This Article Order Full text via Infotrieve References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Murphy, M. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Re-Viewing Business Communication: A Response to Carmichael, White-Mills and Rogers, and Krapels and Arnold

Pace University, New York, NY

This paper responds to the observations regarding the identity of business communication, management communication, and organizational communica tion set forth in the Carmichael, White-Mills and Rogers, and Krapels and Arnold articles which appeared in the July 1996 issue of The Journal of Busi ness Communication, 33(3). It argues that the identity of the field of business communication and all variations thereof ought to be determined by the concep tual problematic underlying its intellectual inquiry rather than by its vocabu lary or instructional practices. On this basis, the paper advocates the view that business communication, management communication, and organizational communication are not, as suggested by the three articles, separate disciplines but interdependent areas of study nested within the domain of the mother discipline of communication. The paper concludes by making the plea for a more inclusive editorial policy that adopts an eclectic methodological stance and encourages substantive debates relating to the nature and processes of communication as constituted by the practical milieu of business.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?