flows
- Descriptive work on Asian broadcasting
- Media and public policy in China
- Development communication

Communication Professions

- Intercultural and multicultural public relations
- Intercultural corporate communication
-
Australian-Asian Relations

- Cross-cultural language research
- Australian media coverage of ethnic issues

               Asianists (No nominations: 2)

- Asian ethnic identity and national unity
- Broadcasting in Indonesia
- Post-Colonial studies

Total = Nineteen
======================================================

                Results and Interpretations

     Table 1 suggests that the research interests of
Australian communication scholars in Asian communication
studies are divided fairly evenly between three areas - mass
communication, the communication professions, and
Australian-Asian relations.  Three of the six nominated mass
communication research areas concerned Australian TV exports
to Asia.  Two of the remaining three nominated mass
communication research areas were the only ones to specify a
single country focus - Chinese media and Hong Kong cinema.
The communication professions nominations of current
research included advertising, public relations, and
management in Asia.  Last, nominated research areas
concerning Australian-Asian relations, with the one
exception of Australian newspaper editors' views of ethnic
affairs, were not specifically concerned with mass
communication.  The six topics nominated by Asianists were
more area-specific - China (2), Japan (1), Indonesia (1),
and South Asia (1) - and only one Asian studies scholar
nominated the media - the Indonesian press - as a research
topic.

     In comparing Table 1's main research interest in Asian
communication studies with Table 2's answers about future
priority research areas, there was a significant degree of
similarity between respondents' current research and their
perceptions of future priority areas.  There were also two
main differences.  First, three of the communication
scholars and two of the Asianists made no nomination of
future research priorities.  This may have been because of
limited interest in the subject or limited knowledge.

     The second main difference in nominated future priority
research areas and the current research of both
communication and Asian studies scholars was that there was
a general broadening of focus in their choices.  For the
communication scholars, globalisation was identified by two
respondents and four more saw Asian broadcasting systems as
important areas for future study.  Otherwise, four of the
eleven communication scholars who nominated future research
priorities identified intercultural and multicultural
research needs in public relations, management, language
teaching, and ethnic media coverage.  Of the three areas
nominated by Asianists, one of these also focused on Asian
ethnic identity.

     A generalisation that might be made on the basis of
this initial comparison is that the research interests of
Asian studies scholars are more area-specific in their focus
than that of the communication scholars.  Further, the
Asianists seem to be most concerned with the study of their
subject matter in the context of that particular culture.
In contrast, a significant minority of the communication
scholars are concerned with the Asian presence in Australia
and related issues of multiculturalism.  The research focus
of the communication scholars also appears to be broader
though more often concerned with the role of the media.

     Two other sections of the survey will now be
considered.  In terms of language skills, all of the six
Asianists claimed proficiency in one or more Asian languages
- Mandarin was identified by three.  In contrast, only two
of the fourteen communication scholars claimed any
competency.  The Asian studies scholars also had more of a
common disciplinary background than the communication
scholars - three of the six listed history as their main
scholarly discipline.  Of the communication scholars, three
listed sociology, two management, two media studies, and the
remainder identified a diverse range of social science and
humanities disciplinary backgrounds.

     In terms of further considering the professional
background of both groups, survey question six about their
journal reading preferences was one of the most
comprehensively answered questions.  All six Asianists
identified three journals each, while eleven of the fourteen
communication scholars also identified three.  Those most
often referred to by communication scholars were _Media,
Culture and Society_ (4), _Media Information Australia_ (4),
_Journal of Communication_ (2), _Asian Journal of
Communication_ (2), and _Theory, Culture and Society_ (2).
The _Australian Journal of Communication_ received only one
nomination.  For the Asianists, they read fewer journals in
common and their nominations were closely related to their
area specialisations - the only journals nominated twice by
two of these respondents were _Modern China_ and _China
Quarterly_.

     The subject of professional activity was pursued in
question seven which asked about professional association
membership.  The majority of the communication scholars
(nine of fourteen) belonged to the Australian Communication
Association, while all of the Asianists belonged to the
Asian Studies Association of Australia.  The remaining
associations identified by the Asianists were all Asian area
studies groups (e.g., the Asian Studies Association of the
U.S.), while the communication scholars listed IAMCR
membership four times, the ICA three times, and AMIC - the
only specifically Asian communication association - was
listed just twice.  Two communication scholars also listed
the Australian Cultural Studies Association.

     Concerning editorial membership of journals, there
again was a higher degree of activity and more similarity
between the Asian studies scholars than with communication
scholars.  Whereas eight of fourteen of the latter were
editorial members of scholarly journals, all six of the
Asianists were.  Further, none of the communication scholars
identified editorial membership of overseas journals, where
the Asianists nominated seven overseas journal editorial
memberships.

     The limited Asian language skills of the communication
scholars, together with their relatively rare membership of
Asian communication associations, and their lack of overseas
journal editorial membership, suggests overall that the
involvement of Australian communication scholars in Asian
comunication studies subjects is peripheral rather than
central.  This interpretation is reinforced when we proceed
to consider answers to the third and final set of questions
concerning publication activity and peer connectedness.

     In terms of publications, the Asianists were clearly
more productive.  They nominated eight books published, four
book chapters , and five articles.  In contrast, six of the
fourteen communication scholars had no publications in the
area, while the remainder nominated five book chapters and
six articles.

     Peer connectedness, in terms of Asian scholars
respondents were in touch with, is harder to comment on as
there were a large number of nil nominations for both groups
(six for communication scholars, two for the Asianists).
This may have been either because the respondents did not
maintain Asian scholarly contacts, or because they preferred
not to identify them.  However, the communication scholars
listed a total of thirteen Asian professional contacts (four
of whom were Chinese and four Indian) while the Asianists
nominated nine.

     Despite this apparently lower level of professional
involvement of communication scholars with Asian colleagues,
a reasonably high amount of research supervision was
nominated by this group.  They identified supervision of
eight Ph.D.'s and five M.A.'s, as against five Ph.D.'s and
five M.A.'s being supervised by Asianists.  Though these
figures are not reliable in that some respondents chose to
give non-specific numerical answers, they do suggest that
despite the apparently lower productivity of communication
scholars in terms of their publication records and lesser
involvement in international journals editorial membership,
they are actually engaged in a significant degree of
research supervision in Asian communication studies.

     Though this survey's findings are limited by its
relatively small size and other factors, it still suggests
some interesting possible trends in Asian communication
studies teaching and research among communication scholars
in Australia.  It would appear that despite their
limitations in Asian language skills, their relatively
restricted Asian professional contacts, and their lower
levels of publication in the area and their lesser
involvement in international journals as editorial members
in contrast to the Asianists, a significant amount of
interest in Asian communication studies does exist in terms
of both current research interests and nominated future
research areas.  Further, a significant amount of graduate
research supervision is under way.

               The Journal Literature Search

     To take further the subject of what Asian communication
studies as an emerging field in Australia consists of, we
now consider the publication records of two leading
Australian communication journals - _Media Information
Australia_, and the _Australian Journalism Review_ - and one
major Asian studies journal also published in Australia -
_The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs_.  The aim here
again is to identify areas of specialisation and to contrast
similarities and differences between the way that
communication scholars and Asian studies scholars approach
communication subjects.

===========================================================

                          Table 3:
    Media Information Australia - Asian Content 1976-93

                     Telecommunications

*Schiller, H. Advanced Comunication Technology - A New
     Order? 1981(19), 34-49.
*Hamelink, C. Information Technology and the NIO. 1982(23),
     65-71.
Tennant, S. Interactive Cable Experiments in Japan.
     1983(29), 21-26.
Langdale, J. Computerization Policies in the Asia-Pacific.
     1983(30), 76-79.
Morris-Suzuki, T. Japan's 'Information Society'. 1987(44),
     48-54.
Madsen, W. Privacy and Telecommunications.in the
     Asia-Pacific. 1993(67), 40-51.
Forrester, T. Japan's Consumer Electronics Industry.
     1993(67), 4-17.

                Australia-Asia Media Issues

Keen, S. Reporting the Issues in Reporting Asia. 1980(18),
     17-21.
Frost, F. Asia and the Australian Media. 1982(23), 81-84.
White, S. Syme Media in Asia. 1982(23), 85-86.
Rowlings, B. Media and Asia:  A Public Dilemma. 1989(52),
     64-65.
Putnis, P. Press Freedom in S.E.  Asia. 1990(57), 36-39.

                       Media Research

Mayer, H. South-East Asia's Media - Two Gaps? 1978(7),
     26-27.
Sinclair, J. Mass Communication Studies in the Third World.
     1982(23) 5-11
*Lent, J. Third World Mass-Com:  A Basic Bibliography
     82(23), 94-103.
Moore, T. Third World Mass-Com:  Article Abstracts 1982(23),
     104-14.
McDonald, P. Asia Pac.  Audience Research & Program
     Evaluation. 1986(40), 34-36.

                   Training and Education

Appleton, G. CILECT '82:  TV Training Internationally.
     1983(27), 3-6.
Hammond, M. Film and TV Training in the Dev.  World.
     1983(27), 7-8.
Balakrishnan, R. AIBD Training for Broadcasters. 1983(27),
     9-14.
Manabe, S. The Image Arts Course at Nihon University.
     1983(27), 15-18.
Christie, M. Training for Asia-Pacific Broadcasters.
     1990(57), 40-42.

         International Journalism and Media Issues

Henny, L. The Role of Films in International Development.
     1981(22), 12-16.
*Sreberny-M.  A. International News Reporting. 1982(23),
     87-90.
Hedman, L. Formation of Attitudes to Foreign Countries.
     1982(23), 91-93.
Sinclair, J. Advertising in the Developing World. 1982(25),
     54-59.
Sinclair, J. Austn.  Adg:  Globalisation and National
     Culture. 1991(62), 31-40.

                     Media Area Studies

Sommerlad, E. Communication in the New China. 1981(22),
     23-29.
Hancock, A. Radio, Culture and Developmentt:  Thailand.
     1982(23), 39-48.
Gerdes, P. China:  People or Leaders Television. 1982(24),
     34-41.
Wilson, H. The Indian Press and Non-Alignment. 1987(45),
     46-51.
Noble, G., & Bandaranayaka, A.  Sri Lankan TV. 1988(48),
     59-62.

* Overseas scholar
Source:  Media Information Australia (1989).  Consolidated
     Index for 1976 - Nov. 1988.  Media Information
     Australia (1992).  Index for 1989 - 1992.

============================================================

     From its first issue in July 1976 to issue 67 in
February 1993 _MIA_ published some thirty-two articles with
an Asian focus (Table 3).  The selection here probably
over-estimates _MIA_'s attention to Asia in that some
articles (e.g., Schiller, Hamelink, and Sinclair 1982(25))
were considering global issues in which Asia was not a main
concern.  Eight of the articles also were published together
as a special Third World communication issue in 1982(23).
Conversely, _MIA_ also published many articles about
multiculturalism and ethnic media which have not been
included here (see _MIA_ 1988 Index, pps. 44-45).

     Of the thirty-one articles shown in Table 3 two were by
Asian media scholars and another one was so co-authored.
Four of the articles also were by overseas scholars (marked
*).  Six main subject areas were covered by these _MIA_
Asian-related articles - telecommunications, Australia- Asia
media issues, media research, media training and education
(a special interest to _MIA_ due to its base in the
Australian Film, TV, and Radio School), international
journalism and media issues, and media area studies.

     One of the most interesting features of the articles
taken together is their implicit categorisation of "Asia" as
a geographical region.  The frame of reference "Third
World/Developing World" was used in six of the articles,
"Asia-Pacific" was used in four, "Asia" also in four, and
"South-East Asia" twice.  Specific country studies were made
of Japan (4), China (2), India/Sri Lanka (2), and Thailand
(1).

     Two comments can be made about this.  First, the "Third
World" frame of reference occurred mainly in articles about
media research (3), international journalism and media
issues (2), and media training and education (1).  These
articles also were written in the early 1980s and their use
of the term presumably reflects the wide intellectual
currency it then had in international studies of
communication and development.  Second, the use of the term
"Asia" occurred in those articles which discussed
Australian-Asian media inter-relations.  This suggests that
Australian communication scholars are most likely to use the
term "Asia" as a frame of reference when contrasting
Australian media practices and standards with their Asian
counterparts.

============================================================

                          Table 4:
    Australian Journalism Review - Asian content 1978-93

              Journalism Training and Practice

Qian, X. Recent Developments in Chinese Journalism. 1984(6),
     36-39.
Woolford, D. Third World Journalism Training. 1984(6),
     63-67.
Walker, T. Covering China. 1987(6), 43-46.
Starck, N. Reporting Minorities:  An Asian Perspective.
     1988(10), 158-61.
Schauble, J. Information Exchange in the Asia-Pacific.
     1992(14/2), 68-74
Cornish, P. Journalism Training in Indonesia. 1992(14/2),
     74-79

                  Journalism and Politics

Li, Y. Trends in International News Coverage in China.
     1984(6), 40-42.
Henderson, P. Foreign Affairs and the Role of the Media.
     1987(9), 48-53.
Parker, E. Press Control in Singapore. 1988(10), 78-84.
Chu, L. Freedom of the Press in China, Taiwan, and Hong
     Kong. 199O(12), 99-106
Boyd, S. The Media and Public Policy. 1990(1&2), 148-154.
Kingsbury, D. Indonesian Responses to Australian Journalism.
     1992(14/2), 58-68.
Baker, M. The Beijing Massacre and the Media. 1992(14/1),
     1-21.

                    Journalism Research

Couvillon, P. News Images of Seven Asia-Pacific Nations.
     1985(7), 52-60.
Stuart, C. News Sources in India, China, and Australia.
     1990(1&2), 59-66.
Summers, P. Stories on Japan after Hirohito's Death.
     1990(12), 107-112.
Lewis, G. & Sun, W. Chinese & Australian Reporting of Japan.
     1993(15), 53-63.
Hodge, E. PRC Mail Responses to Radio Australia Programs.
     1993(15), 117-26.

Source:  Australian Journalism Review (1992).  Consolidated
     Index, 1978-1992.  Australian Journalism Review, 14,
     113-121.  Also see Australian Journalism Review (1992)
     14(1), 14(2) and Australian Journalism Review (1993)
     15(1).

============================================================

     Table 4 summarises the Asian content of articles in the
_Australian Journalism Review_ from issue 1 in 1978 to issue
15 (1) in 1993.  The _AJR_ printed eighteen articles about
Asia in this period.  Seven of these concerned journalism
and politics, six were about journalism training and
practice (the particular interest of the journal via its
links with the Australian Journalism Education Association),
and five more pieces on Asian-centred journalism research.
Three of the sixteen articles were by Asian journalism
scholars.

     The main difference in the geographical frame of
reference used by _AJR_ and _MIA_ writers was that they were
more area-specific.  Two articles used the term
"Asia-Pacific", one used "Third World", and only one used
"Asia".  Otherwise, there were seven articles on China,
either in its own right or compared to Taiwan, Hong Kong, or
India re press standards.  There were three articles on
Indonesia (all in the 1992(14) issue) two on Japan, and one
on Singapore.

============================================================

                         Table 5:
          Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs -
              Communication Content 1979-1993

                         The Press

Gerovich, S. _The Market_ [A _China Daily_ magazine].
     1980(4), 175-179.
Lawrence, J. _China Daily_ News. 1982(8), 147-153.
Keen, S. News or Propaganda [Sino-Australian Seminar].
     1982(8), 153-159.
Wright, L. Shanghai's _World Economic Herald_. 1990(23),
     121-133.
Lee, P. The Official Chinese Image of Taiwan. 1990(24),
     143-163.

                 Publishing and Translation

Barme, G. Notes on Publishing in China 1976-79. 1980(4),
     167-175.
Zhu, H. Will the 'Super-Culture' Catch on in China? 1981(5),
     91-95.
Mackerras, C. Chinese Periodicals on Literature & the Arts.
     1981(6), 219-226.

                   Broadcasting and Film

Vouter, I. 'Dear Radio Australia.'  - Letters from China.
     1980(4), 179-185.
Fitzpatrick, M. China's Image in Western Documentary Films.
     1983(9), 87-99.
Stanfield, R. 'English from Australia' Broadcasts to China.
     1985(14), 120-122.

                       Public Opinion

Huck, A. Australian.  Attitudes to China & the Chinese.
     1984(11), 157-169.

                      Computerization

Doar, B. & Kelly, D. China & the Computer Society. 1984(12),
     153-67.

Source:  Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 1993(30),
     213-215; 1988(20), 429-443.
===========================================================

     Lastly, the communication content of the _Australian
Journal of Chinese Affairs_ is summarised in Table 5. From
its first issue in 1979 up to and including issue 30 in 1993
it carried thirteen communication-related articles.  Only
two were by Chinese scholars.  The main communication focus
of the _AJCA_ was on the press (five articles), while there
were three on publishing and translation, three on
broadcasting and film, and one each on public opinion and
computerization.  Four of the articles (Huck, Stanfield,
Vouter, and Keen) specifically treated Australia-Chinese
media exchanges or cross-cultural perceptions.

             The Australian-Asian Relationship:
                 Communication and Identity

     The survey suggests that Australian communication
scholars are aware of the growing importance of Asian
communication matters and also are increasingly involved in
their own research and research supervision in the area, but
they are handicapped by their limited Asian language skills
and the number of their professional Asian peer contacts.
If this reading is accurate, that trend could be explained
institutionally in terms of the relatively recent
development of communication programs in Australia.  Asian
studies departments, by contrast, were founded earlier and
are usually situated in the older and better-funded
universities.

     The journal literature search showed that of the three
journals _MIA_ was the primary source of articles on Asian
communication studies, followed by the _AJR_, then the
_AJCA_.  There was no cross-authorship of articles between
any of the journals.  In his study of disciplinary cross-
citation between communication and information science
journals in the U.S. between 1977 and 1987, Rice (1993)
found a small but growing trend to cross-disciplinary
citation.  No such trend emerged in the Australian
communication and Asian studies journals examined here.  In
fact, Asian communication studies do not appear to figure
largely on the research agenda for either communication or
Asian studies scholars in Australia, though for different
reasons.  They do not seem to be a priority for Asian
studies scholars presumably because of the stronger links
they retain with established humanities and social science
disciplines (e.g., Renard, 1987).  Conversely, though there
is increasing attention to Asian subjects among some
communication scholars it is still a relatively minor
research area, possibly because of their limited Asian
language skills.  One solution to this may be the
undertaking of joint research projects in communication and
Asian studies, or alternatively Australian communication
scholars could make more research links with Asian scholars
overseas.

     In terms of the geographical frame of reference of the
two communication journals, "Asia" was constructed on a
continuum from the general to the specific, going from Third
world, to the Asia-Pacific, to South-East Asia, then to
particular countries.  The Asian countries which featured
most in both communication journals were China and Japan.
This may be because of the longer historical links between
Australia and China than other Asian countries, the larger
number of Chinese residents in Australia, and the growing
attention to Chinese economic reforms and political
conflicts in the late 1980s.  The attention to Japan has
mostly been to its hi-tech achievements.

     The notion of "Asia" was conceptualised differently by
mass communication scholars.  Journalism scholars and Asian
specialists seem to concentrate more on specific country
studies than do communication scholars.  The journalists'
subject matter is mostly the press in particular countries,
while for Asianists they are usually concerned with their
own specialisation in a particular country.  In contrast,
the main interest of mass communication scholars has been
broadcasting and telecommunications.  These topics tend to
be more readily researched on a cross-country basis as
broadcasting and telecommunications are inherently
international in their diffusion, particularly with the
trend to the globalisation of broadcasting.  What may be
most useful for communication scholars here is to undertake
comparative media studies on a more focussed regional basis
in the Australian-Asian setting.

     Finally, some suggestions will be made about possible
future research.  First, in terms of area studies, Japan and
South-East Asia appear to be obvious needs.  Though some of
the world's leading Japan scholars are Australian (e.g.,
Mouer of Mouer and Sugimoto, 1986 and McCormack of McCormack
and Sugimoto, 1986) they are not concerned with
communication issues.  A little Australian scholarly writing
on Japanese media exists but there needs to be more.
South-East Asia is the other area which is a high
communication research priority.  Early valuable work on
news flows in the region was done by Tiffin (1978) and now
there is Birch's (1993) excellent essay on the media in
Singapore.  The communication landscapes of the Phillipines,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, however, are
mostly blank spots in Australian communication research.

     Second, in terms of topics, Australian communication
research about Asia might be thought of as shifting between
an interest in studies concerned with communication and
national economic development and a concern for the effect
of communication practices on particular communities.  This
dialectic between an interest in communication and
development and communication and community building may be
seen as one of the historical features of Australian
communication research (Lewis & Osborne, 1991).  In the
context of research about Asia, these developmental concerns
have been about intercultural management studies, Australian
TV exports to Asia, and the internationalization of
Australian service industries to the region (Langdale,
1992).

     Australian studies of the inter-relation of Asian
communication practices with community building are more
diverse.  They include studies of press freedom in Asia, the
Asian media's reporting of its own ethnic minorities, and
the impact of communication policies aimed at nation
building on community welfare.  These topics are potentially
controversial because of the different political and
cultural values that continue to separate Australia and many
Asian societies (Siagian, 1993).  There is no simple recipe
for resolving these difficulties.  Perhaps one way
comparative studies here might proceed, however, would be
for scholars to consider how the media in both Australia and
various Asian countries presents issues of ethnicity in
relation to community building.  Local debates about
multiculturalism in Australia, that is, need to be linked
with global and regional debates about "Australia being part
of Asia".


                            Note

[1]  A version of this paper was presented at the July 1993
     ACA conference at Victoria University of Technology,
     Footscray, Melbourne.  The authors thank survey
     respondents for participation and Mark Balnaves for
     comments.


                         References

Birch, D. (1993).  Singapore media.  Melbourne:  Longman
     Cheshire.

Langdale, J. (1992).  Australia and South-East Asia:
     Internationalisation of service industries.  Canberra:
     DITAC.

Lewis, G., & Osborne, G. (1991).  Themes in Australian
     communication history.  Paper presented at the
     conference of the Australian Communication Association,
     UTS, Sydney.

McCormack, G., & Sugimoto, Y. (Eds.). (1986).  Democracy
     in contemporary Japan.  Sydney:  Hale and Iremonger.

Molloy, B. (1990).  Communication studies in Australia.
     Australian Journal of Communication, 3, 64-95.

Mouer, R., & Sugimoto, Y. (1986).  Images of Japanese
     society.  London:  KPI.

Norton, R. (1992).  Towards an Australian communication
     research agenda.  Australian Journal of Communication,
     1, 22-46.

Petelin, R. (1990).  Programs in communication in Australian
     tertiary institutions.  Australian Journal of
     Communication, 3, 95-147.

Renard, R. (Ed.)  (1987).  Southeast Asia course outlines:
     A collection.  Southeast Asia paper No. 31.  University
     of Hawaii.

Rice, R., & Crawford, G. (1993).  Context and content of
     citations between communication and library and
     information science articles.  In J. Schement & B.
     Ruben (Eds.), Between communication and information,
     (pp. 189-219).  New Brunswick:  Transaction.

Siagian, S. (1993).  Opening address.  In C. Slade & A.
     Applebee (Eds.), Media images of Australia/Asia (pp.
     19-21).  Conference Proceedings, University of
     Canberra, Nov. 1992.

Tiffin, R. (1978).  The news from South-East Asia.
     Singapore:  ISEAS.


       Appendix A: ASIAN COMMUNICATION STUDIES SURVEY

1. What are your main research interest areas in Asian
   communication studies?

2. What courses or parts of courses do you teach in these
   Asian areas?

3. What research supervision do you do in Asian-related
   areas?

4. What have you published recently in Asia-related
   research?

5. Name a conference paper you have presented recently in
   that area?

6. Which scholarly journals do you most use for your
   research?

7. Which scholarly professional associations do you belong
   to?

8. Please cite two or three Australian colleagues also
   working in a related area.

9. Are you on an editorial board or a manuscript reviewer
   for journals or publishers in an Asia-related area?
   Please identify.

10.  What disciplinary basis do your primarily use in your
     Asian research?

11.  Do you have proficiency in an Asian language?  Please
     specify.

12.  Please identify Asian scholars in your area you
     maintain regular contact with.

13.  What do you see as the main priority research areas in
     Asian communication studies in the next five years?

------------------------------------------------------------

Correspondence:  Glen Lewis
                 Senior Lecturer
                 Faculty of Communication
                 University of Canberra
                 E-mail: fgl@comserver. canberra.edu.au
                 ph. 06 201 2967
                 fax: 06 201 5300
------------------------------------------------------------
                      Copyright 1993
   Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.

     This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced
without written permission of the Communication Institute
for Online Scholarship, P.O.  Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY
12150 USA (phone:  518-887-2443).