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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krapels, R. H. Articles by Arnold, V. D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Response to Murphy's "Re-Viewing Business Communication"

University of Mississippi, University

Vanessa D. Arnold

University of Mississippi, University

In our original article, "The Legitimacy of Business Communication," we used a model developed by Kenneth Boulding, an economist, to provide a foundation for viewing the discipline in which we teach as a stand-alone field within the academic arena. Our intent was to include the many facets of communicating in the business environment under one all-encompassing discipline since executive communication, management communication, organizational communication, as well as presentation courses and many others, are all part of communicating in business. If those of us teaching in our field view ourselves as members of a specific discipline rather than a sub-area or stepchild of a larger academic field, our peers are more likely to see us as a legitimate academic discipline. Accord ing to Boulding, external and internal legitimacy are necessary for work to be viewed as legitimate.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Du-Babcock Teaching Business Communication: Past, Present, and Future Journal of Business Communication, July 1, 2006; 43(3): 253 - 264. [PDF]