Biographical information: Timothy Stephen Ph.D. (1980, Bowling Green State University) is Professor in the Department of Communication, University at Albany (SUNY), Albany, New York 12222.
In recent decades a distinctive literature has accumulated discussing the role of gender, feminism, and women's studies-related research (GFWS) in the communication field; however, questions persist about how this research is represented in the field's literature. This article sketches the history of this representation in a field test of a concept mapping technique that tracks patterns of publication and isolates conceptual associations within the titles of GFWS articles. This study accomplished several goals. First, it examined the accuracy of historical arguments about GFWS scholarship, arguments that bear on the issue of marginalization within the field. Second, it examined GFWS articles by publication source to assess patterns of representation by journal. Third, it provided a response to requests by some scholars working in the area for a thorough survey of the dimensions of this literature. Findings support the idea that the feminist scholarship is represented by a unique configuration of conceptual relationships, has a history unto itself separated from that of studies of gender or sex differences, and that feminist research has entered the literature in two distinctly different eras. Feminist research has a unique and uneven pattern of representation in the field's literature. The concept mapping methodology is argued to provide one means for offsetting the fragmentation of the discipline's scholarship that has occurred as a result of the rapid proliferation of new specialized communication journals occurring throughout the last three decades.
In recent decades a distinctive literature has accumulated discussing the role of gender, feminism, and women's studies-related research (GFWS) in the communication field. While several tracks are apparent within this body of scholarship, prominent is a set of articles that have argued that such research has fallen victim to institutional processes that have had the effect of marginalizing and even actively supressing work in this area. For example, in 1989 Karen Foss noted the omission of the journal ``Women's Studies in Communication" (WSC) from the Speech Communication Association's (SCA) (now the National Communication Association - NCA) index to the communication literature (Matlon & Ortiz, 1992). With WSC in print since 1977 and covered in other auspicious resources such as ``Psychological Abstracts", Foss reported that SCA was nevertheless unwilling to incorporate WSC in its index. Of course, NCA now includes WSC and alternative and more inclusive indexes to the field's literature are available (e.g., Stephen, Harrison, and Silvestre, 1998); however, questions persist about the representation of GFWS research in the field's literature (e.g., McLaughlin, 1995).
This article assesses the history of this representation in a field test of a concept mapping technique that is capable of tracking patterns of publication and isolating conceptual associations within a body of scholarly articles. Applying this new methodology to GFWS research will accomplish several goals. First, it will permit examination of the accuracy of historical arguments about GFWS scholarship, arguments that bear on the issue of marginalization. Secondly, it will examine GFWS articles by publication source to assess patterns of representation by journal. Thirdly, it will provide a response to requests by some scholars working in the area (e.g., Blair, Brown, and Baxter, 1994) for a thorough survey of the dimensions of this literature.
That such a survey is timely is suggested in articles by several authors who have charged that patterns of bias have been apparent in the field's publication history. McLaughlin (1995) recently summarized the problems of communication scholars pursuing feminist studies, noting that methodological and political commitments of feminist research may often be regarded as transgressing traditional criteria for rating the merit of communication scholarship. Feminist scholarship that takes an activist stance, that avows and celebrates a political dimension to scholarship, or that employs narrative methodology may run afoul of traditional preferences for dispassionate scholarship conducted using methodologies suitable for larger samples. Dervin (1987, p. 111), while advocating increasing attention to the GFWS area, referred to the existing contribution of feminist scholarship in communication as ``small, emergent, inaudible and in some quarters devalued, seen as trivial, emotional, and sentimental." An extraordinary article by Blair, Brown, and Baxter (1994) provides a chilling look at an actual instance of institutional devaluation. Blair et al. detail vividly a brutal process of suppression by an anonymous editorial board to Blair et al.'s attempt to publish a feminist rejoinder to an article by Hickson, Stacks, and Amsbary (1992) identifying women scholars who had achieved high rates of publication in journals indexed in Matlon and Ortiz (1992).
Has feminist research been marginalized? Rakow (1989) implies that feminist research was practically invisible in the communication field prior to the mid-1980s, but this neglects a handful of pioneering publications appearing in the 1970s in the speech communication literature (e.g., Foss, 1978; Gillespie, 1978; Linkugel, 1971, 1974; McNeil, 1975; Seggar, 1975) and in journalism (e.g., Cooper, 1976; Endres, 1976; Mather, 1974, 1975a, 1975b; Morris, 1973; Ward, 1975). It is suggested that the frequency of publication of studies concerned with feminism rose steadily during the 1980s. Rakow (p. 209) avows that ``by 1986 feminist scholarship was a publicly perceptible endeavor" and in 1993 she noted that ``feminist ... scholarship has won a place in some quarters of the discipline". Be that as it may, the common depiction of the history of feminist scholarship has been one of struggle and contest in which publication has been achieved in spite of a characteristically inhospitable institutional reception. The question of the degree to which feminist scholarship has gained acceptance, however, requires a careful examination of the history of publication of feminist-related articles across the field's literature. If feminist scholarship has taken hold, one would expect to see increasing rates of publication and a more or less even distribution of articles throughout the field's general focus journals. Cooper, Stewart, and Friedley (1989) provided an early attempt at such an assessment; however, it was conducted more than a decade ago and employed a restricted range of journals and a laborious methodology that is not easily expanded to accommodate a broader sample.
Scholars in the GFWS literature differentiate studies of male/female differences (in media habits, conversation, experiences in intimacy, learning styles, nonverbal behavior, etc.) from feminist scholarship, which is concerned with the social construction of gender and which views gender (with class and race) as one of the primary structural variables of society, one that has often been used as a basis for oppression. As additional distinction is made between studies in which sex or gender differences are the primary focus of research and studies in which sex or gender is examined only as a control variable or in a secondary analysis. These can be fine lines to discern and not all studies can be neatly or easily placed in one category or another. For example, Foss and Foss (1983) and Cooper et al. (1989) place feminist studies and studies in which sex/gender differences are a primary focus under a common umbrella. Scholars in the GFWS literature recognize that studies of gender or sex differences do not represent the same broad theoretical program or advocacy orientation that tends to be evident in the feminist literature. Hence these scholars posit a separate history for the literature on sex or gender differences, one in which articles would be expected to be spread more or less evenly throughout the field's literature and to have appeared with a constant frequency over the past decades.
The history of these literatures has been a matter of particular concern not only because feminist scholars have charged that their work has fallen victim to institutional bias. Authors such Cooper et al. (1989) regard rates of publication for any studies treating women as indicators of the degree of openness within the field to women's issues and as indirect indicators of the removal of barriers to women's professional advancement. Hence these authors have viewed the periodic assessment of the state of publication in these areas as a way of indexing women's progress in the field.
Although they unfortunately provide little procedural information pertaining to article selection, Foss and Foss (1983) reviewed articles related to women, gender, or sex differences published in 11 communication-related serials. They identified five large categories of relevant scholarship, some containing distinct subcategories: (a) The first main category ``Historical Treatments of Women" consisted of four subcategories - ``Teachers in the Speech Profession", ``Women Speakers", ``Women Writers and Performers", and ``The Women's Movement". (b) The second main category ``Sex Differences" consisted of five subcategories following a division introduced by Murdock and Konsky (1982) - ``Description" (non empirical treatments of differences in the way language characterizes males and females), ``Production" (actual differences in language behavior), ``Direction" (focuses on whether actors vary behaviors when interacting with males versus females), ``Attribution" (studies treating different expectations we have for communication behaviors of males and females), and ``Evaluation" (interpersonal judgements made about communication attributes given language differences) - (c) The third main category ``Women and the Media" consisted of three subcategories ``Electronic Media" (e.g., images of women in television and radio), ``Print Media" (e.g., women's representation within publication of magazines and newspapers), and ``Access to the Media". Their last two large categories were (d) ``Education and Pedagogy" and (e) ``Surveys and Integrative Works".
Cooper et al. (1989) approached their review not with the intention of locating divisions within the literature but with the goal of establishing the relative frequency of GFWS research in communication journals and indexing the frequency of female authorship. Surveying nine journals from 1967-1986, they tabulated articles ``in which any of the following terms appeared in the article title: woman, women, gender, female(s), girl(s), feminist(s), feminism, femininity, sex, and multiple-word term beginning with sex, and any article with a woman's name or ERA in the title" (p. 47). They found that this literature accounted for 4% of all articles in the sampled journals within the time period and this proportion increased ten fold within the literature from .7% in 1967 to 7.5% in 1986. The proportionate rate of publication of articles on GFWS issues was distributed more or less evenly across the nine journals. The journal with the lowest rate of publication of GFWS articles was ``Communication Education" (2.3% of all articles were concerned with GFWS) and the high publishing journal was ``Communication Quarterly" (7.2% of all articles were GFWS articles).
One critical limitation in these two pioneering studies is their highly restricted selection of titles. While there is no consensual definition of the boundaries of the literature of the communication field, it is no doubt larger than nine to eleven titles. However, to pursue greater breadth with a manual coding procedure is to exceed the limits of possibility - Cooper et al. (1989) hand classified nearly 6,000 articles. At the time these studies were published there were no electronic databases representing the communication field and data compilation required painstaking manual procedures. Since every new study in the area would have to revisit all the ground covered in earlier reviews, without a methodological breakthrough, the larger the field's literature has grown over time, the less likely it has become that future studies of this kind could be undertaken.
However, the publication of the ComIndex database (Stephen, Harrison, and Silvestre, 1998) by the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship created the potential for new forms of archival studies of communication scholarship. Now in its 7th edition, ComIndex provides cover-to-cover listings of all regular scholarly articles published in a considerably wider range of communication serials than has been employed in other sources. The index references 31,500 articles from 70 sources that appeared roughly between 1970 and 1997. This database can be used to explore questions about the field's publication practices and, since it exists in electronic form, it is possible to sift through it with automated coding procedures. Whereas it took a team of scholars three months to code the data for the Cooper et al. (1989) study (P. J. Cooper, personal communication, April 6, 1999), the same classification scheme used by Cooper et al. can be executed with the ComIndex data on a database more than five times larger in seconds on a standard desktop computer. Coupled to this advance are correspondent advances in the methodology of automated studies of scholarly literatures.
As most scholars are aware, the field of scientometrics has established procedures for assessing the impact of particular articles and for tracing networks of conceptual interest by assessing quantitatively patterns of citation and co-citation. Research in this area goes well beyond the simple publication counting and ranking work decried by Blair et al. (1994) in their criticism of Hickson et al. (1992). However, standard scientometric analysis (e.g., Funkhouser, 1996; Reeves, & Borgman, 1983; Rice, Borgman, & Reeves, 1988) in its effort to assess which journals, authors, and articles are influential, fails to reveal what concepts, topics, and ideas get published where and when (or, of course, what concepts, topics, and ideas do not get published). Such questions are central to any discussion of the history of gender, feminist, and women's studies scholarship in communication. Here the issue is not who cites whom or which journals or articles are deemed more important than the rest (issues that Blair et al. (1994) regard as typifying a masculine/competitive dominated culture of scholarship), but rather the frequencies with which different journals have published relevant studies and the actual palette of issues such studies have addressed. These issues bear directly on the question of the field's receptivity to feminist and women's studies scholarship and on demarcating the boundaries of the theoretical programs of the GFWS area. The question of the historical evolution of this area of GFWS scholarship is also of relevance. These issues require the application of methodological procedures suitable for concept analysis; that is, the analysis of the distribution and interconnection of pivotal ideas appearing in a textual database. This is an application of scientometrics rarely seen until recently.
Fortunately, advances in computer automated textual analysis (e.g., Lebart, Salem, & Berry, 1998) have kept fair pace with the development of textual databases and it is now possible to apply sophisticated techniques for computer assisted concept analysis in the analysis of textual data. Generally, the more controlled the language of the corpus under scrutiny, the better, and for this reason a database of the titles of scholarly articles is almost ideal. With relatively few exceptions, titles of articles in the communication literature are constructed tightly using the relatively controlled language of the discipline's argot and contain the major concepts an article addresses - a feature exploited by Cooper et al. (1989) in their classification procedure. There are certainly cases of titles that have not conformed to this requirement (e.g., Medhurst's (1982) ``The sword of division") but fortunately very few.
These advances enable new approaches to researching the history of key concepts and publication practices in the communication field. Exemplifying this work, Stephen (1999a) applied computer assisted concept analysis to the 25 year publication history of ``Human Communication Research" (HCR) identifying key concepts and clusters of concepts that characterized the journal's publication history. The procedure revealed that HCR represented a limited but self consistent set of interests. One subdivision of study appearing in HCR represented interests in gender, language, and speech. Intensely interrelated concepts at the core of that area included GENDER, MEN, WOMEN, DIFFERENCES, ATTRIBUTION, LANGUAGE, SPEECH, STYLES, RELATION, CONSEQUENCES, and EVALUATION. The pattern suggested that HCR authors who focus on gender issues have frequently done so in the context of differences in language and speech behavior.
In another analysis of the communication literature, Stephen (1999b) compared concepts central in the publication histories of four regional communication journals - ``Communication Quarterly", ``Western Journal of Communication", ``Communication Studies", and ``Southern Communication Journal". The largest grouping of concepts identified in the analysis of articles appearing in these journals contained a tight subcluster of concepts clearly representing sex differences including the concepts ATTITUDES, LANGUAGE, SEX, DIFFERENCES, GENDER, MEN, WOMEN, and RIGHTS. It is interesting that the FEMINISM concept was not part of this subcluster but connected instead to a separate cluster representing the concepts public, rhetorical, and political. The study noted a statistically significant tendency for articles addressing GFWS issues to be published more frequently in ``Southern Communication Journal".
The present study capitalized on the availability of the ComIndex data archive and the introduction of new techniques for analysis to undertake a concept analysis of the entire ComIndex corpus in order to study patterns of interconnection between key ideas in the accumulated GFWS literature of the communication field. The questions addressed by this study were: (a) What concepts have been of primary concern in the GFWS literature and what are their interconnections? (b) How has the conceptual focus of the GFWS literature evolved over time? and (c) How is the GFWS literature distributed across the fields' journals?
The data for this study were the titles of 31,500 regular research articles published in 70 communication serials between 1962 and 1997. 1 Although the 31,500 figure contains a small number of book reviews and non-English language articles (especially from ``Semiotica", ``European Journal of Communication", and ``Canadian Journal of Communication"), all such materials were removed from the corpus through an automated pre-filtering procedure. The next task was to identify articles within the corpus that represented the GFWS literature. A panel of six leading GFWS scholars was consulted in the construction of a filtering scheme. The resulting scheme identified as a GFWS article any article published in the journal ``Women's Studies in Communication" and any article containing one or more of the following tokens in its title (an asterisk indicates a wildcard): femin*, woman*, women*, female*, sex dif*, ERA, sex role*, sexis*, sexual harr*, matriar*, patriar*, androgon*, sex, chauvan*, suffrag*, and gender. With minor exceptions, this filtering scheme is similar to the one used by Cooper et al. (1989). Cooper et al. also used girl and girls and ``any article with a woman's name ... in the title". Girl(s) was not used in this study as a review of articles solely identified by that token showed that they were often primarily concerned with issues of childhood development irrespective of GFWS issues. As well, titular appearance of women's names (used by Cooper et al. as an additional selection criterion) was deemed an unreliable indicator of GFWS articles when using an automated classification system. As a rough test of the accuracy of this system, it was applied to the GFWS bibliography published by Dervin (1987) where it correctly identified 87% of the 126 sources listed. Applying the filtering scheme to the ComIndex corpus identified 1,136 articles, which comprised the sample for further analyses.
Tokenization and Filtering of Title Words. For each title, all words were converted to upper case, terms with British spelling were converted to their American equivalents (e.g., ``colour" was converted to ``color" and ``organisation" was converted to ``organization"), and all punctuation and hyphenated prefixes (e.g., ``micro-," ``quasi-," ``pseudo-") were removed. Next, common terms were identified and eliminated. Typically a dictionary of common terms contains words such as: ``about," ``and," ``a," ``as," ``the," ``of," ``but," ``or," ``else," etc. When applied to a title these procedures would reduce ``Sex differences in choice of modes of conflict resolution in real-life and television" (Roloff & Greenberg, 1979) to ``SEX DIFFERENCES CHOICE MODES CONFLICT RESOLUTION REALLIFE TELEVISION".
As the present study is part of a larger project working with the full 70 title ComIndex database, several months devoted to extensive preliminary analysis of word frequencies and word use in context across the entire ComIndex corpus permitted the construction of a greatly expanded and more finely articulated dictionary of common terms. Hence the list applied in the present study contains approximately 200 items occurring generically in such exclusion lists as well as many hundreds of additional terms that are appropriate to remove in the context of analysis of the scholarly literature of the communication field. These include items such as forenames (e.g., ``Wilbur" in ``Wilbur Schramm"), terms with ambiguous meaning (e.g., ``resume"), and terms with both extreme high frequency and indeterminate meaning (such as: ``communication," ``analyze," ``research", ``comparison," etc.).
The next stage in the analysis applied a synonym dictionary to equate terms with equivalent meaning and to reduce common phrases to singular tokens. Over 800 synonym transformations were constructed from the 70-title ComIndex corpus and used to transform the GFWS data. Examples of such transformations include conversion of ``HIV" to ``AIDS"; ``know," ``knowing," and ``knowledgeable" to ``knowledge"; and ``movies," ``movie," ``cinematography," and ``film" to ``cinema." Several hundred common phrases were also identified and used to normalize the article titles. For example, when ``acquired immune deficiency syndrome" appeared in a title, the phrase was transformed to ``AIDS"; similarly, any occurrence of ``motion picture" was transformed to ``cinema." As well, phrases such as ``spiral of silence," ``content analysis," ``self disclosure," and ``sex difference" were converted to singular tokens: ``SPIRALOFSILENCE," ``CONTENTANALYSIS," ``SELFDISCLOSURE," and ``SEXDIFFERENCE." Passing the example title, ``SEX DIFFERENCES CHOICE MODES CONFLICT RESOLUTION REALLIFE TELEVISION" through this phase resulted in ``SEXDIFFERENCES CHOICE MODES CONFLICTRESOLUTION REALLIFE TELEVISION".
Term refinement was an iterative process that required passing the textual data repeatedly through a battery of computer programs that applied each of the filters and then generated a transformed term list ordered by term frequency. Each term in this resulting list was then examined to see if it represented a unique and discriminating concept with as little ambiguity in its associations as possible. This was done with the assistance of the ComIndex database, which makes it possible to review conveniently the conceptual context of any term, displaying the nuances of expression for every instance in which a term has been used in titles in the communication literature.
The next step in the data preparation process was the computerized application of Porter's suffix stripping procedure (Porter, 1980) to all the terms remaining in the corpus. Porter's procedure is widely used in textual information processing to convert terms with common linguistic roots to equivalent tokens (Frakes, 1992). The Porter procedure, for example, reduces ``organize," ``organizational," and ``organization" to the common token ``organ." Porterization is extremely useful in computerized textual analysis but the output cannot be applied without careful and extensive manual correction and some pre-coded tokenization designed to handle circumstances not handled properly by the Porter procedure. The Porter procedure, for example, is not capable of recognizing that ``BURKE" is the root of ``BURKEAN" or that it is undesirable to reduce ``PROTESTANT" in analysis of the communication literature to the semantically distinct root token ``PROTEST." Reduction of concepts to tokens and the clustering procedures that are then applied to the tokenized titles are numerically guided qualitative analytic techniques that require the researcher to be actively engaged with the data. In this process these and several hundred additional special cases were identified and corrective action was taken to distinguish the terms. The resulting reduced list of tokens, one list per article title, was the input to subsequent cluster analyses, which looked for high frequency tokens that tended to group together in the article titles.
638 tokens that occurred two or more times were apparent in the article data. Table 1 lists the 25 with the highest frequencies of occurrence. Together these tokens accounted for a total of 1,908 token occurrences, or approximately 40% of all the non-singular token occurrences. The significance of this is its illustration that a relatively small number of tokens can represent a substantial number of all the non-singular concepts used by authors of GFWS titles - a common outcome in this analysis of titles of scholarly articles.
Relationships between the tokenized concepts appearing in the dataset were mapped using WORDSTAT (Provalis Research, 1998) to assist in the identification of patterns of co-occurrence within the tokenized titles. WORDSTAT performs hierarchical cluster analysis on a co-occurrence matrix computed using the Jaccard similarity/distance measure popular in document analysis. As in qualitative data analysis procedures, productive cluster analysis of textual data is guided not as much by application of hard decision rules as it is by (a) the apparent coherence and thematic consistency of a particular cluster solution and (b) the application of loose statistical guidelines, such as selecting cluster solutions that optimize homogeneously sized groupings or that are formed at a jump point in the agglomeration index (Lebart, Salem, & Berry, 1998). In this manner a range of cluster solutions is applied until a result is obtained that maximizes thematic consistency (i.e., tokens grouped in meaningful and self consistent categories). Clustering is used as an interpretive aid rather than as an automated route to certainty and truth.
For this analysis optimal results were obtained by limiting the number of tokens included in the clustering to those 51 that occurred at least 15 times in the data set, exclusive of the tokens WOMEN (which occurred 573 times) and GENDER (which occurred 246 times). WOMEN and GENDER occurred with such disproportionately high frequency that they tended to overwhelm the ability of the cluster procedure to portray distinctions among the other high frequency tokens. As noted by Lebart, Salem, and Berry (1998), limiting the analysis in this way may aid interpretation without undue risk of misrepresenting the structure of the larger textual dataset. In addition to the standard cluster results, a measure of a cluster's inconsistency of interconnection was computed by calculating the standard deviation of the elements of the lower triangle of the matrix of frequencies representing the co-occurrence of concepts in each cluster (i.e., the number of instances in which two tokens appeared in the same article title). The higher the standard deviation of the within-cluster co-occurrence data, the less consistently interrelated were the concepts in the cluster, and the more likely it is that the concepts are not all representative of the same context of theory. The range of this metric for the clusters obtained was 3.42 (a tightly connected cluster of concepts) to 54.85 (a less tightly connected cluster).
The cluster solution suggested that the tokens grouped into six main constellations (see Figure 1). 2 Cluster one consists of three sections, the first two with stronger thematic interconnection with each other than with the third. The first section is comprised of a relatively loose combination (sd = 13.56) of the tokens ADVERT (advertising) with MAGAZIN (periodicals, magazine), IMAG (image), CULTUR (culture, cultural), HISTOR (history, historical), IDENT (identity), SEXUAL (sexual, sexually, sexuality), and MEDIA (media), with the HISTOR token rather weakly connected. This is a coherently themed cluster that highlights relationships in the work of GFWS scholars between concepts of identity (including sexual identity), image, culture, and media (including advertising). Articles exemplifying this grouping include Dickel's (1995) ``Bent gender: Virtual disruptions of gender and sexual identity", Lewis and Neville's (1995) ``Images of Rosie: A content analysis of women workers in American magazine advertising, 1940-1946", and Andren's (1984) ``On the study of causal connections between patterns of culture and other societal structures - With an illustration concerning gender structures in advertising and reality".
The second section of cluster one (sd = 10.70) joined the tokens AMERICA (America, American, United States), with MOVEM (movements), FEMINISM (feminist, feminism, profeminist, postfeminist), RHETOR (rhetoric, rhetorical, rhetoricizing), SCHOLARSHIP, CINEMA (cinema, films, filmed, movies, filmic), and VIEW (view, viewing, views, viewed). At this cluster's center is the very strong association between concepts of feminism and rhetoric and this connection is related to the context of American social movements. Feminist scholarship has also been a common focus in the literature as suggested in the introductory section of this article. The connection to cinema and viewing ties studies of film violence, violence to women, and sexual violence in film to other feminist studies of film (e.g., Jansma, Linz, Mulac, & Imrich's (1997) ``Men's interactions with women after viewing sexually explicit films: Does degradation make a difference?") . This is clearly a feminism cluster and the terms surrounding that key concept here and in the first and third sections of cluster one suggest some of the important conceptual elements that contextualize such scholarship.
The third section of cluster one is consistently self-connected (sd = 5.15) joining CONSTRUC (construction, constructing), FEMININ (feminized, feminine, feminization, femininity, feminizing), POLIT (political, politics, politicized, politic, politically), and STYL (style) to LANGUAG and SPEECH (speech, speeches). Three articles from the corpus exemplifying the conceptual relationships identified in this cluster provide examples of the way in which these concepts are sometimes combined: ``Feminine style and political judgment in the rhetoric of Ann Richards" (Dow & Tonn, 1993), ``Gendered politics and presidential image construction: A reassessment of the feminine style" (Parry-Giles & Parry-Giles, 1996), and ``Feminine language - contradictory textual politics" (Tachimaa, 1991). It is instructive to note the connection of this cluster to the first two sections of cluster one through concepts such as rhetoric and image.
Cluster two represents moderately variable connections (sd = 23.13) between the tokens BLACK (black, AfricanAmerican, blacks, AfroAmerican) and RACE (race, racists) to COVERAGE (coverage, covering, cover, covered), NEWSPAP (newspaper, press, newspapers) and, loosely, to MANAGE (management, managers). The theoretical thread tying these concepts together suggests the relationship between women and the oppression of women and racism and the oppression of blacks (e.g., Stanback's (1988) ``What makes scholarship about black women and communication feminist communication scholarship?"). These concepts have been in focus for those pursuing issues in newspaper journalism. The connection to management is very weak as indicated by the length of the connecting line in Figure 1. Tenuous though it is, the theme is exemplified by Sohn's (1984) ``Goals and achievement orientations of women newspaper managers."
Cluster three joins the consistently interrelated (sd = 3.42) tokens CHILD (children, juvenile, child, childhood) and ROLE to PORTRAYAL, SEXROL (sex role), and STEREOTYP (stereotyped, stereotypes, stereotyping). This is a very tightly formed cluster exemplified by articles by Karre (1976) ``Stereotyped sex roles and self concept: Strategies for liberating the sexes" and Chu and McIntyre (1995) ``Sex role stereotypes on children's TV in Asia: A content analysis of gender role portrayals in children's cartoons in Hong Kong". There is a distinct sub-literature connecting GFWS issues to childhood, child development, sex roles, and stereotyping. The emergence of this cluster suggests the strength of the conceptual connection between sex role stereotyping and childhood development.
Cluster four is complexly structured and seemed best interpreted as loosely connecting four small, relatively independent mini-clusters of concepts. This is reflected in the very high inconsistency of connection rating for these tokens as a group (sd = 54.85). The first of the mini-clusters joins MEN (men, males) and RELATIONSHIPS as illustrated by Richmond, Gorham, and Furio (1987) ``Affinity-seeking communication in collegiate female-male relationships". The second joined PERCEP (perceived, perception, perceptual, perceiving) with STUDENT and then connects loosely to POWER (power, powerful). The grouping is illustrated by Jordan, McGreal, and Wheeless's (1990) ``Student perceptions of teacher sex-role orientation and use of power strategies and teacher sex as determinants of student attitudes toward learning". The third mini-cluster connects the concepts SEX (sex, sexes), TELEVI (tv, television, television programming, televised, television series, television program), and NEWS. Examples of these connections include ``Television programming and sex stereotyping: A meta-analysis" by Herrett-Skjellum and Allen (1996) and ``How sex stereotyping affects perceptions of news preferences" by Orwant and Cantor (1977). The fourth mini-cluster connects TALK (talk, talking) with WORK (work, working) as in Krol's (1991) ``Women talk about talk at work". The key to the interconnection of these four small groupings is that they all reference concepts that treat interpersonal and interactional phenomena, even in the context of television programming.
At the heart of cluster five (sd = 19.7) is the token SEXDIFF (sex differences), which bridges connections between NONVERB (nonverbal), GROUP, and ORGANIZE (organizational, organization, organizing, organizations). Although the three dyadic relationships GROUP and LEADERSHIP (leadership, leader, leaders, leaderless), NONVERB and SEXDIFF, and ORGANIZE and VOICE each represent concept pairs of reasonable strength of interconnection, the connections across the pairs is much looser. Exemplifying this connection is Knott and Natalle's (1997) ``Sex differences, organizational level, and superiors' evaluation of managerial leadership". By itself voice is a reasonably important concept in the GFWS literature, occurring in the titles of 18 articles in the sample. However it tends not to be strongly related to the other concepts included in the cluster analysis. It does occur twice in conjunction with variations of the ORGANIZE token (e.g., Buzzanell's (1994) ``Gaining a voice: Feminist organizational communication theorizing"), which is the highest joint occurrence for VOICE among the set of concepts. Taken together cluster five is suggestive of the context of small group and organizational studies, with the voice concept appended weakly.
Cluster six consists of four tokens with relatively consistent interconnection (sd = 7.28) that represent applied areas of focus: EDUC (education, educational, educators), JOURNALIST (journalists, journalist, reporter), WRIT (writing, written, write, sportswriters, writings), and PUBLICREL (public relations). Exemplifying these connections are Grunig's (1989) ``Sex discrimination in promotion and tenure in journalism education", McHoul's (1986) ``Writing, sexism, and schooling: A discourse-analytic investigation of some recent documents on sexism and education in Queensland" and Weaver-Lariscy, Cameron, and Sweep's (1994) ``Women in higher education public relations: An inkling of change?".
As described previously, the history of the GFWS literature has been under discussion to the extent that it bears testimony to the question of institutional bias. Separate histories have been proposed for articles treating feminism versus articles in which sex or gender has been a primary independent variable in studies focused primarily on other matters. The consensual opinion of the GFWS literature holds that feminist scholarship has been slower to enter the literature than scholarship examining sex or gender differences. This assessment was supported here although analyses suggested a somewhat more complex historical picture.
Relative frequencies of occurrence for an enlarged pool consisting of 94 medium-to-high frequency textual tokens were computed to assess the frequency of appearance of tokens by year, corrected for the number of GFWS articles appearing each year. This correction was required because of the dramatic proliferation of communication journals and book series launched throughout the time period of this study. With more journals and series available each year, there were of course more potential opportunities for GFWS articles to be published as the years progressed. Hence the relativized data was used to study differences in the frequencies with which tokens appeared across the 28 year span of GFWS literature.
The GFWS literature suggests separate histories for studies of sex differences versus feminist scholarship. A quick probe of this was accomplished using correlation analysis. The GFWS literature singles out studies of sex differences as a point of contrast to feminist scholarship and posits a more or less constant interest in sex differences throughout the last few decades. To probe this idea the SEXDIFF token was correlated with year of publication. There was no significant correlation (r (28) = .10, ns), and an examination of the scatterplot indicated a stable, ongoing presence of that token over the years of the study. By contrast, the GFWS literature suggested that there should be a positive correlation for the FEMINISM token (i.e., more frequent appearance of that token in later years) and indeed that was found, although the magnitude of the relationship was initially relatively small (r (28) = .35, p < .05). The scatterplot of the FEMINISM token, however, revealed a U-shaped curve with high relative frequencies of occurrence in the early to mid 1970s, much lower frequencies in the late 1970s to mid 1980s, and rising frequencies thereafter. Recomputing the correlation using data from only 1980 and later revealed a robust linear relationship between the passage of time and the occurrence of the FEMINISM token (r (18) = .61, p < .01) after 1979. Clearly the proportion of the GFWS literature concerned with feminism has been rising steadily since the early 1980s.
This suggested that there have been two eras during which feminist-related ideas have been in consideration in the field with each era representing substantially different conceptual foci. A series of additional exploratory analyses provided further support for this conclusion. Scatterplots were obtained for other tokens that clustered with FEMINISM in the cluster analysis. Scatterplots for AMERICA, MOVEM, VIEW, and RHETOR indicated that these terms were more likely to occur in the early to mid 1970s while tokens such as CINEMA, IDENT, MEDIA, CULTUR, and SCHOLARSHIP were more likely to occur from the mid 1980s on. Hence it seems reasonable to conclude that feminism was under consideration in the field at a distance; that is, as a instance of an external phenomenon - an American social movement - in the early 1970s, while feminist theory, seized by the discipline as a legitimate basis for communication theory and research, has gradually come into its own beginning in the mid-1980s.
Further study of epochs within the literature was accomplished using discriminant analysis. Here the purpose was to probe for global shifts of focus in GFWS scholarship over the 28 year time period of the study. A preliminary cluster analysis was computed using the 94 token dataset to probe for connections among the years (i.e., the 28 years of publication were clustered in terms of the 94 tokens). Interestingly, this analysis clearly identified the years of the 1970s as distinct from later years. The span of years between 1980 and 1997 was more complexly interrelated but sufficiently well divided into years of the decade of the 1980s and years of the decade of the 1990s to justify simply using decade itself as a three level dependent variable (1970s, 1980s, and 1990s) for the discriminant analysis. Thus the three level decade variable was used as the dependent measure in a step-wise discriminant analysis with the 94 high frequency tokens as independent predictor variables.
This analysis identified two significant discriminant functions that were capable of accurate classification in 89% of the cases. The first function characterized the decade of the 1990s. The set of high loading tokens descriptive of GFWS scholarship appearing in this epoch were: CONSTRUC (construction, constructing) loading at .56, IDENT (identity) at .46, POWER (power, powerful) at .40, and PROFES (profession, professional, professionalism) at -.40. The second function differentiated the GFWS scholarship of the 1980s from the scholarship of the 1970s. High loading tokens (characteristic of the 1980s and uncharacteristic of the 1970s) were ROLE at .47, EXPECT (expectancy, expectations, expected) at .45, SEXDIFF (sex differences) at .43, TALK (talk, talking) at .41, and MANAG (management, managers) at .40. While this analysis lacks some of the descriptive facility of other probes employed in this study, its results add powerfully to the picture by providing a way of indexing the strength of the contention that there are separate eras in GFWS scholarship. Clearly 89% accuracy in classification indicates strong evidence of this effect.
Distribution of GFWS Articles Across the Literature
Attention was directed next to the question of the distribution of GFWS scholarship. Table 2 breaks this down by the 70 journals represented in the ComIndex corpus. As would be expected, ``Women's Studies in Communication" has published more GFWS scholarship than any of the other titles. The remainder of the GFWS literature is distributed fairly evenly with only a few exceptions. Of the titles with no contribution to the sample of GFWS scholarship, most are explained by the fact that their coverage in the ComIndex database is of especially short duration. These were titles recently launched or that ceased publication after a relatively short run. There are two exceptions - ``Journal of Mass Media Ethics" and ``Journal of Media Economics" representing a combined contribution of 302 articles in the database, none meeting selection criteria for inclusion in the GFWS sample. Among the remaining titles, the percent of each journal's articles meeting GFWS selection criteria ranged between less than one percent for ``Asian Journal of Communication" and twelve percent for ``Studies in Communication" (however, since that title was represented by only 34 articles in total, the 12% figure is misleading in its magnitude).
A second analysis explored the distribution of articles represented by the token FEMINISM (feminist, feminism, profeminist, postfeminist). 112 such articles were published in sources other than ``Women's Studies in Communication" in the present sample. This distribution is represented in the right-most column of Table 2. Here the distributional picture is quite different. The subsample of articles is absent entirely in the publication histories of 22 of the titles in Table 2 and a disproportionately large number of articles are published in only six titles: ``Communication" (which ceased publication in 1993), ``Critical Studies in Mass Communication", ``Quarterly Journal of Speech", ``Rhetoric Review", ``Southern Communication Journal", and ``Western Journal of Communication". These six titles, representing less than 10% of all the titles in the database, published 40% of the articles representing the FEMINISM token exclusive of those published in ``Women's Studies in Communication".
Because this analysis suggested that various aspects of the GFWS literature may be distributed within particular journals rather than randomly across journals, a comprehensive analysis of this possibility was performed. A finer grained division of the 51 token GFWS dataset was obtained by further subdividing the six category clustering solution presented earlier. A 13 category solution was obtained by dividing cluster 1 into its three component sections, cluster 4 into its four component sections, and cluster 5 into its three component sections. Table 2 lists the category assignment of each journal in the left-most column.
This 13 category scheme was cross tabulated by publication source. For each publication, the percent of articles referencing tokens from each of the thirteen clusters was computed. Thus, for the title ``Communication Reports", 25% of high frequency tokens appearing in articles from that journal were classified in cluster category 8, 50% in category 6, and 25% in category 5. This matrix of category percentages by publication source was then itself submitted to a cluster analysis that probed for coherent groupings among the publication sources with respect to the patterns of GFWS concepts that appeared in the titles of articles they published.
The resulting clustering provided a compelling picture of the distribution of GFWS concepts over the range of publications. Eight groups of publications were located, each sensibly dominant in a particular clustering of GFWS concepts. Group 1 was comprised of publication sources dominant in the interpersonal communication area (e.g., ``Human Communication Research", ``Communication Yearbook", ``Small Group Research", ``Communication Research", and ``Journal of Personal and Social Relationships" among others). Sources in this group were more likely to publish articles from the GFWS literature examining concepts grouping with men and relationships, nonverbal and sex differences, children and sex roles, and television, sex, and news.
Publication group 2 was electic but more likely to feature applied topics, especially related to the political realm. Among others, publication sources in this category included ``Journal of Applied Communication Research", ``Free Speech Yearbook", and ``Political Communication". This group was sharply distinguished from the rest by its greater likelihood of being an outlet for titles representing the second level of cluster one described earlier, comprising the concepts construction, feminity, political, style, speech, and language.
Though not all, many group 3 publication sources were international in character with a strong representation for journalism and media studies (e.g., ``European Journal of Communication", ``Nordicom Review", ``Gazette", ``Asian Journal of Communication", and ``Media Culture, and Society"). This group was far more likely than other groups of journals to publish titles representing concepts from the first division of cluster one presented earlier including advertising, magazine, image, culture, history, identity, sexuality, and media.
Group 4 was comprised of publication sources with a higher presence of rhetorical and critical publications (e.g., ``Quarterly Journal of Speech", ``Rhetoric Review", ``Communication", ``Critical Studies in Mass Communication", ``Southern Communication Journal" among others). Consistent with analyses presented earlier, this group was distinguished by its representation of concepts clustered with feminism and rhetoric, including America, movement, scholarship, cinema, and viewing.
Group 5 sources shared a common focus on mass communication (e.g., ``Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media", ``Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly", and ``Mass Comm Review"). This cluster of sources was distinguished by increased representation of concepts from the cluster of tokens that represented news, sex, and television, and the cluster that included black, race, newspaper, coverage, and manager.
Group 6 was comprised of three sources with a common interest in discourse and conversation analysis: ``Discourse and Society", ``Discourse Processes", and ``Research on Language and Social Interaction". These titles were likely to publish GFWS articles that contained tokens representing concepts such as talk and work, child, role, portrayal, sex role, and stereotyping, and men and relationships. However it is clear that this group of journals predominates in the talk-related token.
Group 7 was comprised of three titles focused on business and organizational communication - ``Journal of Business Communication", ``Organizational Communication: Emerging Perspectives", and ``Management Communication Quarterly". The distinguishing characteristic of this group was its predominant likelihood of publishing articles whose titles feature the GFWS concepts of organization and voice.
Group 8 sources had a common focus on professional writing and was comprised of ``Written Communication", ``Public Relations Research Review", ``Journal of Business and Technical Communication" and ``Journal of Public Relations". These titles were distinguished in their predominant likelihood of publishing titles that contained GFWS concepts from the cluster that reflected professional writing: writing, public relations, education, and journalist.
It is clear from the foregoing analysis that the distribution of GFWS concept clusters across publication sources is highly systematic. To the extent that articles treating high profile GFWS concepts are distributed broadly across the field's publications, they reflect the ability of GFWS scholars to connect with the thematically specific publication agendas of topically focused journals and annuals.
The foregoing analysis provides new perspective on the domain of GFWS scholarship. Previous surveys of the area have taken the scholarly article as the unit of analysis whereas this study focused on the concept and has explored empirical evidence of the manner in which high frequency GFWS concepts have been connected in the titles of articles in the literature. The result is a map of some prominent constellations from the theoretical galaxy of the GFWS area. Like any map resulting from an early phase of exploration, its tracings are rough and in all cases suggestive, never definitive. However, the mapping provides sufficient resolution to discern the more visible features of a few of the GFWS area's important configurations. It is apparent that in some cases these theoretical configurations represent different traditions of scholarship that have very different histories in the literature.
The feminism token lies at the center of the most elaborately articulated of the theoretical divisions identified in this study, just as it lies at the center of great controversy within the field. The elements surrounding the feminism token place it in particularly close proximity to rhetoric. It is interesting to note that the restricted range of journals that is home to a high proportion of studies identified with the feminism token has a strong drift toward the rhetorical side of the field. Even so there are indications that the relationship between feminist scholarship and rhetorical scholarship is neither harmonious, uncomplicated, nor uncontroversial (e.g., Dow, 1997; Foss & Griffin, 1992).
It is not possible to use the findings of this study to resolve the important historical question of institutional bias against feminist research or GFWS research generally. There can be, of course, no possible doubt that such bias exists given Blair et al.'s (1994) report. That experience aside, however, the evidence from this study is equivocal. On the one hand it is clear that the field has a long history of vigorous interest in understanding the separate experiences of men and women. The general GFWS literature, irrespective of studies featuring the feminism token, has been a strong and constant factor in the composition of the field's scholarship over the 28 years covered and this body of scholarship is distributed evenly and systematically throughout the many publication sources assessed. That a high proportion of this literature appears in ``Women's Studies in Communication" is not in itself problematic. After all, there is little doubt that a high proportion of all studies of communication in the medical context appear in ``Health Communication". This may not signal marginalization as much as it may reflect that special focus journals often come into being when a critical mass of scholarship begins to appear in a new area of research specialization.
But studies identified by the feminism token present a different picture. This scholarship comprises a relatively small proportion of the total GFWS literature (135 of 1,136 GFWS articles) and is completely absent from a significant range of publication sources. Oddly, such studies appear with greater frequency outside of WSC (112 articles) than within it (23 articles). This finding was unexpected and a followup discriminant analysis was conducted using the 94 token dataset to probe for distinctions between articles identified by the feminism token appearing in WCS versus all other sources combined. The obtained function provided significant discrimination (chi-square(4) = 44; p < .01), accounting for nearly 25% of the variance between the two sets of articles. One high loading token - SCHOLARSHIP - was predominantly responsible for this outcome. Feminism studies appearing in WSC were nearly twice as likely to list ``scholarship" in a title and indeed nearly 9 of the 23 feminism articles published in WSC were concerned with feminism and scholarship (e.g., Campbell, 1988; Condit, 1988; Wood, 1988), many associated with a single, special focus issue of WSC published in 1988.
It is possible to imagine a line of argument that would lead to the expectation that bias against feminist scholarship would be evidenced in a greater proportion of such work appearing in WSC, a sympathetic source, channeled there as a result of institutional pressure. However, to the extent that feminist scholarship is identifiable by the appearance of the feminism token in article titles, this has clearly not been the case. Be that as it may, discounting this expectation in no sense settles the question. There are a number of conditions of institutional bias that would not be detectable in the present research design. Besides the obvious possibility that feminist research may not always contain the feminism token in article titles, it is possible as well that there are alternative outlets for feminist communication scholarship not included in the range of publications surveyed here (e.g., edited collections). It has been suggested (e.g., McLaughlin, 1995) that feminist communication scholarship has to some degree migrated to the women's studies literature. This article does not resolve the question of marginalization; however these findings should serve to bring considerably greater focus to subsequent discussion of the matter by clarifying some of the empirical circumstances that contextualize this controversy.
An additional purpose of this article was to explore the value to the field of studying its own literature using concept analysis methodology. Previous studies of the field's publication practices have typically pursued three types of goals. The first has used content analysis in pursuit of the identification of sub-areas of scholarship within a general division of research. The unit of analysis is the article's thematic thrust, exemplified in the GFWS area by Foss and Foss (1983). A second type of study, exemplified by Funkhouser (1996), Reeves and Borgman (1983), and Rice et al. (1988), has employed citation analysis to understand patterns of influence and patterns of intellectual exchange among journals in the discipline. Here the unit of analysis is the citation (i.e., an instance of referencing another journal or article). A third track has attempted to identify publication practices, especially rates of publication, breaking the data down by demographic variables including author institutional affiliation, educational background, and sex (e.g., Cooper et al. 1989; Hickson et al. 1992). The unit of analysis in this third group is the article author. A common limitation of all work in these areas is that they have been forced by lack of suitable databases or automated methodologies to use greatly restricted samples.
Concept analysis adds to this tradition of interest while overcoming the methodological limitations of previous work. By exploring relationships among theoretical elements extracted from article titles, concept analysis promises to help in the process of sorting out and documenting the field's intellectual directions and the history of its scholarship. Concept analysis may bring into sharper focus questions of what discriminates the publication practices of one journal versus another (e.g., Stephen, 1999b) and the method is capable of capturing evidence of the intellectual agenda of particular publication sources (e.g., Stephen, 1999a). A strength of the approach is its capacity to work efficiently with large samples of simple bibliographic data. With the field witness to the launch of more than 40 new discipline specific journals since the mid-1970s - an average of two per year - the challenge at this time of such intense fragmentation within the field's scholarship is to locate procedures that help to identify threads of theoretical connection, making it possible to speak of communication as a united field of intellectual endeavor. To the extent that concept analysis has helped to identify such connections within the GFWS literature, it lends support to the potential of the method for the field generally.
Andren, Gunnar. (1984). On the study of causal connections between patterns of culture and other societal structures - With an illustration concerning gender structures in advertising and reality. Nordicom Review, 2, 2-8.
Buzzanell, Patrice M. (1994). Gaining a voice: Feminist organizational communication theorizing. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 7, (4, May), 339-383.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. (1988). What really distinguishes and/or ought to distinguish feminist scholarship in communication studies. Women¢s Studies in Communication, 11, (1, Spring), 4-5.
Chu, Donna, & McIntyre, Bryce T. (1995). Sex role stereotypes on children's TV in Asia: A content analysis of gender role portrayals in children's cartoons in Hong Kong. Communication ResearchReports, 12, (2, Fall), 206-219.
Condit, Celeste Michelle. (1988). What makes our scholarship feminist? A radical/liberal view. Women¢s Studies inCommunication, 11, (1, Spring), 6-8.
Cooper, Nancy. (1976). Feminist periodicals. Mass CommReview, 3, (3, Summer), 15-22.
Cooper, Pamela J., Stewart, Lea P. & Friedley, Cheryl A. (1989). Twenty years of research by and about women in major communication journals. Association for Communication Administration Bulletin,67, 46-61.
Dickel, M. H. (1995). Bent gender: Virtual disruptions of gender and sexual identity. Electronic Journal of Communication, 5, (4).
Dow, Bonnie J. (1997). Feminism, cultural studies, and rhetorical studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, (1, February), 90-106.
Dow, Bonnie J., & Tonn, Mari Boor. (1993). "Feminine style" and political judgment in the rhetoric of Ann Richards. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 79, (3, August), 286-302.
Endres, Kathleen. (1975-76). Jane Grey Swisshelm: 19th century journalist and feminist. Journalism History, 2, (4, Winter), 128-132.
Foss, Karen A. (1989). Feminist scholarship in speech communication: Contributions and obstacles. Women¢s Studies inCommunication, 12, (1, Spring), 1-10.
Foss, Sonja K. (1978). Teaching contemporary feminist rhetoric: An illustrative syllabus. Communication Education, 27, (4, November), 328-335.
Foss, Karen A. & Foss, Sonja A. (1983). The status of research on women and communication. Communication Quarterly, 31, (3), 195-204.
Foss, Sonja A. & Griffin, Cindy L. (1992). A feminist perspective on rhetorical theory: Toward a clarification of boundaries. Western Journal of Communication, 56 (4, Fall), 330-349.
Frakes, W. B. (1992). Stemming algorithms. In W. B. Frakes, and R. Baeza-Yates (Eds.). Information retrieval: Data structures andalgorithms. 131-160. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall PTR.
Funkhouser, E. T. (1996). The evaluative use of citation analysis for communication journals. Human CommunicationResearch, 22, 563-574.
Gillespie, Patti P. (1978). Feminist theatre: A rhetorical phenomenon. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 64, (3, October), 284-294.
Grunig, Larissa A. (1989). Sex discrimination in promotion and tenure in journalism education. Journalism Quarterly, 66, (1, Spring), 93-100.
Herrett-Skjellum, Jennifer, & Allen, Mike. (1996). Television programming and sex stereotyping: A meta-analysis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 157-185.
Hickson, Mark, III, Stacks, Don W., and Amsbary, Jonathan H. (1992). Active prolific female scholars in communication: An analysis of research productivity, II. Communication Quarterly, 40, (4, Fall), 350-356.
Karre, Idahlynn. (1976). Stereotyped sex roles and self concept: Strategies for liberating the sexes. Communication Education,25, (1, January), 43-52.
Knott, Katherine B., & Natalle, Elizabeth J. (1997). Sex differences, organizational level, and superiors' evaluation of managerial leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, (4, May), 523-540.
Krol, Tineke F. (1991). Women talk about talk at work. Discourse and Society, 2, (4, October), 461-476.
Jansma, Laura L., Linz, Daniel G., Mulac, Anthony, & Imrich, Dorothy J. (1997). Men's interactions with women after viewing sexually explicit films: Does degradation make a difference? Communication Monographs, 64, (1, March), 1-24.
Jordan, Felicia F., McGreal, Elizabeth A., & Wheeless, Virginia Eman. (1990). Student perceptions of teacher sex-role orientation and use of power strategies and teacher sex as determinants of student attitudes toward learning. Communication Quarterly, 38, (1, Winter), 43-53.
Lewis, Charles, & Neville, John. (1995). Images of Rosie: A content analysis of women workers in American magazine advertising, 1940-1946. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, (1, Spring), 216-227.
Medhurst, Martin J. (1982). The sword of division. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 383-390.
Lebart, L., Salem, A., & Berry, L. (1998). Exploringtextual data. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Linkugel, Wil A. (1971). Voices of the new feminism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57, (3, October), 370-371.
Linkugel, Wil A. (1974). The rhetoric of American feminism: A social movement course. Speech Teacher, 23, (2, March), 121-130.
Mather, Anne. (1974). A history of feminist periodicals, part I. Journalism History, 1, (3, Autumn), 82-85.
Mather, Anne. (1975a). A history of feminist periodicals, part III. Journalism History, 2, (1, Spring), 19-23, 31.
Matlon, R. & Ortiz, S. (1992). Index to Journals inCommunication Studies through 1990. Annandale, Virginia: Speech Communication Association.
McHoul, A. W. (1986). Writing, sexism, and schooling: A discourse-analytic investigation of some recent documents on sexism and education in Queensland. Advances in Discourse Processes, 19, 187-204.
McLaughlin, Lisa. (1995). Feminist communication scholarship and ``The Women Question" in the academy. Communication Theory, 5, (2, May), 144-161.
McNeil, Jean C. (1975). Feminism, femininity, and the television series: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting, 19, (3, Summer), 259-271.
Morris, Monica B. (1973). Newspapers and the new feminists: Black-out as social control? Journalism Quarterly, 50, (1, Spring), 37-42.
Murdoch, J. L., & Konsky, C. (1980). An investigation of verbosity and sex-role expectations. Women¢s Studies in Communication, 5, (2, Fall), 65-76.
Orwant, Jack E., & Cantor, Muriel G. (1977). How sex stereotyping affects perceptions of news preferences. Journalism Quarterly,54, (1, Spring), 99-108,139.
Parry-Giles, Shawn J., & Parry-Giles, Trevor. (1996). Gendered politics and presidential image construction: A reassessment of the ``feminine style". Communication Monographs, 63, (4, December), 337-353.
Porter, M. F. (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14, 130-137.
Rakow, Lana F. (1989). Feminist studies: The next stage. Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 6, (2, June), 209-215.
Reeves, B., & Borgman, C. L. (1983). A bibliometric evaluation of core journals in communication research. Human CommunicationResearch, 10, 119-136.
Rice, R., Borgman, C., & Reeves, B. (1988). Citation networks of
communication journals, 1977-1985: Cliques and positions, citations
made and citations
received. Human CommunicationResearch, 15, 256-283.
Richmond, Virginia P., Gorham, Joan, & Furio, Brian J. (1987). Affinity-seeking communication in collegiate female-male relationships. Communication Quarterly, 35, (4, Fall), 334-348.
Roloff, Michael E., & Greenberg, Bradley S. (1979). Sex differences in choice of modes of conflict resolution in real-life and television. Communication Quarterly, 27, (3, Summer), 3-12.
Seggar, John F. (1975). Women's imagery on TV: Feminist, fair maiden, or maid? Comments on McNeil. Journal of Broadcasting,19, (3, Summer), 289-294.
Sohn, Ardyth B. (1984). Goals and achievement orientations of women newspaper managers. Journalism Quarterly, 61, (3, Autumn), 600-605.
Stanback, Marsha Houston. (1988). What makes scholarship about black women and communication feminist communication scholarship? Women¢s Studies in Communication, 11, (1, Spring), 28-31.
Stephen, T. (1999). Computer Assisted Concept Analysisof HCR¢s First 25 Years. Human Communication Research.
Stephen, T. (1999). Differentiating the regionalcommunication journals: A computer assisted concept analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Stephen, T., Harrison, T. & Silvestre, P. (1998). ComIndex: An
electronic index to
communication serials. [Computer software]. Rotterdam Junction, NY: Communication Institute for Online Scholarship.
Stephen, T. (1999). Differentiating the regionalcommunication journals: A computer assisted concept analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Tachimaa, Sinikka. (1991). Feminine language-contradictory textual politics. Semiotica, 87, (3-4), 371-379.
Ward, Jean. (1975). Attacking the King's English: Implications for journalism in the feminist critique. Journalism Quarterly, 52, (4, Winter), 699-705.
Weaver-Lariscy, Ruth Ann, Cameron, Glen T., & Sweep, Duane D. (1994). Women in higher education public relations: An inkling of change? Journal of Public Relations Research, 6, (2), 125-140.
Wood, Julia T. (1988). Feminist scholarship in communication: Consensus, diversity, and conversation among researchers. Women¢sStudies in Communication, 11, (1, Spring), 22-27.
1. The present version of the ComIndex corpus includes all regular research articles for journals published between 1970 and 1997. However if a journal began publishing in the 1960s, the source is included in its entirety. A source such as ``Communication Quarterly", which began publishing long before 1960, is included from 1970 on but a source such as ``Free Speech Yearbook" that began in 1962 is represented in total.
2. Tokens are presented in their Porterized form. If the Porterized token stands for a set of concepts, elements in the set are listed in parenthesis. To simplify the presentation of the definitions of tokens either the singular or the plural form of concepts are given but not both.
|573||WOMEN||(woman, women, female, females)|
|246||GENDER||(gender, genders, gendered)|
|142||FEMINISM||(feminist, feminisms, feminism, feminists, profeminist,|
|116||MEN||(men, males, man, male)|
|85||TELEVI||(tv, television, television programming, televised, television series,|
|57||RHETOR||(rhetoric, rhetorical, rhetoricizing)|
|47||POLIT||(political, politics, politicized, politic, politically)|
|47||PERCEP||(perceived, perceptions, perception, perceptual, perceiving)|
|46||FEMININ||(feminized, feminine, feminization, femininity, feminizing)|
|44||MAGAZIN||(periodicals, magazine, magazines)|
|30||SEXROL||(sex role, sex roles)|
|29||AMERICA||(american, unitedstates, america)|
|27||BLACK||(black, africanamerican, blacks, africanamericans, afroamerican)|
|24||NEWSPAP||(newspaper, press, newspapers)|
|20||CHILD||(children, juvenile, child, childhood)|
|Group||Name of Journal or Annual||Articles||Articles||Frequency||Rel. Freq.||Articles|
|2||Advances in Discourse Processes||10||513||.9||.02||1|
|Advances in Telematics||0|
|1||Argumentation and Advocacy||9||630||.8||.01||2|
|3||Asian Journal of Communication||1||111||.1||.00||0|
|4||Australian Journal of Communication||14||329||1.2||.04||2|
|5||Australian Studies in Journalism||8||87||.7||.09||1|
|4||Canadian Journal of Communication||7||403||\ .6||.02||2|
|Communication Law and Policy*||1||26||.1||.04||0|
|1||Communication Research Reports||19||329||1.7||.06||0|
|Convergence: The Journal of Research|
|into New Media Technologies||0|
|4||Critical Studies in Mass|
|6||Discourse and Society||16||151||1.4||.11||0|
|3||Electronic Journal of Communication /|
|La Revue Electronique de|
|3||European Journal of Communication||6||329||.5||.02||1|
|2||Free Speech Yearbook||4||337||.4||.01||0|
|Harvard International Journal|
|of Press Politics||0|
|5||Howard Journal of Communications||18||180||1.6||.10||4|
|1||Human Communication Research||19||673||1.7||.03||0|
|International Journal of Listening*||2||95||.2||.02||0|
|4||Issues in Applied Linguistics||2||123||.2||.02||0|
|5||Journalism and Mass Communication|
|2||Journalism and Mass Communication|
|2||Journal of Applied Communication|
|5||Journal of Broadcasting and|
|7||Journal of Business Communication||13||736||1.1||.02||0|
|8||Journal of Business and Technical|
|5||Journal of Communication||49||1644||4.3||.03||2|
|Journal of Mass Media Ethics||0|
|Journal of Media Economics||0|
|5||Journal of Mediated Communication||1||234||.1||00||0|
|8||Journal of Pub. Relations Research||8||103||.7||.08||1|
|1||Journal of Social and Personal|
|7||Management Communication Quarterly||10||221||.9||.05||2|
|5||Mass Comm Review||9||236||.8||.04||1|
|3||Media, Culture and Society||19||507||1.7||.04||4|
|3||Media Studies Journal||15||608||1.3||.03||2|
|4||Philosophy and Rhetoric||3||887||.3||.00||1|
|1||Progress in Communication Sciences||4||114||.4||.04||0|
|5||Public Opinion Quarterly||21||1063||1.8||.02||1|
|Public Relations Research and Education|
|8||Public Relations Review||16||574||1.4||.03||2|
|4||Quarterly Journal of Speech||36||1014||3.2||.04||1|
|6||Research in Language and Social|
|1||Small Group Research||28||823||2.5||.04||1|
|4||Southern Communication Journal||32||706||2.8||.06||7|
|4||Studies in Communication||4||34||.4||.12||1|
|1||Western Journal of Communication||34||744||3.0||.05||5|
|4||Women's Studies in Communication||168||171||14.8||.98||12|