100 Years Communication Study in Europe Karl Buche

SC|M Studies in Communication and Media
FULL PAPER
100 years communication study in Europe:

Karl Bücher’s impact on the discipline’s reflexive project
100 Jahre Kommunikationswissenschaft in Europa:

Karl Büchers Einfluss auf das reflexive Projekt der Disziplin
Thomas Wiedemann, Michael Meyen & Iván Lacasa-Mas
Studies in Communication and Media, 7. Jg., 1/2018, S. 7–30, DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-1-7 7

https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2018-1-7, am 28.11.2022, 06:48:53
Open Access – - http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/agb
Thomas Wiedemann, Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und Medienforschung,
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oettingenstr. 67, 80538 München, Germany;
Contact: wiedemann(at)ifkw.lmu.de
Michael Meyen, Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und Medienforschung, Ludwig-

Maximilians-Universität München, Oettingenstr. 67, 80538 München, Germany; Contact:
meyen(at)ifkw.lmu.de
Iván Lacasa-Mas, Departamento de Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universitat Internacional

de Catalunya, Immaculada, 22, 08017 Barcelona, Spain; Contact: lacasa(at)uic.es
8 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

Full Paper
100 years communication study in Europe: Karl Bücher’s impact on

the discipline’s reflexive project
100 Jahre Kommunikationswissenschaft in Europa: Karl Büchers
Einfluss auf das reflexive Projekt der Disziplin
Thomas Wiedemann, Michael Meyen & Iván Lacasa-Mas
Abstract: Grounded in Giddens’ structuration theory and using Bourdieu’s analytical tools
this paper argues that Karl Bücher’s launch of Europe’s first communication department at
Leipzig University in 1916 had a structural impact on the discipline’s development across
the continent, which goes far beyond content or citations. The evaluation of the literature
on the field’s history reveals that Bücher was the starting point of the discipline’s isomor-
phic structuration, since he designed the look and orientation of European communication
study with large consequences on its position in the academic field. This included, first, the
requirement of meta capital to implement the discipline in academia. Furthermore, the
launch of communication study was also strongly linked to the socio-political climate and
the ongoing media expansion. Consequently, the practical application was the most impor-
tant orientation pattern for a long time. However, to get recognition at university, the dis-
cipline finally had to focus on purely academic approaches. All these dimensions were al-
ready on the map when the discipline’s institutionalization process in Europe began 100
years ago. Therefore, Bücher’s launch of the communication department at Leipzig Univer-
sity can still be considered as a key element of the field’s reflexive project.
Keywords: History of the field, communication study in Europe, Karl Bücher, structura-
tion, reflexivity, Giddens, Bourdieu
Zusammenfassung: Gestützt auf Giddens’ Strukturationstheorie und die Analysewerkzeuge

Bourdieus argumentiert dieser Beitrag, dass Karl Büchers Gründung des Leipziger Instituts
für Zeitungskunde (der ersten kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Einrichtung an einer
Universität in Europa) im Jahr 1916 einen strukturellen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung der
Disziplin auf dem ganzen Kontinent hatte, der weit über Inhalte oder Zitationen hinaus-
geht. Die Analyse der Literatur zur Fachgeschichte zeigt, dass Bücher Gestalt und Ausrich-
tung der Kommunikationswissenschaft als Universitätsdisziplin in Europa vorzeichnete –
mit weitreichenden Konsequenzen für ihre Position im wissenschaftlichen Feld. Dieser
strukturelle Einfluss beinhaltete zunächst die Notwendigkeit von beträchtlichem Meta
kapital, um entsprechende Fachinstitute an der Universität zu verankern. Außerdem stand
die Gründung der Disziplin immer in enger Beziehung zum soziopolitischen Klima der Zeit
und zum Stand der Medienentwicklung. Wenig überraschend stellte demzufolge die prakti-
sche Anwendbarkeit lange das wichtigste Orientierungsmuster dar. Um jedoch als eigenes
Feld wahrgenommen zu werden, musste die Kommunikationswissenschaft schließlich auf
wissenschaftliche Anerkennung setzen. All diese Dimensionen waren bereits auf dem Tisch,
9
Full Paper
als der Institutionalisierungsprozess der Disziplin in Europa vor 100 Jahren begann.
Büchers Gründung des Instituts für Zeitkunde in Leipzig kann somit immer noch als
Kernelement des reflexiven Projekts Kommunikationswissenschaft gelten.
Schlagwörter: Fachgeschichte, Kommunikationswissenschaft in Europa, Karl Bücher, Struk-
turation, Reflexivität, Giddens, Bourdieu
1. Scope
At first glance, there is nothing left of the European field’s first university institute
founded by Karl Bücher (1847–1930) at Leipzig University in 1916. Needless to
say, in Leipzig, there is still an institute dedicated to media and communication
research. This is the place where the German national communication association
celebrated its 2016 annual conference on ‘100 years Communication Study in
Germany: From a Specialty to an Integrating Discipline.’ As it seems, there is a
continuous line between Karl Bücher and the current scientific community, which
even includes the Third Reich and the German Democratic Republic (GDR)
where political interests moulded the discipline (cf. Simonson & Peters, 2008).
However, beyond anniversaries and the need to be legitimized by tradition,
Karl Bücher, his doctoral students in Zeitungskunde (newspaper studies), and his
early successors in Zeitungswissenschaft (newspaper science, the early German
term for communication study) such as Erich Everth (professor in Leipzig from
1926 to 1933), Emil Dovifat (professor in Berlin from 1926 to 1959), or Karl
d’Ester (professor in Munich from 1924 to 1953) are forgotten. They are not be-
ing cited any more, and today’s students do not even know what these distant
ancestors were dealing with. Of course, beginning in the mid-1950s, the shift to
an empirical social scientific discipline changed terminology, theories, research
objects, and methods (cf. Löblich, 2007). For empirical oriented European com-
munication scholars, the US became the most important point of reference. Ad-
ditionally, and this applies not only to Germany either, the distance to the field’s
ancestors was amplified by communication study’s historiography, which focuses
on intellectual origins (cf. Hardt, 2001; Park & Pooley, 2008; Peters, 1986, 1999;
Rogers, 1997), on “milestones” (Lowery & DeFleur, 1983), on edited collections
of key or canonic texts (cf. Katz et al., 2003; Peters & Simonson, 2004), and on
biographical myths about the founding fathers (such as Carl Hovland, Harold D.
Lasswell, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and Kurt Lewin) that also have been criticized as
“thin hagiography” (Pooley & Park, 2008, p. 4) and ‘great-men-make-history’
tales (cf. Löblich & Scheu, 2011; Simonson, 2008). These approaches hardly re-
veal analogies in the conceptual work of installing a new discipline in academia.
More precisely, except for the recognition of Wilbur Schramm’s performance at
Iowa, Illinois, and Stanford (cf. Chaffee & Rogers, 1997; Rogers, 1997), institu-
tional aspects are still a blind spot in the history of the field, especially in Europe.
This also includes the research on the continent’s first institution builder Karl
Bücher, which both in the German context (cf. Kutsch, 1997, 2002a, 2002b,
2010; vom Bruch, 1980) and at international level (cf. Hardt, 2001, pp. 99–131)
emphasizes his intellectual assumptions, whereas his institutional work at Leipzig
10 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

Wiedemann/Meyen/Lacasa-Mas | 100 years communication study in Europe
University is, with few exceptions (cf. Koenen, 2016a; Wilke, 2016), broadly ne-
glected.
This paper pleads for reconsidering Bücher’s role and assumes that his launch
of the Leipzig institute had an impact on the discipline’s branch that goes far be-
yond specific content or citations – not only in Germany, but also in Europe.
Grounded in Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory, we argue that this impact is
primarily structural. More precisely, the institutional model created by Bücher at
Leipzig University is supposed to be the starting point of communication study’s
isomorphic structuration that designed the discipline’s look and orientation
around the continent with large consequences on its position in academia. To re-
trace these assumed structuration effects, the paper evaluates the literature on
communication study’s history based on Pierre Bourdieu’s analytical tools of hab-
itus, capital, and field. Where did the discipline’s pioneers in Europe come from
and what power resources did they have? What was the social context that af-
forded to the launch of communication departments at European universities and
which factors were the driving forces? Moreover, what were the principles and
orientations that guided the early figures’ work and which strategies did they
adopt to get legitimacy and to grow as an academic discipline? To make the
point, were there similarities or shared features between the launch of the conti-
nent’s first communication department at Leipzig University and the discipline’s
development? Of course, outlining Bücher’s institutionalization effort and its im-
plicit structuration effects on the European field cannot only be linked to the re-
search on the origins of communication as an academic discipline (cf. Averbeck,
2008; Delia, 1987; Glander, 2000; Simonson & Park, 2016; Wahl-Jorgensen,
2004). It rather focuses on connections between research communities (cf. Koivis-
to & Thomas, 2010; Löblich & Averbeck, 2016) as well as on the field’s identity
(cf. Donsbach, 2006; Hardt, 2008; Pooley & Park, 2013) and contributes to its
reflexivity (cf. Bourdieu, 2004; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2000; Wiedemann & Meyen,
2016) or, as Giddens (1991, p. 36) would say, to the transformation of “practical
consciousness” into “discursive consciousness.”
To meet these expectations, the following chapter starts with an introduction
to the main sociology of science ideas that guided the analysis. Then, chapter 3
takes a closer look at the figure of Karl Bücher and provides insights into his
founding of the Leipzig institute. With a chain of arguments and focusing on
highlights of the discipline’s development (in Germany, but also, for example, in
Spain, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Switzerland, or in Austria), chapter 4 fi-
nally discusses the structural impact of Bücher’s performance on the reflexive pro-
ject of communication study in Europe. Although the geographical sweep does
not allow referring to all European countries and the sometimes diverse nature of
the discipline even within one region, the findings indicate that Bücher can be
considered as a point of reference of communication study’s collective identity –
not so much because of his intellectual groundwork, but rather because of his
predefinition of what the discipline was all about.
11
Full Paper
2. Theoretical background and research design

The paper starts from the sociology of science approach’s implicitness that the
development of an academic discipline is the product of cognitive and social pa-
rameters (cf. Kuhn, 1962; Weingart, 2003). Simultaneously, it is assumed that this
development reflects the background of its most important figures and the struc-
tures they were confronted with. It is easy to link these ideas with Giddens’
(1984, 1991) duality of structure concept. Giddens describes every kind of prac-
tice as an experience-based stream of behaviour, which reproduces and modifies
social structures, defined as “recursively organized set of rules and resources”
(1984, p. 25). Said otherwise, agents establish structures, and at the same time are
constrained as well as enabled by those structures. What is more, they have a re-
flexive self-control and their “capacity to keep a particular narrative going” (Gid-
dens, 1991, p. 54) is aimed at creating a continuum that serves as a “self-display”
(Giddens, 1991, p. 27) and as a framework of orientation and identification. In
other words, structuring properties “make it possible for discernibly similar social
practices to exist across varying spans of time and space” (Giddens, 1984, p. 17).
Undoubtedly, this reflexive process is also relevant for an academic discipline
whose members are permanently contributing to a collective “story about the
self” (Giddens, 1991, p. 54), which helps them to sort who they are, what they
are dealing with, where they are coming from, and where they are going to.
Moreover, it can be assumed that the need for interpreting one’s own origin and
structuring self-identity was particularly important for communication study,
which remained barely developed and without major prestige for the most of the
20th century (cf. Abbott, 2002; Meyen, 2015) and was above all a product of ex-
ternal influences (cf. Glander, 2000; Pooley, 2008). Therefore, with Giddens’
structuration theory, the launch of European communication study’s first institute
in Leipzig can be understood as a historical structure that served as an uncon-
scious blueprint for the founding and establishment of communication depart-
ments at universities all over the continent. At this point, it is fruitful to line the
argumentation with the concept of institutional isomorphism set by Paul J. DiM-
aggio and Walter W. Powell (1983). Referring to Giddens’ structuration theory,
significantly, DiMaggio and Powell argue that once a set of organizations emerges
as a field, individual efforts to deal rationally with uncertainty and constraints
make these organizations increasingly similar – with the aggregate effect of less-
ening the field’s diversity. Thereby, this “inexorable push toward homogeniza-
tion,” which “goes largely behind the back of groups” (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983, pp. 148, 157), is explained by three isomorphic mechanisms: coercive au-
thority stemming from influences of other organizations or expectations in socie-
ty, mimetic processes resulting from standard responses and (unintentional) imita-
tions, and normative pressures forcing the organization’s members to “establish a
cognitive base and legitimation for their occupational autonomy” (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983, p. 152). Of course, it can be assumed that these processes also play
out in the development of an academic enterprise. Following the sociology of sci-
ence approach, structuration dimensions could point to the social structure of a
discipline’s representatives, to stable interfaces with other disciplines or fields in
12 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

society, and to principles that guide the remit of a scientific community including
the strategies of ensuring resources and reputation (cf. Kuhn, 1961; Weingart,
2003). Moreover, from the structural differentiation perspective, internal homog-
enization is operating in science as soon as new disciplines appear, organized be-
tween cognitive inequalities and socio-structurally identical elements (cf. Stich-
weh, 1994). Going back to the structuration of communication study, it is even
likely that comparable mechanisms were working in all social sciences during
their institutionalization (cf. Wagner et al., 1991).
To scrutinize similarities or shared features between the Leipzig institute and
communication study’s institutionalization in Europe, the paper draws on the
analytical tools of Bourdieu (1975, 2004), who also starts from a circular rela-
tionship between subjective and objective structures. Following Bourdieu, aca-
demic practice is, at a first level, closely linked to the ruling habitus patterns (both
as opus operatum and modus operandi) and the promising capital mixtures in the
field. These well-known concepts refer, on one hand, to the socialized subjectivity
of agents (their origin, socialization, and experience), which guides their world-
view and behaviour (commitments, patterns of thought, self-concept), and de-
scribe, on the other hand, all types of (economic, cultural, social, and symbolic)
power resources for a successful position in the social space. However, at a sec-
ond level, the benefit of field members’ habitus and capital is then determined by
the structure and logic of the academic universe. Bourdieu described the scientific
field as a social microcosm with hierarchies and constraints (2004, pp. 40–44),
which is shaped by the “competitive struggle” for “scientific authority” (1975, p.
19) and reflects external effects from higher ranked fields that limit its autonomy.
In this spirit, assuming an implicit structuration process in the development of
communication study in Europe, which already started with Bücher’s launch of
the Leipzig Zeitungskunde Institute, has to explore, first, which habitus patterns,
capital mixtures, and power structures were at play when Bücher designed the
continent’s first communication department. Second, it has to examine whether
these dimensions, at least in some key aspects, remained effective during the insti-
tutionalization process of communication study at European universities. To
make it very clear at this point: According to the theoretical perspective, the goal
of this paper is not to prove a direct link between Bücher’s Leipzig launch and the
founding and establishment of other communication departments in Europe via
citations or archival references. Instead, with an extensive survey of the literature
on the field’s history in Europe, the paper emphasizes isomorphic structuration
elements of the discipline’s practical (‘pre-discursive’) consciousness across the
continent, which nevertheless would be, with Giddens, a strong argument for
considering the field’s birth in 1916 as crucial for its identity until today.
3. Karl Bücher and the foundation of the Leipzig Zeitungskunde Institute

The foundation of the Leipzig institute in 1916 was the last stage of Karl Bücher’s
professional career. Bücher was born in Kirberg (Duchy of Nassau). Despite his
modest family background (his father was a brush maker), he studied history,
philology, and economics at the University of Bonn and received his doctoral de-
13
Full Paper
gree in history in 1870. Having worked as an upper secondary school teacher (in
Dortmund, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt) and as a freelance journalist of the Frank
furter Zeitung, the editor of this liberal and middle-class daily newspaper, Leo-
pold Sonnemann, engaged him in 1878 and put him in charge of the social and
economic department. There, Bücher got in touch with the economist Albert
Schäffle who inspired him to strive for a position in academia. Thanks to his men-
tor, Bücher could soon submit a habilitation thesis (about the medieval popula-
tion statistics in Frankfurt) to the economist Alphons Helferich at the University
of Munich. In 1881, he received his venia legendi in economics and statistics, and
from then on, things went rather quickly. He became professor of economics at
the universities of Dorpat (1882), Basel (1883), and Karlsruhe (1890), and finally
was appointed to a full professorial chair at Leipzig University in 1892 (cf. Hardt,
2001). Shortly after, he was elected dean of the philosophical faculty and rector of
the university. During the first decade of the 20th century, Bücher was not only
recognized as one of the leading protagonists in the field of economics (both in
the German Reich and abroad), but also because of his commitment in the Royal
Saxon Society for the Sciences. His reputation as a world-famous scholar attract-
ed numerous students from all over the globe including the later socialist politi-
cians Friedrich Stampfer and Hermann Duncker, and the later ministers of foreign
affairs, Gustav Stresemann and Michail Iwanowitsch Tereschtschenko (cf. Kutsch,
2002a).
As economist, Bücher belonged to the so-called Historical School, an approach
that emerged in the 19th century in Germany and regarded history as a key source
of knowledge in economic matters. In this context, three points are important.
First, if one follows the Historical School’s reasoning that every development de-
pends on time and space, statements about reality need to be rooted in empirical
data resulting from historical research or surveying. Within this school, econom-
ics was seen as a social science establishing general laws via in-depth studies.
Second, the German Historical School was normative. This included both public
criticism and advice to politics and economy. Third, closely linked to that, state
and government played important roles in the school’s conception of economy
and society. Put differently, the well-being of the community cannot be guaran-
teed by the market (cf. Backhaus, 2000; Pearson, 2002).
All these habitus patterns can be found in Bücher’s thinking on newspapers
and his conception of the Leipzig Zeitungskunde Institute. From the beginning of
his academic career, press and journalism were part of his writing and teaching
(cf. Kutsch, 2010). Yet, in 1884 he started regular lectures on this topic and devel-
oped his press statistics paradigm which inspired major follow-up studies (cf.
Kutsch, 2002a). The former journalist Bücher was equally well-known for his
criticism of the press. He called for the lifting of journalists’ anonymity and the
breaking down of the big news agencies’ monopoly. He also argued against the
mixing of journalistic texts and ads (cf. Meyen, 2002), which he regarded as dan-
gerous to “the innocent reader” (Bücher, 1926a, p. 397). In this context, one
should consider that Bücher’s own journalistic career ended right before the rise
of the mass press in Germany. Until his death, he could not understand the read-
ers’ interest in, for example, sports and local police news (cf. Meyen, 2002).
14 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

However, it is not just Bücher’s experience in journalism, his academic work on

the topic, and his position as a press critic that predestined him for the founda-
tion of the field’s first university institute. Furthermore, he was a pioneer of pro-
fession-oriented academic education and training (cf. Kutsch, 2002a). In his Rek
toratsrede (directorate speech) at the University of Leipzig on 31 October 1903
he already named journalism as one of the socially highly relevant fields, which
should be added to the canon of academic disciplines, and exhorted the students
to serve the common good rather than Mammon (cf. Kutsch, 2002a). As a young
man, he promoted a traineeship reform, and in Leipzig, he was a driving force
behind the foundation of the new practice-oriented commercial college in 1898
(cf. Kutsch, 2002b).
For all these reasons, Bücher’s claim for the academic training of journalists
did not come unexpected. In 1909, the year of the 500th anniversary of Leipzig
University, being rector again, he wrote an editorial on journalism education at
university published in the Leipziger Tageblatt. Therein, he was against a new
academic discipline, but also refused the idea that journalists just need talent.
Like any other mental job, this profession would have clear rules one could learn.
Consequently, Bücher (1909) proposed lectures on press history, organization,
technology, and statistics as well as practical seminars held by journalists (cf.
Hardt, 2001; Kutsch, 2010).
For this appeal, the Leipziger Tageblatt special issue on the jubilee was the per-
fect place of publication. With 15,000 copies read by the Saxon elites, the news-
paper was small but powerful. Furthermore, the publisher of the mass-circulation
competition paper Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, Edgar Herfurth, donated Leip-
zig University 15,000 Mark for journalism research and teaching in the anniver-
sary year (cf. Kutsch, 2002a). Probably, not only Bücher but also Herfurth knew
about both the journalism schools founded at Midwestern US public universities
and the Pulitzer donation on journalism education (cf. Kutsch, 2010). Even more
important is the alliance for the future institute: Karl Bücher, with the capital of a
world-famous economist, known as experienced journalist and long-standing
press critic, and at the peak of his academic career, elected the university’s anni-
versary rector, was backed by the leading Saxon newspapers and, therefore, by
the published opinion.
This strong support from other social fields was necessary since the established
academic disciplines did not see the need to initiate academic training courses and
institutions for journalists in Germany. Moreover, especially the popular press
was considered as a tool of national dulling not worth any research effort. Addi-
tionally, rooted in a role perception, which included advising political decision
makers and stimulating debates, many scholars regarded journalists and dailies as
rivals in the battle for interpreting public events. Therefore, both criticism of the
press and disregard for journalists and journalistic writing style were the order of
the day at German Empire universities (cf. vom Bruch, 1980). It thus hardly
seems unexpected that Bücher’s regular lectures on press and journalism pro-
voked astonishment. Yet, thanks to books such as Arbeit und Rhythmus (Work
and rhythm, six editions from 1896 to 1924) and Die Entstehung der Volks
15
Full Paper
wirtschaft (The emergence of national economy; 17 editions between 1893 and

1926), his reputation was not harmed (cf. Meyen & Löblich, 2006).
When Bücher finally proposed the foundation of the Leipzig Zeitungskunde
Institute in 1915, he was almost 70 and ready to retire. These conditions lowered
the resistance against the new field of research and teaching. Bücher did not want
a professorship but an old man’s toy (cf. Meyen & Löblich, 2006). He had a do-
nor (the publisher Edgar Herfurth) and new patriotic arguments drawn from the
war experience. According to Bücher (1915b), the German press had failed dur-
ing the first years of battle. He criticized the sensational rather than factual cover-
age (cf. Meyen, 2002) and claimed that this was the major reason for the animos-
ity toward Germany in the neutral countries. In his submission to the Saxon
ministry of education and cultural affairs, he proposed academic education and
training of journalists as a way out of the current low level (cf. vom Bruch, 1980).
Bücher’s (1915a) curriculum converted the ideas outlined in the Leipziger Tageb
latt editorial including disciplinary studies in the aspirated field of coverage (for
economic editors, for example, economics, statistics, administration, law, and
technology), lectures on press and journalism based on his own model, and prac-
tical training done by practitioners.
In literature on the German field’s origins, there is a dispute about Bücher’s
true motives. The most debated issue concerns whether the Leipzig institute was
just about journalism education (cf. Hardt, 2001; Kutsch, 2002a, 2002b; vom
Bruch, 1980) or, further, about the foundation of a discipline (cf. Koenen, 2015a,
2015b; Meyen, 2002; Meyen & Löblich, 2006). Although Bücher (1926b) him-
self stressed that his initiative only aimed at creating a university-level program
for the preparation of future journalists, there are good reasons for interpreting
his statements as tactical in light of the pressure he was confronted with on be-
half of the established disciplines. Especially the humanities at that time worried
about falling behind the growing number of new specialized programs (cf. vom
Bruch, 1980). Moreover, Bücher used his power resources to make the birth of
this new academic enterprise go smoothly. Being aware that academic research on
press and journalism would only be possible with PhD students on the subject, he
got the right to award doctorates in 1921 and supervised altogether 24 disserta-
tions based on social scientific methods (mostly surveys and statistics, but even
content analyses; cf. Meyen, 2002). At all other German universities, the students
of Zeitungswissenschaft had to wait until the Third Reich in order to graduate –
if they did not want to do their exams elsewhere. Besides, although he had long
been retired, Bücher launched a new publication series at the Leipzig institute (cf.
Kutsch, 2002b). Additionally, against the background that in his eyes, the Leipzig
colleagues in history wanted to absorb the financially well-appointed institute
after his leaving (cf. Kutsch, 2002b), he started two habilitation procedures to
have a promising candidate for the desired professorship. While the first proce-
dure failed (Johannes Kleinpaul), the second was successful in 1922 (Walter
Schöne). However, Leipzig’s first chair holder became the journalist Erich Everth
(cf. Koenen, 2015a, 2016c).
16 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

4. Isomorphic structuration effects on the European communication field

This chapter is organized into four theses. It retraces isomorphic structuration ef-
fects in institutional features and decisions during communication study’s develop-
ment across Europe, which were already predefined by Karl Bücher’s performance
at the Leipzig Zeitungskunde Institute. Thereby, the following perspectives are dis-
tinguished: agents (habitus as opus operatum and capital of the field’s pioneers),
surrounding social structures (configuration of the social space), research and
teaching program (habitus as modus operandi), and reputation strategies (to get
recognition as a university discipline). As said, to make the institutional argument
comprehensible, the arguments focus highlights in the field’s history. These high-
lights, however, can easily be linked to developments of academic communication
research we do not mention in this paper. The fact that some national scenarios
might seem overrepresented has a simple reason: The German discipline, for exam-
ple, has the longest tradition, is the most differentiated around Europe and is also
well-explored by the field’s historiography, whereas research on the much younger
history of communication study in France is still rather exceptional (cf. Averbeck-
Lietz, 2010; Löblich & Averbeck-Lietz, 2016) and literature on the discipline’s in-
stitutionalization in some smaller countries does not even exist.
Thesis 1 (agents): The founding of communication departments at Euro
pean universities was the work of long-time professionals in fields related to pub
lic affairs (journalism, publishing, and politics) who transferred their expertise
and reputation to academia. Meta capital in the public sphere (such as conduct,
experience, network, and prestige) proved more useful than academic qualifica
tions to convince decision makers of the need for a university-based research and
teaching in press and journalism.
Undoubtedly, Karl Bücher’s journalistic experience and his academic career in
economics, but also his prestige as a well-known intellectual figure and especially
his contacts to Saxon society’s elite were key factors of the successful founding of
the Leipzig institute, even if some scepticism on behalf of the older disciplines re-
mained.
To stay in Germany, it is not an accident that the art historian Erich Everth
also looked back on 17 years of journalism when he became Bücher’s successor in
1926. Significantly, Everth had made a name for himself as chief editor of the
Leipziger Tageblatt (cf. Koenen 2015a, 2015b, 2016b, 2016c). Except for the
Munich Zeitungswissenschaft Institute founded in 1924 and led by Karl d’Ester
who held a venia legendi in newspaper studies and was the German field’s first
full professor, all university institutes or lectureships related to press and journal-
ism lay in hands of communication professionals at this stage. In Berlin, for ex-
ample, the launch of the German Institute of Newspaper Studies (Deutsches Insti
tut für Zeitungskunde) in the mid-1920s was the work of the former journalist
and press officer of the Prussian ministry of culture, Martin Mohr, until Emil
Dovifat, chief editor of Der Deutsche, the publication platform of the Christian
trade union, got in charge few years later. Obviously, placing emphasis on agents
with professional experience, networks, and social reputation was the best argu-
17
Full Paper
ment for university decision makers to accept a discipline dealing with press and
journalism, although, as will be outlined, high-profile journalism posts did not
automatically go along with academic legitimacy for the new-born discipline.
This structuration pattern becomes even clearer having a look at the disci-
pline’s reestablishment after the Third Reich when the field’s recognition was at
stake again and just a few one-man departments remained. Their protagonists
hardly stood out because of in-depth knowledge of academic matters, but drew
on practical skills and “meta capital” in the public sphere (cf. Couldry, 2012, p.
240) to ensure the discipline’s further existence. Walter Hagemann became direc-
tor of the Muenster Publizistik Institute (this was the new term for Zeitungswis
senschaft) in 1946 thanks to his position as Catholic daily Germania’s chief edi-
tor and his contacts in political Catholicism. Although a dissertation in history
from 1922 was his only academic reference, he briefly was appointed to an ex-
traordinary professorship and praised as the discipline’s “naturally born repre-
sentative” (Wiedemann, 2016, p. 116). When he left the field a decade later, the
University of Muenster ‘imported’ the Dutch Henk Prakke, mainly renowned be-
cause of being director of the publishing house Van Gorcum. At the other two
departments overcoming World War II, the strategies to find the appropriate suc-
cessors of Emil Dovifat and Karl d’Ester were very similar. Appointments in Ber-
lin and Munich show what decision makers in science policy valued most: practi-
cal experience in journalism. In Berlin, Fritz Eberhard (social democratic, general
director of the public broadcasting Süddeutscher Rundfunk) and Harry Pross
(chief editor of the broadcasting station Radio Bremen) were appointed in 1961
and 1968. In Munich, Süddeutsche Zeitung’s theatre critic Hanns Braun and
Catholic weekly Rheinischer Merkur’s chief editor Otto Roegele were appointed
in 1955 and 1963. In addition, going beyond habitus and capital of high-status
journalists, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann became director of the new Publizistik de-
partment at the University of Mainz in 1965 not so much because of her disserta-
tion (at least within the discipline). More important was her fame as founder of
the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research, which helped her even to
establish a number of professorships (in the same way as Roegele did in Munich;
cf. Meyen, 2007).
In other European countries, the scenarios pointed out to be similar. In Swit-
zerland, for example, during the pre-institutionalized period of communication as
an academic discipline, Oskar Wettstein and Michael Bühler, who had both stud-
ied law, were active politicians and journalists, while they gave lectures of news-
paper studies at the Zurich Journalistic Seminar and the University of Bern. Then,
Karl Weber was the first to hold a (titular and then extraordinary) professorship
of journalism in Zurich around 1940. To make this step, he benefitted from his
practical knowledge as an editor of the Basler Nachrichten and the Neue Zürcher
Zeitung as well as from being a member of the Swiss Press Association. Weber’s
successor was Siegfried Frey who had started out in journalism, too (cf. Vroons,
2005). In the Netherlands, the discipline’s institutionalization process took more
time. After De Standaard’s chief editor Abraham Kuyter had pleaded for the
launch of journalism studies at universities and organized early training seminars
in Amsterdam from 1912 to 1916, the two journalists Antonius Johannes Lieve-
18 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

goed and Willem Nicolaas van der Hout gave journalistic lectures at the universi-
ties of Leiden and Utrecht in the 1930s. In the post-war era, the spots of inspira-
tion were located in Amsterdam and Nijmegen. In 1948, the emigrated German
journalist Kurt Baschwitz, who would found the International Communication
Gazette in 1955 (cf. Wieten, 2005), became professor of press, propaganda, and
public opinion at the Dutch Institute for the Science of the Press which belonged
to Amsterdam University’s Faculty of Political and Social Sciences (although it
could not offer main courses for students). Ten years later, he was followed by the
economist Maarten Rooij who brought in his conduct and experience as chief
editor of the Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant. In Nijmegen, the Instituut voor de
Katholieke Journalistiek founded in 1947 was first headed by the journalist Hans
Hermans. In 1950, it was taken over by the former Catholic daily newspaper De
Tijd’s chief editor Leo Schlichting who had studied law and held a professorship
of political science. Having been rector of the university in 1960, Schlichting suc-
cessfully tackled the route for the Instituut voor Massacommunicatie which
should become a driving force for officially implementing communication study
at Dutch universities in the 1980s (cf. Hemels, 2015).
Without going into details, the habitus and capital of other founding fathers of
the discipline in Europe confirm our thesis: In Flanders, the Catholic University of
Leuven’s Dagbladwetenschap was the pioneer project of the Franciscan priest Na-
bor Devolder since 1946. At that time in Italy, Rome’s Instituto Italiano di Pub
blicismo was led by the historian and man of letters, Francesco Fattorello, the
Italian doyen of academic press and journalism studies. In France, the council of
the Institut Français de Presse in Paris consisted of academic and press repre-
sentatives who designed research and teaching in 1953. In Spain, Alfonso Nieto,
the director of the journalism institute at the University of Navarra, used his gov-
ernmental contacts to install a major during the 1960s. Ten years later, not only
in Navarra but also in Madrid and Barcelona, the admission of information sci-
ence faculties went along with hiring communication professionals (cf. Ribeiro,
2016), whereas academic curricula only played a secondary role and qualifica-
tions in the discipline itself were not needed at all.
Thesis 2 (structures): From its beginning, European communication study
was closely linked to the socio-political climate and the ongoing media expansion.
Whereas the discipline’s founders argued with the societal relevance, politicians
and stakeholders from the public sphere considered the field as a vehicle for their
own interests (in order to influence public opinion or to meet the growing need of
communication professionals). Consequently, the discipline’s autonomy remained
low and normative approaches were dominating.
As shown, Karl Bücher used a strong argument in his call for a university-based
research and teaching of press and journalism stating an alleged failure of the
German press during World War I. Accordingly, his journalism education and
training had a clear mission. However, the Leipzig Zeitungskunde Institute’s
launch was also favoured by the political climate and coming social changes in
Germany at that time: the looming military defeat heralding the end of the impe-
rial era, the rise of the mass press, and a political debate on how to raise journal-
19
Full Paper
ists’ effectiveness in the fight for public opinion. Another impetus for creating a
communication and journalism discipline came from publishers and journalists’
associations, which, again, reflects the high degree of external influences on the
conception of the field.
In the US, the implementation of communication disciplines was forwarded by
World War II with its interdisciplinary work on propaganda conditioned by the
Rockefeller Foundation’s support, military, CIA, and State Department funding
(cf. Pooley, 2008). These agents also sponsored the search for effective propa-
ganda designs in the early Cold War (cf. Glander, 2000; Simpson, 1994). Quite
the same set of external effects from other social fields can be found in Europe. In
Flanders, for example, the Belgian Press Union had pushed the formation of com-
munication study already during the 1920s. Then, the social impact of the press
and the urge to understand the propaganda use of media were Devolder’s main
arguments for justifying a discipline with the public function of journalism and
ethical premises at its core (cf. Van den Bulck & Van den Bulck, 2017). As to Aus-
tria, the Vienna institute, which was created in 1942 under the rule of the Nazis,
reopened in 1946. Headed by the politician Eduard Ludwig, member of the Aus-
trian People’s Party, the institute had a clear focus: the observation of press policy
and the journalism education, both with the goal of strengthening democracy (cf.
Thiele, 2016).
At that time in post-war Germany, the ex-journalist Walter Hagemann, moti-
vated by the goal to equip the new generation with intellectual and professional
knowledge, also pleaded for the education of journalists at university. Just like in
the Austrian context, the “desperate situation of public life” would need “young
people standing up for a better, real democratic, and ambitious journalism,” he
argued (Hagemann, 1947). Hagemann’s willingness to prepare his students for
professions in the public sphere had a strong ally: UNESCO’s Clearing House of
the Department of Mass Communication which interfered in the debate on the
media’s moral significance in industrial societies. In 1956, UNESCO organized an
international expert meeting in Paris where the promotion of media research was
recommended, referring to universities as providers of facilities for journalism
education and training (cf. Vroons, 2005). Of course, UNESCO also supported
the foundation of the International Association for Mass Communication Re-
search (IAMCR) in 1957. Nevertheless, European communication study’s further
institutionalization had to wait one more decade until the media expansion trig-
gered the needs for applicable knowledge, trained students, and a public debate
on the societal consequences of commercial media products. This structuration
effect was also operative regarding the beginning of a university-based communi-
cation discipline in the Nordic countries (cf. Pietilä et al., 1990; Slaatta, 2016) or,
for example, the birth of media and communication research in the UK, even if
this was not rooted in newspaper studies (cf. Lodge, 2016). In fact, besides the
University of Birmingham’s Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies founded
by Richard Hoggart (1964), James Halloran’s establishment of the Centre for
Mass Communication Research in Leicester (1966) and Jay Blumler’s launch of
the Centre for Television Research in Leeds (1968) were linked to broadcasting
institutions. However, although researchers had diverging disciplinary back-
20 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

grounds, they shared a “concern with the social change,” and focused on “effect
changes to television, to media or more broadly popular culture had on society”
(Noonan & Lohmeier, 2017; cf. Blumler, 2012). As to France, sciences of infor-
mation and communication (SIC), also quite distinct to the field in other Europe-
an countries at first glance, were accepted as an academic discipline in 1975.
Thereby, key institutionalization factors were the normative pressure and the po-
litical target to prepare universities for the so-called ‘information society.’ More
precisely, the “need for practical aims in journalism training and for scientific
analysis and prognosis in times of the rise of media technologies was a helpful
coincidence” (Löblich & Averbeck-Lietz, 2016, p. 39). As a result, in light of the
post-1968 modernization and the growing media sector, the SIC were put into
charge to implement education programs oriented toward communication profes-
sions and fulfilled a societal task (cf. Averbeck, 2008).
Being aware of the socio-political influence on European communication
study’s establishment, which also included politically motivated appointments, as
the example of West Germany shows (cf. Meyen, 2007), it is not so far off to line
the argumentation with parallel field developments in non-democratic systems.
Whereas traditions of German Zeitungswissenschaft dating back to the interwar
years coexisted with dominant Marxist tendencies in the more open national con-
texts of South Eastern Europe such as Yugoslavia (cf. Peruško & Vozab, 2016),
GDR’s only Faculty of Journalism was founded in 1954 (significantly, at Leipzig
University) according to the Soviet model and renamed Journalism Section as
part of the higher education reform in 1969. Like in other national environments,
its founding figures were renowned practitioners. Hermann Budzislawski, for ex-
ample, had written for the left-wing intellectual magazine Die Weltbühne during
the Weimar Republic, been at the head of the anti-Nazi magazine Die neue Welt
bühne during exile in Prague, and spent several years in the US, working, among
others, as a ghost writer for Dorothy Thompson, before he became the faculty’s
first dean. However, GDR’s field of journalism studies was subjugated to strong
interferences from the communist party that spread its concept of research on
mass media and its ideas on how to educate journalists. Therefore, East German
communication scholars were primarily party functionaries paid by the govern-
ment to form communication professionals who would fit into the steered media
(cf. Meyen, 2014). The case of Leipzig’s journalism faculty/section exemplarily
stands for the discipline’s heteronomous position in the social space of socialist
countries in Europe (cf. Jirák & Köpplová, 2008), but also in Spain under the
rule of Franco, the structuration scenario was similar. Influenced by Italian fas-
cism, Madrid’s national school of journalism (Escuela Oficial de Periodismo)
founded in 1942 was part of the media steering program guaranteeing the jour-
nalistic profession’s ideological assimilation (according to the Press Law for the
control of information and communication media which converted the press into
a state institution; cf. Lacasa-Mas, 2017). Not surprisingly, the before mentioned
switch to information science faculties in the early 1970s and the discipline’s con-
solidation (cf. Alsina & García Jiménez, 2010) came along with liberalization
tendencies and the country’s economic upturn. In Portugal, despite of the journal-
ist union’s firm battle for the creation of a journalism school inside a higher edu-
21
Full Paper
cation institution, university-based education and research in the subject was not
promoted by Salazar’s Estado Novo regime. As a consequence, the first university
degree in social communication (at the New University of Lisbon) was estab-
lished as late as 1979, five years after the implementation of democracy. Of
course, in light of the triumphal procession of audio-visual mass culture, it aimed
to train any kind of professionals in the media and communication sectors (cf.
Ribeiro, 2016). Whereas on the Iberian Peninsula, communication study experi-
enced a boom after the 1970s, when democracies supplanted fascist regimes, in
large parts of Eastern Europe, the discipline took off after the fall of communism
and the unlocking of restrictions, another indicator for the field’s interaction with
social structures.
Thesis 3 (program): Besides the historical research of the press, European
communication study’s agenda was oriented toward practical application since
the beginning. The combination of research with journalism education not only
included the urge for professors and lecturers with practical experiences, but also
journalistic training seminars and the permanent contact with communication
professionals. Additionally, empirical studies should equip practitioners with aca
demic knowledge.
Of course, the conception of the Leipzig Zeitungskunde Institute reflected Bücher’s
habitus and capital as an experienced journalist, an economist belonging to the
Historical School, and a severe press critic, as well as the socio-political climate at
that time (with an emerging belief in the potential of a communication discipline
in the fight for public opinion and a better image of press and journalism). As
shown, the result was a research and teaching agenda with profession-oriented
journalism education and a focus on empirical studies based on social scientific
methods. However, in light of the disregard for press and journalism at German
universities, this practice-oriented agenda could hardly weaken the pressure Büch-
er was confronted with and solve the new discipline’s lack of academic legitimacy.
Exactly these structuration parameters remained in vigour throughout Euro-
pean communication study’s development during the 20th century. To start again
in West Germany after World War II, the reestablishment of Zeitungswissenschaft
as a rudimentary social scientific discipline called Publizistikwissenschaft was
mainly the work of Walter Hagemann at Muenster University and then became a
role model for the post-war field in several Western European countries (cf.
Wiedemann, 2016). Although Hagemann did not give up historical perspectives,
his habitual performance was, above all, marked by the effort to increase the dis-
cipline’s practical application. The classes at the Publizistik Institute should pre-
pare the students for future positions in the public sphere. Moreover, to establish
a link between theory and practice, Hagemann used his contacts and encouraged
networking (arranging, among others, internships and trainings to come from
press professionals). His research program was aimed at reconnecting the Pub
lizistikwissenschaft to social sciences (especially sociological perspectives had got-
ten lost during the Third Reich; cf. Averbeck, 2001) and underlining its practical
relevance regardless of the astonishment he provoked within the traditional disci-
plines. Ten years before Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann finally converted West Ger-
22 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

man communication study into a social scientific discipline (cf. Löblich, 2007),
Hagemann already led some empirical studies, mostly content analyses and sur-
veys, as well as a press statistic which critically scrutinized concentration pro-
cesses (cf. Wiedemann, 2016).
In East Germany, the design of Leipzig’s Faculty/Section of Journalism was
oriented toward practical matters, too. Whereas (critical) research played a minor
role due to primacy of politics, teaching was focused on journalism education,
which required recruiting personnel more in light of professional needs than with
the goal of achieving academic input. In addition to the main courses including
journalistic methodology and stylistics, journalism training was established in
1969, which lasted up until the section’s closure in 1990. The initiator of lessen-
ing the curriculum’s overload with history was Emil Dusiska. He had belonged to
the communist party’s mouthpiece Neues Deutschland’s leadership in the 1950s,
was appointed full professor in 1965, and became section director two years later.
In the non-socialist countries, with the ongoing diversification of the media
system and further media expansion during the 1970s, the orientation toward
practical matters became even more significant. Besides the discipline’s general
growth (being mainly the consequence of the high number of students and the
demands for applicable knowledge), this period was marked by the broader es-
tablishment of journalism training at universities, which had also been on the
agenda of IAMCR since its beginning (cf. Nordenstreng, 2008). Whereas the
field’s link to the education of communication professionals abated in the 2000s
particularly in Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia (as
will be shown, a consequence of the discipline’s search for purely academic recog-
nition), this remit is still characteristic in Southern Europe. In line with the early
information science faculties in Spain offering journalism, advertising, and public
relations degrees (cf. Barrera, 2012), there are, for example, 50 Spanish universi-
ties today with communication programs targeted on the formation of journal-
ists, PR editors, consultants, and media managers. Apparently, this practice-ori-
ented conception of the discipline with curricula that are more focused on the
ability to find and prepare information rather than on classic academic skills cor-
responds to the wishes of both media industry and university administrations (cf.
Fernández-Quijida & Masip, 2013).
Thesis 4 (reputation): Whereas at the beginning, meta capital in the public
sphere and satisfying political or economic demands proved useful to launch Eu
ropean communication study at universities, in a second state, only a shift to
academic legitimacy strategies was appropriate to get recognition as a distinct
disciplinary field on the road to more autonomy.
Although there is no final evidence that Karl Bücher wanted to found a new disci-
pline, his performance at the Leipzig institute was not only about enhancing profes-
sional knowledge. In light of the established disciplines’ scepticism toward a new
practice-oriented field of research and teaching in the area of press and journalism,
Bücher tried to increase the Zeitungskunde’s reputation by following the academic
logic. As outlined, this included, among others, his successful struggle for the right
to award doctorates and his supervising two dozen empirical dissertations.
23
Full Paper
Not only in the US but also in Europe, communication study was the late-
comer of social sciences (cf. Meyen, 2015). Whereas sociology, economics, an-
thropology, psychology, and political science were institutionalized in the first
half of the 20th century, the discipline needed the ongoing media expansion and
the students’ growing interest for its implementation as an academic field. Never-
theless, due to the strain on resources, the emphasis on practical training, and the
threat of co-optation by commercial interests, its status in the struggle for author-
ity at universities remained contested (cf. Lodge, 2016) and its founding fathers’
meta capital definitely could not solve this problem, either. Put otherwise, exter-
nal contexts and expertise, first, were crucial in getting communication depart-
ments launched and receiving the necessary outside funding. But, after having
formed these ‘beachheads’ at universities, post-establishment survival and growth
required a clear focus on academic reputation and a de-emphasis on the practical
orientation that motivated the original enterprise. More concretely, although
communication study always had to justify its existence via the “employability”
agenda within teaching and the impact agenda within research (Thornham &
O’Sullivan, 2004), the path to more recognition was mapped along intellectual
emancipation instead of embracing politicians and practitioners. To mention just
the example of West Germany again, Publizistikwissenschaft only solved its le-
gitimation crisis by the shift to an empirical social science importing mainstream
US mass communication research and drawing on quantitative methods and so-
phisticated data analysis (cf. Löblich, 2007). This orientation, which became the
field’s key identity element in many European countries, promised a “defence
against the possible suspicion by higher levels of academic review” and a personal
security for the newcomers at universities (Meyen, 2012, p. 2389). The exceptions
here include journalism study in Eastern Europe rooted in Marxist-Leninist tradi-
tions, British cultural studies with its focus on power, the discipline’s post-semiot-
ic or semio-pragmatic design in France, and the Southern European concept of
communication study being primarily a technical, skills-, or service-oriented disci-
pline. Anyway, besides the right to award doctorates, the launch of book series
and peer-review journals as well as, more recently, efforts that increase competi-
tiveness via international visibility were isomorphic strategies to receive academic
reputation and to upgrade the position in the scientific field. The latter (competi-
tiveness at international level) puts some national fields (especially the Dutch, the
Belgian, and the Scandinavian) on the fast track of academic growth. Speaking
more generally, this structuration effect refers to a habitual process, during which
the university transforms its invader in its own image over time.
5. Conclusion
The section above leaves no need for an extended summary. Grounded in Gid-
dens’ structuration theory and using Bourdieu’s analytical tools, the paper makes
an institutional argument and links Karl Bücher’s launch of Europe’s first com-
munication department at Leipzig University in 1916 with the field’s institution-
alization across the continent. It reveals that the discipline’s design and focus
were, in certain key aspects, already predefined by Bücher’ Zeitungskunde Insti-
24 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

tute 100 years ago. In other words, the legacy of Bücher as a pioneer in European
communication study is not so much the influence of his ideas or those of his
successors. Instead, it is his role as an institution-builder, since the structural mod-
el he created in Leipzig was mimicked around the continent and, therefore, can be
considered as a kind of hidden substrate of the field’s organizational form. Most
notably, this model included the requirement of social reputation and meta capi-
tal in the public sphere (such as press and politics-borrowed prestige and bona
fides) in order to found and establish communication departments at universities
as well as arguing with the societal need for an academic discipline that deals
with communication matters and public opinion (in light of war propaganda,
social movements, changes of political systems, or the development of the media
landscape). Additional habitus factors were, not only in Leipzig, the combination
of research with the education of journalists or communication professionals and,
closely linked to that, the urge for professors with practical experience. However,
since the strategy of practical application of these ‘beachhead’ departments was
just partially appropriate to achieve a reputed position in academia, communica-
tion study finally shed its original orientation and followed the way of intellectual
emancipation via purely academic approaches – a process, during which the uni-
versity transformed the invader discipline in its own image over time.
Of course, arguing that these four dimensions were already on the map when
the discipline’s institutionalization process began 100 years ago at Leipzig Univer-
sity does not automatically neglect other isomorphic structuration effects deriving
from unexplained shared conditions, which do not necessarily spring from Leip-
zig. Equally, considering that Bücher’s performance served as a not remembered,
rarely acknowledged key element of European communication study’s “self-dis-
play” (Giddens, 1991, p. 27) does not mean that the field was always a homoge-
neous entity – especially when comparing the traditions of the discipline for ex-
ample in France or in the UK, which are quite distinct to the Leipzig model. But
interesting enough, given the challenges of installing a new discipline at universi-
ty, similar structuration processes were also working in the neighbouring social
sciences, where early protagonists of both political science and sociology, for ex-
ample, were side-entrants to academia, received hostility at university, and had to
fulfil a clear political mission for most of the 20th century, too (cf. Hartmann,
2003; Korte, 2017).
Today, communication study in Europe is not contested any more. All over the
continent, it successfully tackled the route toward an autonomous discipline fol-
lowing its own logic of reputation, even though, as shown, it also became subject
of a kind of ‘academic ingestion.’ Nevertheless, given the growing funding outside
the academic realm and the increasing importance of external evaluation, but also
further differentiation and integration processes, recent tendencies are about to
change the field (cf. Wilke, 2016) – and make it even more necessary to strength-
en the discipline’s self-reflection. Maybe this could also give momentum to reinte-
grate communication study’s early institution builders in the discipline’s collective
identity in a more explicit way. Therefore, considering Karl Bücher’s structural
impact on the field’s reflexive project starting in Leipzig 100 years ago is the logi-
cal first step.
25
Full Paper
References
Abbott, A. (2002). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alsina, M. R., & García Jiménez, L. (2010). Communication theory and research in Spain.
European Journal of Communication, 25(3), 273–286.
Averbeck, S. (2001). The post-1933 emigration of communication researchers from Ger-
many. European Journal of Communication, 16(4), 451–475.
Averbeck, S. (2008). Comparative history of communication studies. The Open Communi
cation Journal, 2, 1–13.
Averbeck-Lietz, S. (2010). Kommunikationstheorien in Frankreich [Communication theo-
ries in France]. Berlin: Avinus.
Backhaus, J. G. (Ed.) (2000). Karl Bücher. Marburg: Metropolis.
Barrera, C. (2012). Transatlantic views on journalism education before and after World
War II. Journalism Studies, 13(4), 534–549.
Blumler, J. G. (2012). There are values at stake. International Journal of Communication,
6, 1498–1506.
Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the
progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19-47.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bücher, K. (29 July 1909). Vorbildung für den Journalistenberuf an deutschen Univer-
sitäten [Journalism education at German universities]. Leipziger Tageblatt, pp. 1–2.
Bücher, K. (1915a). Akademische Berufsbildung für Zeitungskunde [Academic education
in newspaper studies]. Mitteilungen des Vereins Arbeiterpresse, 16(136), 3–5.
Bücher, K. (1915b). Krieg und Presse [War and press]. In K. Bücher, Unsere Sache und die
Tagespresse (pp. 16–64). Tübingen: Mohr.
Bücher, K. (1926a). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Zeitungskunde [Collected writings in news-
paper studies]. Tübingen: Laupp’sche Buchhandlung.
Bücher, K. (1926b). Zeitungskunde [Newspaper studies]. Deutsche Presse, 16(50/51), 5–6.
Chaffee, S. H., & Rogers, E. M. (Eds.). (1997). The beginnings of communication study in
America. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world. Cambridge: Polity.
Delia, J. G. (1987). Communication research. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.),
Handbook of communication science (pp. 20–98). Newbury Park: Sage.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2),
147–160.
Donsbach, W. (2006). The identity of communication research. Journal of Communication,
53(3), 437–448.
Fernández-Quijida, D., & Masip, P. (2013). Three decades of Spanish communication re-
search. Comunicar, 21(41), 15–24.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Glander, T. (2000). Origins of mass communication research during the American Cold
War. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hagemann, W. (1947). Theorie und Praxis [Theory and practice]. Neue Deutsche Presse,
1(7), 1–3.
26 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

Hardt, H. (2001). Social theories of the press. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hardt, H. (2008). Foreword. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (Eds.), The history of media and
communication research (pp. xi–vii). New York: Peter Lang.
Hartmann, J. (2003). Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft [History of political science].
Stuttgart: Leske + Budrich.
Hemels, J. (2015). Kommunikationswissenschaft in den Niederlanden [Communication
study in the Netherlands]. In M. Meyen & T. Wiedemann (Eds.), Biografisches Lexikon
der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Cologne: Halem. Retrieved from http://blexkom.
halemverlag.de/niederlande/
Jirák, J., & Köpplová, B. (2008). Communication as an academic field. In W. Donsbach
(Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 609–614). Malden:
Blackwell.
Katz, E., Peters, J. D., Liebes, T., & Orloff, A. (Eds.). (2003). Canonic texts in media re
search. Cambridge: Polity.
Koenen, E. (2015a). 100 Jahre kommunikationswissenschaftliche Fachtradition in Leipzig
[100 years communication study in Leipzig]. Medien & Zeit, 30(3), 15–31.
Koenen, E. (2015b). Erich Everth. In M. Meyen & T. Wiedemann (Eds.), Biografisches
Lexikon der Kommunikationswissenschaft. Cologne: Halem. Retrieved from http://
blexkom.halemverlag.de/erich-everth/
Koenen, E. (Ed.). (2016a). Die Entdeckung der Kommunikationswissenschaft [The discov-
ery of communication study]. Cologne: Halem.
Koenen, E. (2016b). Ein Journalist wird in Leipzig erster ordentlicher Professor für Zei-
tungskunde [A journalist becomes Leipzig’s first chair holder of newspaper studies]. In
E. Koenen (Ed.), Die Entdeckung der Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 125–155). Co-
logne: Halem.
Koenen, E. (2016c). Erich Everth – Wissenstransformationen zwischen journalistischer
Praxis und Zeitungskunde [Erich Everth – knowledge transformations between jour-
nalistic practice and newspaper studies]. Medien & Zeit, 31(3), 93–102.
Koivisto, J., & Thomas, P. (2010). Mapping communication and media research. Tampere:
Tampere University Press.
Korte, H. (Ed.). (2017). Einführung in die Geschichte der Soziologie [Introduction to the
history of sociology]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kutsch, A. (1997). Historisch-ethisch vs. empirisch-soziologisch fundierte Zeitungswissen-
schaft [Historical-ethically vs. empirical-sociologically grounded newspaper science]. In
M. Haller (Ed.), Tatsachen und Meinungen (pp.18–35). Leipzig: Institut für Kommuni-
kations- und Medienwissenschaft.
Kutsch, A. (2002a). Karl Bücher und seine akademischen Schüler [Karl Bücher and his aca-
demic successors]. In E. Koenen & M. Meyen (Eds.), Karl Bücher (pp. 11–48). Leipzig:
Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
Kutsch, A. (2002b). Zum Verhältnis zwischen Karl Bücher und Karl d’Ester [The relation-
ship between Karl Bücher and Karl d’Ester]. In U. Nawratil, P. Schönhagen, & H.
Starkulla Jr. (Eds.), Medien und Mittler sozialer Kommunikation (pp. 125–153). Leip-
zig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
27
Full Paper
Kutsch, A. (2010). Professionalisierung durch akademische Ausbildung [Professionaliza-

tion through academic education]. In T. Eberwein & D. Müller (Eds.), Journalismus
und Öffentlichkeit (pp. 427–453). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Lacasa-Mas, I. (2017). Die spanische Kommunikationswissenschaft auf dem Weg zu inter-
nationaler Anerkennung [Spanish communication studies on the road to international
reputation]. In S. Averbeck-Lietz (Ed.), Kommunikationswissenschaft im internation
alen Vergleich (pp. 185–210). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Lodge, P. (2016). U.K. communication study and the challenges of institutionalization. In
P. Simonson & D. W. Park (Eds.), The international history of communication study
(pp.192–212). New York: Routledge.
Löblich, M. (2007). German Publizistikwissenschaft and its shift from a humanistic to an
empirical social scientific discipline. European Journal of Communication, 22(1), 69–88.
Löblich, M., & Averbeck-Lietz, S. (2016). The transnational flow of ideas and Histoire
Croisée with attention to the cases of France and Germany. In P. Simonson & D. W.
Park (Eds.), The international history of communication study (pp. 25–46). New York:
Routledge.
Löblich, M., & Scheu, A. M. (2011). Writing the history of communication studies. Com
munication Theory, 21(1), 1–22.
Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. (1983). Milestones in mass communication research. New
York: Longman.
Meyen, M. (2002). Die Leipziger zeitungskundlichen Dissertationen [The Leipzig disserta-
tions in newspaper studies]. In E. Koenen & M. Meyen (Eds.), Karl Bücher (pp. 135–
200). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
Meyen, M. (2007). Die “Jungtürken“ der Kommunikationswissenschaft [“Young turks” of
communication science]. Publizistik, 52(3), 308–328.
Meyen, M. (2012). International Communication Association fellows. International Jour
nal of Communication, 6, 2378–2396.
Meyen, M. (2014). IAMCR on the East-West battlefield. International Journal of Commu
nication, 8, 2071–2089.
Meyen, M. (2015). Communication research and media studies, history of. In D. Wright
(Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 278–283).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Meyen, M., & Löblich, M. (2006). Klassiker der Kommunikationswissenschaft [Classical
writers of communication science]. Konstanz: UVK.
Noonan, C., & Lohmeier, C. (2017). From cultural studies to impact factor. In S. Averbeck-
Lietz (Ed.), Kommunikationswissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 33–52).
Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Nordenstreng, K. (2008). Institutional networking. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (Eds.), The
history of media and communication research (pp. 225–248). New York: Peter Lang.
Park, D. W., & Pooley, J. (Eds.). (2008). The history of media and communication research.
New York: Peter Lang.
Peruško, Z., & Vozab, D. (2016). The field of communication in Croatia. In P. Simonson &
D. W. Park (Eds.), The international history of communication study (pp. 213–234).
New York: Routledge.
Pearson, H. (2002). The German historical school of economics. In H. H. Nau & B. Sche-
fold (Eds.), The historicity of economics (pp. 23–43). Berlin: Springer.
28 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

Peters, J. D. (1986). Institutional sources for intellectual poverty in communication re-

search. Communication Research, 13(4), 527–559.
Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peters, J. D., & Simonson, P. (2004). Mass communication and American social thought.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pietilä, V., Malmberg, T., & Nordenstreng, K. (1990). Theoretical convergences and con-
trasts. European Journal of Communication, 5(2), 165–185.
Pooley, J. (2008). The new history of mass communication research. In D. W. Park & J.
Pooley (Eds.), The history of media and communication research (pp. 43–60). New
York: Peter Lang.
Pooley, J., & Park, D. W. (2008). Introduction. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (Eds.), The his
tory of media and communication research (pp. 1–15). New York: Peter Lang.
Pooley, J., & Park, D. W. (2013). Communication research. In P. Simonson, J. Peck, R. T.
Craig, & J. P. Jackson Jr. (Eds.), The handbook of communication history (pp. 76–91).
Ribeiro, N. (2016). Communication studies on the Iberian peninsula. In P. Simonson &
D. W. Park (Eds.), The international history of communication study (pp. 151–170).
Rogers, E. M. (1997). A history of communication study. New York: Free Press.
Simonson, P. (2008). Writing figures into the field. In D. W. Park & J. Pooley (Eds.), The
history of media and communication research (pp. 291–230). New York: Peter Lang.
Simonson, P., & Park, D. W. (Eds). (2016). The international history of communication
study. New York: Routledge.
Simonson, P., Peters, J. D. (2008). Communication and media studies, history to 1968. In
W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 765–771).
Malden: Blackwell.
Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Slaatta, T. (2016). Early Nordic media research and the special case of Norway. In P.
Simonson & D. W. Park (Eds.), The international history of communication study
(pp. 171–191). New York: Routledge.
Stichweh, R. (1994). Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen [Science, university, profes-
sions]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Thiele, M. (2016). Female academics in communication science and the post-war-recon-
struction generation in Austria and Germany. In P. Simonson & D. W. Park (Eds.), The
international history of communication study (pp. 130–150). New York: Routledge.
Thornham, S., & O’Sullivan, T. (2004). Chasing the real. Media, Culture & Society, 26(5),
717–736.
Van den Bulck, J., & Van den Bulck, H. (2017). Communication sciences in Flanders. In
S. Averbeck-Lietz (Ed.), Kommunikationswissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich
(pp. 93–111). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Vom Bruch, R. (1980). Zeitungswissenschaft zwischen Historie und Nationalökonomie
[Newspaper science between history and economics]. Publizistik, 25(4), 579–605.
Vroons, E. (2005). Communication studies in Europe. International Communication
Gazette, 67(6), 495–522.
Wagner, P., Wittrock, B., & Whitley, R. (Eds.). (1991). Discourses on society: The Shaping
of the social science disciplines. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
29
Full Paper
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2000). Rebellion and ritual in disciplinary histories of U.S. communi-

cation study. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 87–115.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2004). How not to found a field. Journal of Communication, 54(3),
547–564.
Weingart, P. (2003). Wissenschaftssoziologie [Sociology of science]. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Wiedemann, T. (2016). Practical orientation as a survival strategy. In P. Simonson & D. W.
Park (Eds.), The international history of communication study (pp. 109–129). New
York: Routledge.
Wiedemann, T., & Meyen, M. (2016). Internationalization through Americanization. Inter
national Journal of Communication, 10, 1489–1509.
Wieten, J. (2005). Kurt Baschwitz and the founding of Gazette. International Communica
tion Gazette, 67(6), 523–530.
Wilke, J. (2016). Von der Zeitungskunde zur Integrationswissenschaft [From newspaper
studies to an integrated science]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 64(1), 74–92.
30 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018


100 Years Communication Study in Europe Karl Buche

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Years Communication Study in Europe Karl Buche

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 Years Communication Study in Europe Karl Buche

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SC|M Studies in Communication and Media

100 years communication study in Europe:

100 Jahre Kommunikationswissenschaft in Europa:

Thomas Wiedemann, Michael Meyen & Iván Lacasa-Mas

Studies in Communication and Media, 7. Jg., 1/2018, S. 7–30, DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2018-1-7 7

Michael Meyen, Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft und Medienforschung, Ludwig-

Iván Lacasa-Mas, Departamento de Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universitat Internacional

8 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

100 years communication study in Europe: Karl Bücher’s impact on

Thomas Wiedemann, Michael Meyen & Iván Lacasa-Mas

Zusammenfassung: Gestützt auf Giddens’ Strukturationstheorie und die Analysewerkzeuge

10 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

2. Theoretical background and research design

12 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

3. Karl Bücher and the foundation of the Leipzig Zeitungskunde Institute

14 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

However, it is not just Bücher’s experience in journalism, his academic work on

wirtschaft (The emergence of national economy; 17 editions between 1893 and

16 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

4. Isomorphic structuration effects on the European communication field

18 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

20 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

22 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

24 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

26 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

Kutsch, A. (2010). Professionalisierung durch akademische Ausbildung [Professionaliza-

28 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

Peters, J. D. (1986). Institutional sources for intellectual poverty in communication re-

Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2000). Rebellion and ritual in disciplinary histories of U.S. communi-

30 SCM, 7. Jg., 1/2018

You might also like