The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication

Kate Kenski (ed.), Kathleen Hall Jamieson (ed.)

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.001.0001
Published: 2014 Online ISBN: 9780199984350 Print ISBN: 9780199793471

CHAPTER

1 Political Communication: Then, Now, and Beyond 

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Kate Kenski

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.77 Pages 3–12

Published: 02 October 2014

Abstract
This chapter o ers three sets of de nitions of “political communication”: those from early scholarly
works, those from the major communication and political science associations, and a set of de nitions
that emerged at an Annenberg Public Policy Center conference attended by many scholars contributing
to this handbook. The authors discuss the institutional and nancial forces that cultivated and
propelled Political Communication as an interdisciplinary eld. Finally, an overview of the Oxford
Handbook of Political Communication is provided, including a description of the major thematic sections
around which the chapters are collected.

Keywords: political communication, politics, communication, political communication defined, political

media, mass communication, media, political cognition
Subject: Comparative Politics, Political Behaviour, Politics
Series: Oxford Handbooks
Collection: Oxford Handbooks Online

As a discipline, communication was shaped by real-world concerns such as those “over the e ects of World
War I and Nazi propaganda” (Schramm, 1983, 7) and by hopes, fears, and forecasts about the e ects of new
media— lm and radio. This meant, of course, that the ndings of early researchers such as Berelson and
Lazarsfeld “were peculiar to the political conditions and media systems of the 1940s and that many of their
generalizations don’t hold up today” (Rogers and Cha ee, 1983, 22). As we hurtle into an increasingly
individualized and fragmented media landscape lled with campaigns operating in a post–Citizens United
world, what we know about political communication and how we know it is changing yet again and, in the
process, raising questions about the applicability of the ndings generated in the all-but-bygone mass-
media era.

Just as media structures have changed, so, too, have the resources available to study them. Among the
innovations that have invigorated research in political communication are computers able to digest and
manipulate large data sets; new ways of making sense of data such as meta-analyses; the availability of
readily searchable news, advertising archives, and presidential speech archives; computerized means of
 content analysis; access to ad buy data; and the availability of Internet panels and rolling cross-sectional
designs. Our primary focus, however, is not on our methods of knowing, but rather on the answers they
generate. (For a valuable treatment of the methods employed in political communication research, we
recommend turning to the essays in Bucy and Holbert’s Sourcebook for Political Communication Research
[2011].)

Transformations in media structure, content, and delivery matter to scholars and voters alike, because, as
Cha ee argued, “the structure of communication shapes the structure of politics, both because so much of
political activity consists of communication and because constraints on communication limit the exercise of
power” (2001, 237–238). Believing that this is, as a result, an opportune time to reprise political
p. 4 communication’s past and forecast its future, as editors of the Oxford Handbook of Political

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

Communication, we commissioned the essays by political communication scholars found in this volume.

To anchor it with a working notion of what we mean by political communication, we begin by exploring
three sets of de nitions: those inherited from earlier periods and work; the self-de nitions o ered by the
political communication divisions of the major communication and political science associations; and those
that emerged from an Annenberg Public Policy Center conference attended by those who contributed to this
handbook. We then turn to noting some of the institutional forces that contributed to the emergence and
sustenance of the burgeoning hybrid eld of political communication. We close with a cursory overview of
this handbook and a caution that many of its essays could easily have been placed in any of a number of the
sections into which we somewhat arbitrarily have divided this volume.

Defining Political Communication

A quick look at de ning statements made more than two-thirds of a century ago by Harold Lasswell—one of
the founders appropriated by both political science and communication—reveals how much the study of
each has changed since he probed propaganda techniques, language, and the content analytic means of
unpacking both in the thirties and forties. Whereas in the study of politics his concern was “who gets what,
when, how” (Lasswell, 1936), in communication it was “who/says what/ in which channel/to whom/ with
what e ect” (Lasswell, 1948). Welding this classic distributional de nition of politics and a unidirectional,
linear model of communication together might lead one to de ne political communication as the study of
who gets what, when, (and) how by saying what, in which channel, to whom, with what e ect.

Not so today. Instead, in A New Handbook of Political Science, politics is cast as “the constrained use of social
1
power” (Goodin and Klingemann, 1996, 7). Similarly, in communication scholarship the transmission
model has been supplanted by or supplemented with one that “conceptualizes communication as a
constitutive process that produces and reproduces shared meaning”(cf. Craig, 1999, 125 crediting Carey,
1989; Pearce, 1989).

Because communication is the noun grounding the de nition and eld of political communication, it is
unsurprising that there is more of “symbolic exchange” and less, indeed nothing at all, about “shared
power” in the rst sentences of the self-descriptions memorialized on the web pages of the political
communication divisions of the American Political Science Association (APSA), the International
Communication Association (ICA), and the National Communication Association (NCA):

– The creation, shaping, dissemination, processing and e ects of information within the political
system—both domestic and international—whether by governments, other institutions, groups or
individuals (American Political Science Association).

p. 5 – The interplay of communication and politics, including the transactions that occur among citizens,
 between citizens and their governments, and among o cials within governments (International
Communication Association).

– The communicative activity of citizens, individual political gures, public and governmental
institutions, the media, political campaigns, advocacy groups and social movements (National
Communication Association).

Nonetheless each description reveals ancestral assumptions about what matters, with the ICA and NCA
divisions embracing the word “citizens,” and the one housed in the APSA featuring “the political system.”
Although in practice all three divisions are methodologically pluralistic, and their memberships overlap
substantially, it is the one whose scholars admit to practicing rhetorical criticism that champions “a variety
of methodologies” (NCA), and the one whose discipline pioneered the National Election Studies (ANES) that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

includes “e ects.” And the NCA division reveals its parent’s more message-centric focus by situating as the
subject of its sentence “The communication activity of citizens, individual political gures …”

Drawing on these traditions, those whose work is included in this handbook de ned political
communication as “making sense of symbolic exchanges about the shared exercise of power” and “the
presentation and interpretation of information, messages or signals with potential consequences for the
exercise of shared power.”

Creation of a Hybrid Field

As we have implied, hybrid elds are conceived when scholars learn that others are contributing insightful
answers to shared questions and decide to engage rather than disregard these potential colleagues. In the
case of political communication, shared interests converged on such questions as, “Under what
circumstances, if at all, and, if so, how, are voters, leaders, and the political system a ected by media?”
“How, if at all, and, if so, for whom or what does presidential rhetoric matter?” “How do exchanges among
individuals and groups a ect what they know and how they know and act about politics?” Additionally, a
nascent eld will expire unless a number of conditions are met. The impulse to engage must be fostered by
individuals with standing in both disciplines who bring their colleagues to the table. There must be common
spaces in which interested scholars can engage each other’s ideas thoughtfully. And resources must be
available to fund needed research. Political communication would not have institutionalized as a hybrid
eld had there not been places to converse, common publishing venues, and, at opportune moments,
funding.
 Places to converse:

Chapter 2’s narrative of origins chronicles the impact of boundary-defying intellectual omnivores. By
publishing in a related discipline’s major journals, engaging the ideas of its leading lights, and coauthoring
p. 6 cross-disciplinary work, those interested in political communication purchased legitimacy for its
research questions and modes of inquiry. Early points of cross-disciplinary intersection in political
communication included not only Kraus’s Great Debates (1962), which brought together work by scholars in
sociology, rhetoric and public address, mass communication, and political science, but also more targeted
forays by a scholar in one discipline into a journal hosted by another. Examples of this include political
scientist Tom Patterson’s essay on “Television News and Political Advertising” in Communication Research
in 1974, political scientist Lance Bennett’s “The Ritualistic and Pragmatic Bases of Political Campaign

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

Discourse,” in the Quarterly Journal of Speech three years later, and mass communication scholars Weaver,
McCombs, and Spellman’s (1975) “Watergate and the Media: A Case Study of Agenda-Setting” in American
Politics Quarterly in 1975. Among the rst cross-disciplinary book-length manuscripts was Weaver, Graber,
McCombs, and Eyal’s Media Agenda-Setting in a Presidential Election (1981). Boundary-breaking eld-
building occurred as well when Steven Cha ee “played a signi cant role” in the “development and eventual
inclusion of a large media use battery in the quadrennial NES election surveys …” (Iyengar, 2001, 226) and
political scientist John Zaller instigated the 1994 meeting of communication scholars and political scientists
at the Annenberg School at Penn that examined ways to assess communication e ects and forged the
relationships that led to the creation of the National Annenberg Election Survey.

Common publishing venues:

Before the advent of Political Communication, two in uential journals—Public Opinion Quarterly and Journal
of Communication—set scholars on a road toward institutionalization of the political communication eld
by welcoming high-quality work on the subject without regard to disciplinary origin. The former was home
to Klapper’s “What We Know About the E ects of Mass Communication: The Brink of Hope” (1957); Eulau
and Schneider’s “Dimensions of Political Involvement” in 1956; Katz’s “The Two-Step Flow of
Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on an Hypothesis” in 1957; Converse’s “Information Flow and the
Stability of Partisan Attitudes” in 1962; McLeod, Ward, and Tancill’s “Alienation and Uses of the Mass
Media” in 1965; McCombs and Shaw’s “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media” in 1972; Cha ee and
Choe’s “Time of Decision and Media Use During the Ford-Carter-Campaign” in 1980; and Behr and
Iyengar’s “Television News, Real World Cues, and Changes in the Public” in 1985.

In the decades before Political Communication became an APSA-ICA journal, The Journal of Communication
was a second hospitable venue for those working at the intersections of politics and communication. As a
result, Elisabeth Noelle-Neuman, director of communication, University of Mainz, published “The Spiral of
Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion” there in 1974. The journal’s 1983 “Ferment in the Field” issue featured
work by Noelle-Neuman as well as that of mass communication scholars Wilbur Schramm and Jay Blumler,
sociologists Elihu Katz, Kurt Lang, and Gladys Lang, and polymath Ithiel de Sola Pool, among others.
 Funding:

Because the laws of supply and demand a ect the world of research as surely as they do markets, the
availability of resources shaped the questions political communication scholars addressed, the answers they
p. 7 discovered, and, as a result, the contours of political communication’s parent disciplines as well as of the
eld itself. The focus of communication research on the individual and on the social psychology of short-
term persuasion was, for example, an “outgrowth … of media- and advertiser-sponsored research,
Rockefeller Foundation intervention, and the federal government’s wartime propaganda mobilization”
(Pooley and Katz, 2008). Indeed, some argue that “the mainstream e ects tradition was crucially shaped, in
the mid-1930s, by the Rockefeller Foundation’s interest, rst, in educational broadcasting and, after 1939,
in anti-Nazi propaganda” (Pooley, 2008, 48).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

If the presence of a willing donor matters, so, too, does the absence of one. Had the Ford Foundation not
responded to pressure from “Congressional McCarthyites in 1952 and, notably, 1954’s Reece Commission”
(Morrison, 2008) by backing out of its “major commitment to fund a series of television studies at
Lazarsfeld’s Bureau … a whole body of television research might have found its ways onto sociologists’
bookshelves to complement Lazarsfeld’s pioneering radio research” (Pooley and Katz, 2008, 773). Where a
decision by the Ford Foundation closed o an opportunity in 1955, decisions by the Carnegie and Rockefeller
Foundations opened ones in 1952 and 1956. The political science classic The American Voter was made
possible by support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1952 and the Rockefeller Foundation in
1956 (Campbell, et al., 1960, viii).

Money mattered in more recent times as well. Patterson and McClure’s (1976) The Unseeing Eye was
supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (7). Iyengar’s Is Anyone Responsible? How
Television Frames Political Issues (1991) was underwritten by grants from the Political Science Program of the
National Science Foundation and the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation. The eldwork in Cappella and
Jamieson’s Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good (1997) was made possible by the Markle and
Robert Wood Johnson Foundations. Funding from the National Science Foundation ensured the survival of
the NES, and the largesse of the Annenberg Foundation underwrote the rolling cross-sectional and panel
studies of the NAES.

How this Volume will Address “Then, Now, and Beyond”

We have asked the authors in this handbook to re ect upon their areas of expertise and address four
questions: What is the importance of your area of study? What are the major ndings to date, including
areas of scholarly disagreement, on the topic? What is your perspective on the topic? And, What are
unanswered questions for future research to address?

Their answers reveal that, like political economy and political psychology, political communication is a
hybrid with complex ancestry, permeable boundaries, and interests that overlap with those of related elds,
p. 8 such as political sociology, public opinion, rhetoric, neuroscience, and the new hybrid on the quad, media
psychology. What Blumler and Gurevitch observed of mass communication in 1987 is also true of its
o spring, political communication, which is “a notoriously eclectic enterprise, drawing on and borrowing
from a wide range of social science and humanistic disciplines” (17). Accordingly, it is unsurprising that
many of our authors claim visiting rights, if not primary residence, in another of those elds. Indeed, like
the founders, they appropriate from sociology, psychology, political science, and communication. Most of
those who identify with political communication are intellectual omnivores whose work in such areas as
agenda setting, priming, framing, and inoculation is indebted to the work of individuals and groups unlikely
to describe themselves as political communication theorists.
 To assess the “then, now, and beyond” of this eclectic, interdisciplinary eld, we have invited chapters from
scholars with homes or pedigrees in economics (e.g., James Hamilton), psychology (e.g., Milton Lodge and
Charles Taber), and sociology (e.g., Nina Eliasoph and Michael Schudson), as well as a majority who
consider their home base to be political science, mass communication, or the rhetoric tradition within
departments of speech communication, communication arts, or communication studies. Though most are
housed in US institutions, we draw as well from work conducted at the University of Amsterdam (Claes de
Vreese), the University of East Anglia (John Street), the University of Haifa (Yariv Tsfati), the University of
Helsinki (Eeva Luhktakallio), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Lilach Nir), University of Leeds (Stephen
Coleman), and the University of Zurich (Jorg Matthes). In addition, we include two peripatetic scholars
occasionally based in the United States who have created signi cant research both inside and outside its
boundaries (Elihu Katz and Jay Blumler).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

To identify the nucleus that enables us to gather the work of this wide array of scholars under the label
“political communication,” we start by asking, What do mainstream scholars in political science and
communication mean by each, and how do those who identify as political communication scholars de ne
what they do (Chapters 2–7)? We proceed to o er our take on the origins of the eld of political
communication—a story involving strands of research in sociology, psychology, and political science that
found their way into and were, in the process, poked and prodded by those focused on politics and
communication in areas identi ed as mass communication, radio TV- lm, and various divisions within
speech departments, including one known as rhetoric and public address. In the process, we identify work
that foreshadows that of the scholars in this handbook.

Consistent with the notions of political communication as “making sense of symbolic exchanges about the
shared exercise of power” and “the presentation and interpretation of information, messages or signals
with potential consequences for the exercise of shared power,” this volume includes essays clustered under
the titles Political Discourse: History, Genres, and the Construction of Meaning (Chapters 8–16), Media and
Political Communication focusing on Political Systems, Institutions, and Media (Chapters 17–24),
Construction and E ects (Chapters 25–35), Political Communication and Cognition (Chapters 36–46), and
p. 9 Interpersonal and Small Group Political Communication (Chapters 47–53). Because, as we noted a
moment ago, changes in media and media systems alter the nature, function, and e ects of political
communication, we include as well a cluster of essays on The Altered Political Communication Landscape
(see Chapters 54–61). Given the interdisciplinary nature and complexity of political communication
research, we acknowledge that this scheme for organizing the volume contains some unavoidable choices of
categorizing chapters that could be placed in one or more other sections.

Since “Then and Now” is one of our themes, it is important to remember that much of the work in our
handbook is consistent with the focus of Steven Chafee’s 1975 edited volume (Political Communication: Issues
and Strategies for Research) on “behavior and cognition rather than on attitudes, the need for
experimentation with di erent methods of measurement, an understanding of a campaign as unfolding in
distinct phases over time, a homogenization of mass media and interpersonal communication as sources of
information and in uence, and the need for comparative cross-national scholarship” (Cha ee, 2001, 239).
Those foci foreshadow this handbook’s sections on Political Communication and Cognition, Construction
and E ects, and Interpersonal and Small Group Communication, as well as its chapter on comparative
political communication research (chapter by Claes de Vreese), anticipate the experimentation with
di erent methods that in subsequent decades produced sophisticated eld experiments (chapters by Tesler
and Zaller and Green, Carnie, and Middleton) and laboratory experiments (chapter by Cassino, Lodge, and
Taber), re ned use of the rolling cross-sectional method, and innovative ways of tracking citizen
deliberation (chapter by Cappella, Zhang, and Price).

Less likely to be foreseen by those writing in 1975 was a eld of political communication encompassing
scholarship on elites’ use of polls (chapter by Jacobs), media systems (chapter by McChesney and Pickard),
niche communication (chapter by Frankel and Hillygus), narrowcasting (chapter by Metzger), the social
media (chapters by Winneg et al., Owen, and Stromer-Galley), the politics of entertainment media (chapters
by Delli Carpini and Young), and scholarship theorizing about the e ects produced by implicit attitudes
(chapter by Cassino, Lodge, and Taber) and moderated by a ect (chapter by Crigler and Hevron). If the
sophistication and scope of political communication research continues apace, we expect our successors
forty and fty years hence to be as bemused by our work as we are by the notion that, in 1960, the state-of-
the-art move in research on the Kennedy-Nixon debates consisted of interviewing 200 respondents whose
names had been drawn from the Indianapolis city telephone directory (Kraus and Smith, 1962, 290).

Note

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

1. Lurking in the meaning of “social,” of course, is symbol-using between and among individuals and groups for, as Dewey
notes, society exists “by transmission, by communication, but it may fairly be said to exist in transmission, in
communication” (Dewey, 1921, 184). In Deweyʼs view, “Democracy is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint
communicated experience” (Dewey, 1915, 87).
p. 10
References
Behr, R., and Iyengar, S. 1985. Television news, real world cues, and changes in the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly 49:
38–57.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Bennett, L. 1977. The ritualistic and pragmatic bases of political campaign discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech 63: 219–238.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Blumler, J., and Gurevitch, M. 1987. The personal and the public: Observations on agendas in mass communication research. In
Michael Gurevitch and Mark R. Levy (Eds.), Mass Communication Review Yearbook Volume 6 (pp. 16–21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Bucy, E., and Holbert, R. L. (Eds.). 2011. Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical
techniques. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., and Stokes, D. 1960. The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Cappella, J., and Jamieson, K. H. 1997. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Cha ee, S. (Ed.). 1975. Political communication: Issues and strategies for research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Cha ee, S. 2001. Studying the new communication of politics. Political Communication 18: 237–244.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Cha ee, S. and Choe, S. 1980. Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly 44:
53–69.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Converse, P. 1962. Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 578–599.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Craig, R. 1999. Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory 9: 119–161.

Google Scholar WorldCat

Eulau, H., and Schneider, P. 1956. Dimensions of political involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly 20: 128–142.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Goodin, R., and Klingemann, H. (Eds.). 1996. A new handbook of political science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Iyengar, S. 2001. The method is the message: The current state of political communication research. Political Communication
18(2): 225–229.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Katz, E. 1957. The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on a hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly 21: 61–78.
Google Scholar WorldCat
 Klapper, J. 1957. What we know about the e ects of mass communication: The brink of hope. Public Opinion Quarterly 21(4):
453–474.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Kraus, S. (Ed.) 1962. The great debates: Background, perspective, e ects. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Kraus, S., and Smith, R. 1962. Issues and images. In Sidney Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, e ects (pp.
289–312). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Lasswell, H. 1936. Politics: Who gets what, when, how? New York: Whittlesey House.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023

Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Lasswell, H. 1948. Power and personality. New York: W.W. Norton.

Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

McCombs, M., and Shaw, D. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176–187.
Google Scholar WorldCat

McLeod, J., Ward, S., and Tancill, K. 1965. Alienation and uses of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 29: 584–594.
Google Scholar WorldCat

p. 11 Morrison, D. 2008. Opportunity structures and the creation of knowledge: Paul Lazarsfeld and the politics of research. In D. Park
and J. Pooley (Eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (pp. 179–204). New York: Peter Lang.

Noelle-Neumann, E. 1974. The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24(2): 43–51.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Noelle-Neumann, E. 1983. The e ect of media on media e ects research. Journal of Communication 33(3): 157–165.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Patterson, T. 1974. Television news and political advertising. Communication Research 1: 3–31.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Patterson, T., and McClure, R. 1976. Unseeing eye: The myth of television power in national elections. New York: G.P. Putnamʼs
Sons.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Pearce, B. 1989. Communication and the human condition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Pooley, J., and Katz, E. 2008. Further notes on why American sociology abandoned mass communication research. Journal of
Communication 58(4): 767–786.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Rogers, E., and Cha ee, S. 1983. Communication as an academic discipline: A dialogue. Journal of Communication 33(3): 18–30.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Schramm, W. 1983. The unique perspective of communication: A retrospective view. Journal of Communication 33(3): 6–17.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Weaver, D., McCombs, M., and Spellman, C. 1975. Watergate and the media: A case study of agenda-setting. American Politics
Quarterly 3: 458–472.
Google Scholar WorldCat
 Weaver, D., Graber, D., McCombs, M., and Eyal, C. 1981. Media agenda setting in a presidential election: Issues, images and
p. 12 interest. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34621/chapter/294940218 by guest on 11 November 2023