This file was downloaded from BI Open, the institutional repository (open access) at BI

Norwegian Business School https://biopen.bi.no.

t contains the accepted and peer reviewed manuscript to the article cited below. It
may contain minor differences from the journal's pdf version.

Kelly Page Werder, Howard Nothhaft, Dejan Verčič & Ansgar Zerfass (2018) Strategic
Communication as an Emerging Interdisciplinary Paradigm, International Journal of
Strategic Communication, 12:4, 333-351, DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1494181

Copyright policy of Taylor & Francis, the publisher of this journal:

'Green' Open Access = deposit of the Accepted Manuscript (after peer review but prior to
publisher formatting) in a repository, with non-commercial reuse rights, with an Embargo
period from date of publication of the final article. The embargo period for journals within
the Social Sciences and the Humanities (SSH) is usually 18 months

http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/journal-list/

1
 Strategic Communication as an Emerging Interdisciplinary Paradigm

Kelly Page Werder a, Howard Nothhaft b, Dejan Verčič c, Ansgar Zerfass d

a
University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
b
Lund University, Campus Helsingborg, Sweden
c
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
d
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, & BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

CONTACT: Kelly Page Werder / [email protected] / Zimmerman School of Advertising and Mass
Communications, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., CIS1040, Tampa, FL, 33620

Abstract

This study explores future directions in strategic communication scholarship by examining the

emergence of strategic communication through the lens of interdisciplinary science. The disciplinary

status of strategic communication is described through a content analysis of manuscripts published

in the International Journal of Strategic Communication since its inaugural issue in 2007 (N = 207).

Results reveal positive trends in research productivity, authorship, and globalization of the discipline

over an 11-year period. However, analysis of the methodological and theoretical attributes of strategic

communication scholarship suggests that more interdisciplinary research is needed. This study

proposes definitional refinements that may strengthen the consistency of purpose among strategic

communication scholars for future research and theory-building. In addition, this study proposes

that scholars embrace an interdisciplinary worldview to further the development of strategic

communication as a unique and innovative domain of study in the future.

2
 Introduction

The rationale for this study centers on the need for reflection on the future of strategic

communication scholarship due, in part, to the lack of “universal understanding of the pillars on

which the field rests” (Nothhaft, Verčič, Werder, & Zerfass, 2017, p. 1). This study attempts to

inform macro-level questions about strategic communication as a global field of communication

research by reflecting on how strategic communication is evolving as a discipline.

Disciplinary integration has emerged as a “critical yet underrecognized” component of

strategic communication scholarship and practice (Smith, 2012, p. 66). However, limited empirical

evidence exists to substantiate the degree of integration that has been achieved in strategic

communication research and theory-building thus far. This introspective study examines the

emergence of strategic communication as a unique domain of study, and it attempts to describe

the strategic communication body of knowledge, while privileging the notion of disciplinary

integration as its defining attribute.

A review of literature first examines the definition of strategic communication, then

provides interdisciplinary science literature to inform understanding of how disciplines emerge

and how integration contributes to this emergence. This is followed by a summary of the methods

and results of a content analysis of scholarship published in the International Journal of Strategic

Communication (IJSC) over an 11-year period (N = 207). Finally, this study describes how and where

the discipline is developing, what trends exist in research, and what insights can be gained for the

future of strategic communication scholarship.

3
 The Evolving Definition of Strategic Communication

In the inaugural issue of IJSC, Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, and Sriramesh

posited that strategic communication is “the purposeful use of communication by an organization

to fulfill its mission” and assumes that people will engage in “deliberate communication practice

on behalf of organizations, causes, and social movements” (2007, p. 3-4). Most notably, the authors

of this often-cited definition argued that strategic communication could more fully explain the

communication function of organizations because “it examines organizational communication

from an integrated, multidisciplinary perspective by extending ideas and issues grounded in various

traditional communications disciplines” (Hallahan et al., 2007, p. 3-4; emphasis added).

This conceptualization has provided a foundation for the study of strategic communication

from diverse theoretical approaches. Specifically, strategic communication draws from organization

theory, communication theory, leadership and management theory, message effects, narrative

theory, crisis communication, public relations theory, socio-cultural theory, political science,

organizational communication, communication philosophy, critical theory, branding, reputation

management, ethics, and business, among others—as evidenced by work published in IJSC for more

than a decade, as well as in texts and edited volumes like The Routledge Handbook of Strategic

Communication (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2015b).

A multitude of perspectives on the process and function of strategic communication have

emerged in the years following the publication of that seminal work. This led to a refinement of

the definition six years later to a more comprehensive conceptualization that honed notions of

strategy, action, agency, and communication—and situated the phenomenon in the public sphere.

Specifically, strategic communication was later defined as “the practice of deliberate and purposive

4
communication that a communication agent enacts in the public sphere on behalf of a

communication entity to reach set goals” (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2013, p. 74).

According to Holtzhausen (2008), communicative entities encompass “the full spectrum of

economic and social sectors, such as trade and industry, politics, nonprofit and government

agencies, activist groups, and even celebrities in the sports and entertainment industries” (p. 4849).

This delineated the scope of organization type and communication purpose underlying the field,

and it suggested the inclusion of both commercial and non-commercial goals. In addition,

Holtzhausen and Zerfass (2015a) argued “the ultimate aim of strategic communication is to

maintain a healthy reputation for the communication entity in the public sphere,” which has

become “participative rather than representative” and evolved into a “communication sphere

rather than a public sphere” (p. 5-6).

This review demonstrates how the definition of strategic communication is evolving over

time. In addition to the work cited above, many scholars have attempted to further explain what it

is and to explicate the concepts implicit in the definition (Heath & Johansen, 2018; Holtzhausen

& Zerfass, 2015b; Mahoney, 2011). There also have been efforts to demonstrate how theory-

building in strategic communication differs from, complements, and contributes to theory-

building in public relations and its other root disciplines (Falkheimer & Heide, 2018), although

the focus has mostly been on public relations.

Some progress has been made in clarifying the core foci of the field; however, limited

attention has been given to the criterion of disciplinary integration. An examination of literature

from interdisciplinary science provides insight into integration and what it means for strategic

communication research and theory building.

5
 Integration in Interdisciplinary Science

In order to better understand how strategic communication has emerged as a unique

disciplinary endeavor, this review of literature defines what a discipline is, describes the

development path a body of knowledge takes to reach disciplinary status, and examines how

integration of disciplines occurs. This is followed by a review of concepts that describe work from

multiple disciplines according to its degree of disciplinary integration. Finally, the need for

multiple disciplinary research is discussed.

The Evolutionary Path of a Discipline

In an “exhaustive” and “well-grounded” (Alvargonzalez, 2011, p. 388) review of

disciplinarity and its related terminology, Choi and Pak (2006) define a discipline as a “branch of

knowledge, instruction, learning, teaching, or instruction; or a field of study or activity” (p. 352).

Although a variety of frameworks for characterizing and categorizing disciplines exist (Belcher,

1989; Biglan, 1973; Kuhn, 1970), there is general agreement that disciplines: a) have a particular

object of research, b) have a body of accumulated specialist knowledge about their object of

research, c) have theories and concepts that organize the accumulated specialist knowledge

effectively, d) use specific terminologies, e) have specific research methods, and f) have some

institutional manifestation (Stichweh, 2001).

The development of disciplines is a necessary aspect of social evolution; disciplines evolve

and differentiate continuously just as the human effort continues to understand the environment

in an increasingly penetrating and comprehensive manner (Stichweh, 2001). The linear

progression of an academic discipline begins with specialized attention of scholars, focusing on a

fragment of human experience. A community of agreeable scholars then coalesces around some

6
central premises regarding the experience, perhaps a uniquely defined practice of inquiry. Further

development depends on specialized structures (e.g., universities, academic departments,

professional associations) to support that community and its internal communication (Stichweh,

2001).

Generally, the evolutionary history of disciplines takes the following path: a) a knowledge

base exists; b) specialization and fragmentation of the knowledge base occurs; c) a discipline

develops; d) diversification and further specialization of knowledge within the discipline occurs; e)

breaking of disciplinary boundaries and emergence of more specialized new disciplines results

(Stichweh, 2001). Furthermore, disciplinary emergence may be provoked in three ways: 1) two or

more branches of knowledge merge and develop their own distinct characteristics and form a new

discipline; 2) a social and professional activity becomes an area of application for several disciplines

and is recognized as an independent field of study; and/or 3) a number of disciplines converge

into an important field of activity that results in two-way flow of ideas for the enrichment of both;

it is an interdisciplinary approach in different disciplines (Stichweh, 2001).

A good indication of the maturation of a discipline is “the extent to which it becomes

more interdisciplinary and advances knowledge by crossing the traditional (but arbitrary)

boundaries between the subdisciplines and by synthesizing material from the subdisciplines rather

than importing ideas from the ‘mainstream’ disciplines” (Abernathy, Hanrahan, Kippers,

Mackinnon, & Pandy, 2005, p. 5). In addition, “when human activities have a practical objective,

the participation of a diverse set of scientific, technical, and technological disciplines is usually

required” (Alvargonzalez, 2011, p. 302).

7
Continuum of Disciplinary Integration

In an effort to clarify how interdisciplinarity advances the social science, Stember (1991)

suggested a continuum based on degree of disciplinary integration. As shown in Figure 1, at the

beginning of the continuum is intradisciplinary (also known as uni-disciplinary), which is work that

occurs within a discipline. This is followed by crossdisciplinary, a viewing of one discipline from the

perspective of another. Multidisciplinary work precedes the integration process and involves several

disciplines that each provide a different perspective on a problem or issue but remain within the

silo boundaries of their own disciplines and under their own corresponding sets of assumptions,

restrictions, and philosophies. This results in adding to the professional body of knowledge, but

with very little innovation, because the assumptions, restrictions, and philosophies are mostly

fixed. Interdisciplinary status is achieved when integration of the contributions of several disciplines

to a problem or issue is achieved. Interdisciplinary integration brings interdependent parts of

knowledge into harmonious relationships to build new knowledge and theoretical solutions. The

highest level of integration is transdisciplinary, which is concerned with the unity of intellectual

frameworks beyond the disciplinary perspectives. The process is actually cyclical, since once

transdisciplinary status is reached, a new discipline forms and the specialization process repeats.

Figure 1. Continuum of disciplinary integration (Stember, 1991).

8
Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary Research

There is an increasing emphasis on research that involves multiple disciplines, and it is

generally assumed that efforts to involve more than one discipline are valuable and beneficial

(Choi & Pak, 2006). Terms like multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary have

been used to denote efforts that involve several disciplines; however, “these terms have been

ambiguously defined and often used interchangeably” leading to a “terminological quagmire”

(Choi & Pak, 2006, p. 352). In a comprehensive literature review of the use of these terms in

academic literature, Choi and Pak (2006) offered a comparison of their meanings on multiple

levels. Their findings are shown in Table 1.

Choi and Pak concluded that the terms multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and

transdisciplinary are all variously used to describe multiple disciplinary approaches of varying

degrees on the same continuum and are commonly understood to be additive, interactive, and

holistic, respectively. However, the terms are relatively new, poorly differentiated, confusing, and

often used inaccurately (2006, p. 359). They propose that when the exact nature of the multiple

disciplinary effort is not known, the terms should be avoided altogether and the more general and

accurate term “multiple disciplinary” should be used instead (2006, p. 360).

The Concept of Integration in Interdisciplinary Research

In a widely-quoted definition of interdisciplinarity, Klein and Newell (1998) state that it is

“a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or

complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession… [It] draws on disciplinary

perspectives and integrates their insights through construction of a more comprehensive

perspective” (p. 393-394).

9
Table 1

Choi and Pak’s (2006) comparison of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary research

Multidisciplinary Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinary

Working with several disciplines Working between several Working across and beyond several
disciplines disciplines
Involves more than two disciplines Involves two disciplines (i.e. Involves scientists from relevant
focuses on reciprocal action of disciplines, as well as stakeholders,
disciplines nonscientists, and non-academic
participants
Members from different disciplines Members from different disciplines Members from different disciplines
working independently on different working together on the same working together using a shared
aspects of a project, working project, working jointly conceptual framework
parallel or sequentially
Individual goals in different Shared goals Shared goals and shared skills
professions
Participants have separate but Participants have common roles Participants have role release and
inter-related roles role expansion
Participants maintain own Participants surrender some Participants develop a shared
disciplinary role aspects of their own disciplinary conceptual framework, drawing
role, but still maintain a specific together discipline-specific bases
disciplinary base
Does not challenge disciplinary Blurring of disciplinary boundaries Transcend the disciplinary
boundaries boundaries
Summation and juxtaposition of Integration and synthesis of Integration, amalgamation,
disciplines disciplines assimilation, incorporation,
unification, and harmony of
disciplines, views, and approaches
Additive, integrative, collaborative Interactive, integrative, Holistic, transcendental,
collaborative integrative, collaborative
Graphically analogous to two Graphically analogous to two Graphically analogous to a third
separate circles partially overlapping circles circle that covers two partially
overlapping circles
External coherence (i.e. motivated Internal coherence (i.e. motivated
by a desire to focus on a clients’ by a desire to focus on the team
needs needs
Participants learn about each other Participants learn about and from
each other
Separate methodologies Common methodologies
Instrumental, use of Epistemological, creation of new
complementary knowledge or knowledge or perspective, even
perspectives to address a question new disciplines
The outcome is the sum of the The outcome is more than the sum
individual parts of the individual parts

10
 Integration is a critical element of interdisciplinary research; it is what distinguishes

interdisciplinarity from multidisciplinarity (Szostak, 2013). Bergmann, Jahn, Knobloch, Krohn,

Pohl, and Schramm (2012) identify three types of integration. Epistemic integration is the merging

of ways of knowing from distinct disciplinary perspectives into holistic understanding of a

phenomenon. Strategic integration largely focuses on the communication challenges that exist

when scholars of diverse bodies of knowledge attempt to come together to form new insights.

Organizational integration addresses challenges inherent to work conducted by research teams

made up of scholars from multiple disciplinary perspectives. A full review of these types of

integration is beyond the scope of this study; thus, only epistemic integration is discussed here.

According to Bergmann et al. (2012), epistemic integration has several key elements. First,

it focuses on the synthesis or blending of critically evaluated insights from multiple disciplines,

authors, or groups. This synthesis is aimed at the creation of common ground, which refers to one

or more shared concepts or assumptions that allow differing insights to be reconciled and thus

integrated (Repko, 2008, p.272).

True integration that achieves common ground results in a more holistic and

comprehensive understanding that integrates phenomena, theories, and/or methods from

multiple disciplines (Repko, Newell, & Szostak, 2012). It is respectful of but transcends each

discipline’s insights and is more detailed than any single discipline’s understanding. True

integration is characterized by an appreciation of the parts of something as intimately

interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole (Bergmann et al., 2012). In addition,

the achievement of integration is an ongoing process that consistently and continuously focuses on

a particular well-defined question that is understood and commonly agreed upon by those trying to

11
inform it. Although true integration is difficult to achieve, it is the key aim of interdisciplinary

research (Bergmann et al., 2012; Repko, Newell, & Szostak, 2012).

The Need for Multiple Disciplinary Research

There are many reasons why research involving multiple disciplines is desirable. First, the

use of knowledge from multiple disciplines allows the resolution of real world problems. Choi and

Pak (2006) argue that life is multiple disciplinary. “Disciplines are the result of artificial

fragmentation of knowledge. Real world problems are rarely confined to the artificial boundaries

of academic disciplines. Multiple disciplinary research evolves to meet the demands of many

societal, environmental, industrial, scientific, and engineering problems that cannot be adequately

addressed by single disciplines alone” (p. 357).

Second, research from multiple disciplines provides the ability to resolve complex

problems. Experts from different disciplines read things differently and multiple disciplinarity

provides different perspectives on a problem. “The requirement for multiple disciplinarity is

emerging at a time when pace and complexity of science and technology is accelerating. … Multiple

disciplinary teams, with people trained in different fields, are common in complex environments”

(Choi & Pak, 2006, p. 358).

Third, multiple disciplinarity creates comprehensive theory-based prospective hypotheses

for research. A multiple disciplinary approach gets closer to the true nature of a phenomenon

because it allows researchers to develop the right questions to guide research, as well as to select

the right post-hoc theories to explain findings.

Furthermore, individual disciplines can get “tired” and become predictable, then a crisis of

ideas can develop that makes progress difficult—a multiple disciplinary perspective can reduce one-

12
dimensional evaluation (Choi & Pak, 2006, p. 358). Finally, a multiple disciplinary view can help

develop consensus definitions and guidelines for inquiry, as well as provide a more comprehensive

understanding of effective practice (Choi & Pak, 2006).

The Disciplinary Status of Strategic Communication Scholarship

Based on knowledge of how disciplines develop, coupled with an understanding of the

evolving definition of strategic communication, it is clear that strategic communication qualifies as

a discipline. It has: a) a particular object of research (i.e., the communication of organizations), b) a

body of accumulated specialist knowledge (e.g., a journal, a handbook, an encyclopedia), c)

theories and concepts that organize this accumulated knowledge (e.g., rhetorical arena, persuasion,

and communication sphere), d) specific terminologies (e.g., strategic and agency), e) specific

research methods (e.g., survey, content analysis, in-depth interview), and f) institutional

manifestation (e.g., academic programs and corporate departments).

In addition, it is clear that strategic communication emerged according to the usual path of

disciplinary evolution. It gained specialized attention of scholars, then a community of scholars

coalesced around central premises of a uniquely defined practice (i.e., the integration of the

communication function in organizations) that developed specialized structures (e.g., academic

programs, corporate departments). Specifically, a knowledge base existed (i.e., public relations,

marketing, organizational management, communication, sociology, psychology), specialization and

fragmentation occurred (e.g., crisis communication, corporate social responsibility), and a unique

disciplinary focus developed—strategic communication.

Moreover, this emergence was provoked when the professional activity of communication

management of organizations became an area of application for several disciplines that then

13
experienced a breaking of disciplinary boundaries to more effectively solve complex problems.

Strategic communication emerged as an interdisciplinary paradigm for studying the

communication of organizations through different lenses.

However, the attributes of strategic communication scholarship are less understood. This

study seeks to describe the state of strategic communication by examining its scholarship. It aims

to further understanding of how the field is developing, what trends exist, and what we consider to

be important to the strategic communication body of knowledge. The following section describes

the methods and procedures used to collect data for this study.

Method

To uncover trends in strategic communication scholarship, a content analysis was

conducted of all manuscripts published in IJSC from its première in 2007 (Vol.1, No. 1) through

December 2017 (Vol. 11, No. 5). According to the IJSC Web site, the journal “represents a multi-

national effort to integrate various communication disciplines into a coherent body of knowledge

and facilitate the emergence of strategic communication as a domain of study” (Zerfass & Werder,

2018). While the work published in IJSC is not a complete representation of strategic

communication research production, it is the only academic journal in the world dedicated to

strategic communication. In addition, IJSC provides the only continuously produced academic

source from which to draw longitudinal data regarding the breadth and scope of scholarship in

strategic communication.

The content analysis procedures followed best practices outlined in Lacy, Watson, Riffe,

and Lovejoy (2015). Analysis began by identifying the sample, unit of analysis, and variables of

interest, followed by the creation of a classification system for quantitatively coding these variables.

14
Sampling Procedures and Unit of Analysis

A total of 208 manuscripts were published in IJSC during the 11-year study period. This

included 195 original research articles, 10 guest editor introductions to special issues, two

editorials written by the journal editors, and one letter from the editors explaining the

introduction of a new section. All of the manuscripts except the letter contributed insight into

strategic communication scholarship; therefore, the letter was omitted and 207 manuscripts were

analyzed. The complete article served as the unit of analysis.

Variables of Interest and Categorization Procedures

To inform understanding of the work published in IJSC and how it has developed over

time, data were collected in 10 manifest content categories and four latent content categories.

Categories for all variables were mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

Manifest content. Each article was assigned an identification number and coded according

to its year of publication, volume number, and issue number. This data provided insight into the

frequency of manuscripts published in the journal over time. Next, articles were coded by location

of study (country) to better understand how strategic communication scholarship is advancing

globally. In addition, the number of authors per manuscript and the country where the authors

were working when the article was published were coded. Articles were examined to determine if

the research involved an international collaboration, which occurred if authors of a manuscript

were working two different countries.

To better understand the research methods used in strategic communication scholarship,

each manuscript was examined for its methodological attributes. First, articles were coded

according to whether they were conceptual essays or empirical studies. An article was coded as an

15
empirical study if it contained data collected through observation; articles with no observed data

were coded as conceptual essays. Next, empirical studies were examined to determine the type of

methodology used. Categories included quantitative methods, qualitive methods, and mixed

methods. Finally, empirical studies were coded according to the data collection tool used.

Categories included survey, experiment, content analysis, case study, in-depth interview, focus

group, observation, mixed method, and other.

Latent content. All manuscripts were examined for their theoretical attributes. Data was

collected for four variables: level of analysis, topic of study, disciplinary focus, and level of

disciplinary integration.

The level of analysis for each article was coded using the framework provided by

Holtzhausen and Zerfass (2013), which outlines micro-, meso-, and macro-level applications in

strategic communication research. Micro-level analyses address communication between a

communicative entity and its stakeholders and includes the application of theories to understand

how communication takes place in a strategic context. Examples of micro-level analysis in strategic

communication include crisis communication, corporate social responsibility (CSR),

relationship/image/reputation management, branding, consumer research, social media

engagement, new media technology, political communication, public diplomacy, and studies of the

effect of strategic messages on publics (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2013).

Meso-level analyses focus on the organizational level of practice and emphasize the strategic

process in organizations (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2013). Examples of research at the meso level

include internal and employee communication, roles, management and leadership, structure, goal-

setting, strategic planning (e.g., MBO, SWOT), and organizational culture.

16
 Macro-level analyses pertain to philosophical and meta-theoretical applications of strategic

communication and focus on communication in the public sphere. Examples of macro-level

analyses include studies of systems, chaos, and complexity theory, change communication, socio-

cybernetics, and some studies on the conceptualization of publics (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2013).

The primary topic of study for each article was analyzed using a process of emergence.

Specifically, the main topic was determined by reading the manuscript, and a list of all topics were

compiled. Next, similar topics were grouped into 25 discrete categories (shown in the results) that

reflected the scope of topics in strategic communication scholarship. An article was assigned to an

‘introspective’ category if it focused on defining and/or conceptualizing strategic communication.

The disciplinary focus of each article was assessed and articles were assigned to one of seven

categories: strategic communication, public relations/corporate communication, organization

theory, marketing, political communication, communication theory, and management. To be

assigned to the strategic communication category, articles had to apply concepts and theories from

two or more root disciplines, having either a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary level of

integration. To be assigned to any other category, the article had to apply concepts and theories

from the root discipline without a view toward synthesizing ideas with another area of study.

Finally, each article was assessed for its level of disciplinary integration based on the

definitions provided by Stember (1991). Articles were coded as intradisciplinary if they applied

concepts and theories from a single discipline. An article was coded as cross-disciplinary if it

mentioned concepts and theories from other disciplines but framed them from the perspective of a

single discipline. Articles that applied concepts and theories from two or more disciplines but

failed to achieve integration (i.e., did not produce new concepts, models, or theories) was coded as

17
multidisciplinary. Articles were coded as interdisciplinary if they merged concepts and theories

from two or more disciplines to identify new concepts or create new models or theoretical

perspectives. Finally, articles were coded as transdisciplinary if their conceptual approach was fully

integrated and produced entirely new theoretical insight.

Reliability Analysis

To assess the reliability of the categorization system, a single researcher coded all content

for the 207 articles, then a second researcher coded all content for 20 percent (n = 42) of articles

randomly selected from the full set. Holsti’s (1969) formula was used to assess intercoder

reliability. All latent variable achieved alpha coefficients of 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. For

the four manifest variables, alpha coefficients ranged from .80 to 1.00. These coefficients were

considered acceptable for further data analysis (Krippendorf, 2004); however, a process of

reconciliation was initiated to resolve discrepancies. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 25. The

next section reviews the results of the content analysis.

Results

The purpose of this content analysis is to produce descriptive profile of strategic

communication scholarship. The results are divided into sections based on whether the variables

of interest related to the following: 1) research production, 2) globalization of the discipline, 3)

authorship, 4) methodological attributes, and 5) theoretical attributes.

Research Production

An analysis of the frequency of manuscripts published per annual volume of the journal

indicates an increase in manuscripts published over time (see Table 2). The larger numbers for

18
volume years 2016 and 2017 reflect an increase in pages per issue and issues per volume beginning

in 2016. The number of manuscripts published each year generally doubled from 2007 to 2017.

Table 2

Frequency of Manuscripts Per Volume

Volume Year Frequency Percent

1 2007 15 7.2
2 2008 14 6.8
3 2009 17 8.2
4 2010 16 7.7
5 2011 16 7.7
6 2012 20 9.7
7 2013 18 8.7
8 2014 17 8.2
9 2015 17 8.2
10 2016 29 14.0
11 2017 28 13.5
Total 11 207 100.0

Globalization of the Discipline

Of the 207 articles analyzed, 164 articles examined strategic communication in a specific

country. Articles published in the journal reflect research conducted in 29 different countries, and

22 studies (13.4%) focused on strategic communication in multiple countries. These results are

shown in Table 3. The United States of America was the most frequent country of study (n = 63,

38.4%), followed by China (n = 16, 9.8%) and Denmark (n = 10, 6.1%). Country data were

collapsed to show strategic communication research in specific regions. The results, shown in

Table 4, indicate that strategic communication in the U.S. North America, Europe, and Asia has

received the most attention from the scholarly community.

19
Table 3

Frequency of Manuscripts by Country of Study

Country Manuscripts Percent

USA 63 38.4
Multiple countries 22 13.4
China 16 9.8
Denmark 10 6.1
Germany 7 4.3
South Korea 6 3.7
Sweden 6 3.7
India 3 1.8
Italy 3 1.8
Switzerland 3 1.8
Indonesia 2 1.2
Israel 2 1.2
Nigeria 2 1.2
Norway 2 1.2
South Africa 2 1.2
Australia 1 .6
Brazil 1 .6
Columbia 1 .6
Estonia 1 .6
Finland 1 .6
Iraq 1 .6
Malaysia 1 .6
Mexico 1 .6
Netherlands 1 .6
Peru 1 .6
Romania 1 .6
Singapore 1 .6
Spain 1 .6
Uganda 1 .6
United Kingdom 1 .6
Total 164 100.0

20
Table 4

Frequency of Manuscripts by Region of Study

Region Manuscripts Percent

North America 64 39
Europe 43 26.2
Asia 30 18.3
Multiple regions 15 9.1
Africa 5 3.0
South America 3 1.8
Middle East 3 1.8
Australia/Oceania 1 .6
Total 164 100.0

Authorship

Results indicate that 418 scholars authored work published in IJSC during the time frame

analyzed. The number of authors per manuscript ranged from one (n = 59, 28.5%) to six (n = 1,

0.5%), with the largest number of manuscripts authored by two people (n = 97, 46.9%).

Authors who published work in IJSC during the study period were employed in 26

different countries. Table 5 shows the production rate of strategic communication scholarship

from authors by country. Results indicate that the majority of strategic communication research is

being produced by authors working in the U.S. (n = 233, 55.7%), followed by Germany (n = 36,

8.6%), Denmark (n = 31, 7.4%), Sweden (n = 25, 6%), China (n = 15, 3.6%), and Switzerland (n =

10, 2.4%). Of the 207 articles analyzed, 42 (20.3%) were authored by teams of researchers from

different countries. In contrast, 165 (79.7%) articles did not have an international collaboration.

21
Table 5

Country of Origin of Authors

Country No. of Authors Percent

USA 233 55.7
Germany 36 8.6
Denmark 31 7.4
Sweden 25 6.0
China 15 3.6
Switzerland 10 2.4
Netherlands 8 1.9
South Korea 8 1.9
Singapore 7 1.8
Finland 6 1.4
Italy 6 1.4
Norway 6 1.4
Australia 5 1.2
Israel 3 0.8
Brazil 2 0.5
Estonia 2 0.5
Indonesia 2 0.5
New Zealand 2 0.5
Nigeria 2 0.5
Taiwan 2 0.5
United Kingdom 2 0.5
Canada 1 0.2
Malaysia 1 0.2
Slovenia 1 0.2
South Africa 1 0.2
Spain 1 0.2
Total 418 100.0

22
Methodological Attributes of Strategic Communication Scholarship

Of the 207 articles analyzed, 160 (77.3%) were empirical studies and 47 (22.7%) were

conceptual essays. Of the 160 empirical studies, quantitative methods were used in 79 (49.4%),

qualitative methods were used in 72 (45%), and 9 (5.6%) studies used mixed methods. Table 6

shows frequency of use of specific data collection tools. Surveys were most frequently used (n = 38,

23.8%), followed by content analyses (n = 36, 22.5%), and case study methods (n = 33, 20.6%).

Table 6

Frequency of Data Collection Tool Used in Empirical Studies

Data Collection Manuscripts Percent

Surveys 38 23.8
Content analyses 36 22.5
Case studies 33 20.6
In-depth interviews 20 12.5
Experiments 18 11.3
Multi-method 15 9.4
Total 160 100.0

Theoretical Attributes of Strategic Communication Scholarship

Strategic communication was analyzed at the micro level in 133 (64.3%) articles, the meso

level in 50 (11.1%) articles, and the macro level in 24 (11.6%) articles (N = 207). The analysis of

the disciplinary focus of the articles indicated the majority of articles (n = 105, 50.7%) were

classified as multiple disciplinary strategic communication research that reached multidisciplinary

or interdisciplinary level integration. Articles with disciplinary focus in public relations and

corporate communication were the second most frequent (n = 79, 38.2%). Strategic

communication was examined from a purely communication perspective in the fewest number of

studies (n = 2, 1%). These results are shown in Table 7.

23
Table 7

Disciplinary Focus of Study

Disciplinary Focus Manuscripts Percent

Strategic Communication (multiple disciplines) 105 50.7
Public Relations/Corporate Communication 79 38.2
Organizational Communication 9 4.3
Political communication 5 2.4
Marketing 4 1.9
Management 3 1.4
Communication 2 1.0
Total 207 100.0

Analysis of the primary topic of interest of the 207 articles resulted in the emergence of 25

unique categories, shown in Table 8. The most frequently studied topics were

management/leadership/consulting (n = 21, 10.1), crisis/risk/disaster communication (n = 18,

8.7%), social media/new technology/big data (n = 18, 8.7%), and corporate social responsibility (n

= 17, 8.2%). Almost no studies had ethics as the central topic (n = 1, 0.5%).

24
Table 8

Topic of Study

Topic of Study Manuscripts Percent

Management/Leadership/Consulting 21 10.1
Crisis/Risk/Disaster Communication 18 8.7
Social Media/New Media Technology/Big Data 18 8.7
Corporate Social Responsibility 17 8.2
Introspective (defining strategic communication) 13 6.3
Relationship Management 13 6.3
Campaigns 11 5.3
Strategy 10 4.8
Internal/Employee Communication 9 4.3
Political Communication 9 4.3
Practitioner Roles 9 4.3
Publics 8 3.9
Branding/Advertising/Marketing 7 3.4
Identity/Image/Reputation Management 7 3.4
Public Diplomacy 6 2.9
Institutionalization 5 2.4
Investor Relations 5 2.4
Mass Media/Agenda Setting/Framing 5 2.4
Governmental/Public Sector Communication 4 1.9
Non-Profit Communication 3 1.4
Health Communication 2 1.0
Media Relations 2 1.0
Message Effects 2 1.0
Propaganda 2 1.0
Ethics 1 .5
Total 207 100.0

Finally, analysis of the degree of disciplinary integration present in the articles indicates

that a narrow majority of strategic communication scholarship is multidisciplinary or

interdisciplinary (n = 105, 50.8%). Intradisciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches were

25
employed in 49.3% of the articles (n = 102). Integration at the interdisciplinary level was present

in 44 of 207 manuscripts (21.3%). These results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9

Disciplinary Integration of Strategic Communication Scholarship

Disciplinary Integration Manuscripts Percent

Intradisciplinary 53 25.6
Crossdisciplinary 49 23.7
Multidisciplinary 61 29.5
Interdisciplinary 44 21.3
Total 207 100.0

Discussion

A review of the findings of this study is provided below. It attempts to describe the

disciplinary characteristics of strategic communication in its current state. This is followed by a call

for strategic communication scholars to adopt an interdisciplinary worldview toward research and

theory building. To facilitate this, a description of the interdisciplinary research process and best

practices for achieving an interdisciplinary worldview are reviewed.

Describing the Discipline

Strategic communication can be described as a growing discipline. The results of this

analysis indicate positive trends in research productivity, authorship, and globalization of the

discipline during the 11-year study period. The number of manuscripts published per annual

volume of the journal doubled from 2007 to 2017. In addition, results indicate that strategic

communication is receiving attention in many parts of the world. It has been examined in 29

different countries, with 13 percent of studies published in the journal focusing on multiple

countries. While North America was the most frequent region of study (n = 64, 39%), strategic

26
communication in Europe (n = 43, 26.2%) and Asia (n = 30, 18.3%) has received considerable

attention from scholars. These results support the aim of the journal to reflect an international

community of scholars, and the presence of work from under-represented countries like Malaysia,

Estonia, Slovenia, and Nigeria is encouraging.

Strategic communication has a diverse scholarly community. Findings indicate that articles

were published by 418 authors1 from 26 different countries. The majority of strategic

communication scholarship was produced by authors at American universities (n = 233, 55.7%);

however, many authors worked at German (n = 36, 8.6%), Danish (n = 31, 7.4%), and Swedish

universities. This reflects the growing ‘schools of thought’ on strategic communication at the

University of Leipzig, Aarhus University, and Lund University. It is also encouraging to see

research on strategic communication from Indonesia, Israel, Brazil, and South Africa. Scholars

working in these countries provide different perspectives that help inform the cultural scope of

strategic communication research and practice, and they inform issues that may not be apparent to

scholars working in different societies.

Strategic communication scholarship largely results from team collaboration. The majority

of work—nearly 72 percent—was conducted by teams of researchers; however, only 20 percent of

studies were produced by international teams. Although this suggests the international reach of

strategic communication scholarship, it also points to the need for more international

collaboration, as this can facilitate the merging of dissimilar perspectives and cultural contexts.

An examination of the methodological attributes of strategic communication scholarship

reveals that empirical methods were used to produce formal research with primary data in 77

1
Note: Authors were not mutually exclusive.

27
percent of the articles (n = 160). Of these, quantitative (n = 79, 49.4%) and qualitative methods (n

= 72, 45%) were used with generally the same frequency. A few studies employed mixed methods

(n = 9, 5.6%); however, the results suggest a need for more triangulated research that investigates

strategic communication phenomenon from multiple observational approaches. In addition, the

findings suggest that conceptual work is sufficiently present (n = 47, 22.7%); however, scholars

must maintain introspective inquiry and fully engage in the disciplinary debate as strategic

communication matures.

Surveys, content analyses, and case studies are the most popular tools for data collection,

providing data for 67 percent of empirical studies. Interestingly, neither focus groups nor

observational methods were used, not even in the few multi-method studies (n = 15, 9.4%). Focus

groups and observational methods provide a perspective on phenomena that other methods are

unable to capture. More scholars should use these methods to inform a diverse, multi-perspective

body of knowledge.

In terms of theoretical attributes, strategic communication can be described as

disproportionally focused on micro-level problems (n = 133, 64.3%). Specialized areas like crisis

communication and CSR have captured the attention of scholars. Meso-level analysis in strategic

communication largely focuses on management and the strategic process, although internal

communication and roles research are prevalent. Findings reveal a need for more macro-level

analyses that further understanding of strategic communication in the public sphere.

The disciplinary focus of strategic communication is divided equally between scholarship

that adopts a multiple disciplinary perspective (n = 105, 50.7%), and scholarship that does not. A

28
substantial amount of scholarship maintained a classic public relations /corporate communication

focus (n = 79, 38.2%), which likely reflects its path to disciplinary development.

The scope of strategic communication scholarship is reflected in 25 discrete research

streams that emerged as topics of interest to the scholarly community. The body of knowledge is

dominated of by meso-level management research (e.g., Hamrin, 2016; Luo, Jiang, & Kulemeka,

2015; Verhoeven, Zerfass, & Tench, 2011), and micro-level research in crisis communication, (e.g.,

Kim, 2013; Mishra, 2017; Schwarz, 2008), social media (e.g., Chen, Ji, & Men, 2017; Smith &

Tayor, 2017), CSR (e.g., Rim & Song, 2013; Tao & Ferguson, 2015; Werder, 2008), and

relationship management (e.g., Ki & Hon, 2009; Sweetser, 2015; Zhang & Seltzer, 2010).

Together, these five streams account for 44 percent of scholarship in strategic communication. The

abundance of micro-level work in these areas reveals a preoccupation with strategic

communication between an organization and its stakeholders; however, many of these studies are

where integration of concepts, models, and theories from multiple disciplines takes place (e.g.,

Men & Tsai, 2013; Schmeltz & Kjeldsen, 2016; Zhao, Falkheimer, & Heide, 2017).

The discipline also has a healthy stream of scholarship dedicated to introspective

examination of strategic communication as a domain of study, including as how it is defined and

how it should be studied (e.g., Christensen & Svensson, 2017; Nothhaft, 2016; Sandhu, 2017).

However, more work is needed that attempts to reconcile perspectives as the discipline continues

to emerge and clarify its domain.

Although ethics were mentioned in some articles, only one article had ethics as the central

focus (Ikonen, Luama-Aho, & Bowen, 2017). Although this article may have been assigned to the

CSR category, which includes studies on organizational legitimacy, transparency, and sincerity

29
(e.g., Bachmann & Ingenhoff, 2017; Ragas & Roberts, 2009), its focus is distinct and meaningful

enough to merit its own category. Its inclusion in the table provides empirical support for the call

for more scholarship with ethics as the focus.

Despite its length, the topics list fails to capture the depth of the field. For example, only

one article had a reference to feminization in the title (Simorangkir, 2011). The topical focus of the

article was the influence of gender on public relations roles, but the feminization of the field was

central to the conclusions. Communication-related professions continue to experience challenges

related to gender and diversity (Harrington, 2017). Certainly, more research is needed that seeks to

close the gender gap in communication-related professions.

Finally, strategic communication scholarship can be described as lacking in its attempt to

achieve high levels of disciplinary integration. Only half of the articles published in IJSC over the

11-year period examined strategic communication from a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary

perspective. These articles integrated concepts, models, and theories from two or more disciplines,

to varying degrees. Integration at the interdisciplinary level was present in only 21 percent of

articles. These findings support the need for more interdisciplinary scholarship.

Although the largest number of articles (n = 61) adopted a multidisciplinary approach (as

the field has been defined until now), this study posits that a multidisciplinary approach will not

facilitate the growth and development of strategic communication as a unique disciplinary

endeavor. Instead, the adoption of an interdisciplinary worldview toward scholarship in strategic

communication is needed to achieve growth and innovation in the next decade.

Consistency of Purpose in Strategic Communication Scholarship

30
 More than a decade of research published in IJSC provides evidence that strategic

communication embodies the characteristics of a discipline. This body of work demonstrates that

disciplinary integration is present in strategic communication scholarship; however, the unclear

conceptualization of integration provided by scholars—specifically, its positioning within

multidisciplinary boundaries—does not allow the integration that generates novel perspectives on

problem-solving; thus, it limits potential for future knowledge building and innovation.

This study proposes that refinements to the way strategic communication has been defined

may strengthen the consistency of purpose for research and theory-building among scholars.

Specifically, it is argued that any definition of strategic communication should underscore that it

is, at base, an integrated, interdisciplinary approach.

Figure 2 provides an example of how the disciplines that have been most relevant to

strategic communication thus far might be organized, based on the results of this study and the

literature. The grey area represents an environment—or community—of other disciplines,

subdisciplines, and research streams that have the potential to provide unique insight into the

same phenomena that interest strategic communication scholars. This representation privileges the

notion that each individual discipline is embedded in an environment of other disciplines, as “the

continuous mutual observation and interaction of these disciplines is the most important factor in

the dynamics of science” (Stichweh, 2001, p. 13727). However, it should be noted that the figure

explains the disciplines that have been important to strategic communication so far. Additional

disciplines that can or should contribute might have been neglected by scholars, or their

importance might surface in the future. One example is information technology, which can inform

the analysis of algorithms and their use for communicative goals. Other examples include research

31
in public diplomacy and work related to military and national power—an area where strategic

communication is intensively discussed in a way that has seldom resonated in communication

science until now (Zerfass, Verčič, Nothhaft, & Werder, 2018).

Co mmunic atio n

Organizational Political
Communication Communication
Mass
Communication

Org anizatio nal PR

S trate g ic IMC S o c ial
Co mmunic atio n
The o ry Ps yc ho lo g y

Strategic Marketing/
Management Advertising

Bus ine s s
Manag e me nt

Figure 2. The interdisciplinarity of strategic communication.

Adopting an Interdisciplinary Worldview in Strategic Communication

There is broad consensus among many academic and professional communities for the

value of an interdisciplinary perspective in solving today’s complex problems (Repko, Newell, &

Szostak, 2012). This article argues that strategic communication scholars must embrace an

interdisciplinary worldview for it to evolve and become more widely recognized by other disparate

disciplines. Augsburg and Chitewere (2013) describe worldview as the lens through which one sees

the world. This article emphasizes the need for more scholars to engage in work that falls outside

32
the boundaries of their specialized perspectives. More collaboration between disparate disciplines

is needed to synthesize competing views on phenomena and create novel approaches to solve

problems.

However, the integration of disparate perspectives—which is central to interdisciplinary

research—can be difficult to achieve. To further this endeavor, a deeper appreciation for

interdisciplinary knowledge generation is needed. Specifically, improved understanding among

scholars is needed in two areas: 1) the interdisciplinary research process, and 2) best practices for

achieving an interdisciplinary worldview.

The Interdisciplinary Research Process

In order to achieve true integration, scholars must possess an understanding of the

interdisciplinary research process, which is different from intra-, or uni-disciplinary,

methodologies. Intradisciplinary research exhibits strong preferences for particular methods and

the use of particular tools and techniques, while interdisciplinary research exhibits openness to the

use of any method, technique, or tool that might illuminate the question under evaluation

(Szostak, 2013). This openness aims to facilitate communication among interdisciplinarians,

encourage quality research, facilitate the assessment of that research, and enhance the reputation

of interdisciplinary research within the academy (Szostak, 2013).

Repko, Newell, and Szostak (2012) argue that researchers must be self-conscious and

explicit about this research process and should approach it in terms of different steps, or stages, in

the interdisciplinary research process. They stress that these steps are iterative—researchers need

not start at the first step and will often revisit earlier steps or perform multiple steps

simultaneously. In team projects, one important form of iteration is when team members present

33
interim results and these are critiqued by other members. This may lead to revisiting earlier steps

in which teams revise their expectations as interim results are presented. Repko (2012) describes

the steps of the interdisciplinary research process as follows:

1) Forming a research team (if team research is appropriate);

2) Solving communication problems;

3) Identifying a good research question;

4) Identifying and evaluating disciplinary insights;

5) Mapping interdisciplinary connections;

6) Performing mixed methods research;

7) Integrating insights from different disciplines;

8) Reflecting, testing, and communicating research results; and

9) Assessing interdisciplinary research, which is an external step performed by others.

These nine steps are logically distinct, and one critical strategy for evaluating

interdisciplinary research is to ask whether all relevant steps have been performed appropriately

(Repko, 2012). In addition, reflection is critical. The interdisciplinarian is urged to be self-

conscious about the interdisciplinary research process itself and about the biases that one might

bring to one’s research (Szostak, 2013).

Best Practices for Achieving an Interdisciplinary Worldview

Although definitions of interdisciplinarity are diverse and often contested, there is an

emerging consensus around certain best practices that should exist as scholars work toward

interdisciplinarity (Szostak, 2013). In describing the lens through which the interdisciplinarian sees

the world, Szostak (2013) states that interdisciplinarians focus on particular problem or questions

34
that are too complex to be answered satisfactorily by any one discipline. Some interdisciplinarians

may be guided by a search for a particular policy or technology requiring input from different

perspectives. Others may search for insights into what a concept means across different realms.

Interdisciplinarians also draw upon and evaluate the insights of specialized research

(Szostak, 2013). Specialized research is performed by communities of scholars who share a set of

guiding questions, concepts, theories, and methods. In addition, interdisciplinarians utilize

multiple theories and methods. They are conscious that all theories, methods, and disciplines are

useful for some purposes but also have weaknesses. Interdisciplinarians appreciate that each

discipline is characterized by an evolving disciplinary perspective or way of looking at the world.

Finally, interdisciplinarians integrate the best elements of disciplinary insights in order to

generate a more comprehensive (and often more nuanced) appreciation of the issue at hand. This

may come in the form of a new understanding, product, or meaning (Szostak, 2013).

The Future of Strategic Communication Scholarship

This article argues that strategic communication will advance through the adoption of an

interdisciplinary worldview among its scholarly and professional communities, although this has

already happened in practice to an extent. While this is a difficult proposition—one that is easier

said than done—it is necessary to ensure that strategic communication scholarship continues to

contribute to and further understanding of the management of communication in organizations.

Strategic communication scholars must develop concepts and theoretical frameworks that are

uniquely integrated and provide a holistic view of communication management in organizations.

This study describes the development of strategic communication research in the first

decade of its evolution. The newly emerging discipline has achieved a notable breadth and depth.

35
However, the most pressing challenge for future scholarship is the need for closer conceptual and

methodological collaboration across various disciplines, as well as true interdisciplinary integration

that pursues new insights, innovation, and production of new knowledge in and about strategic

communication. Interdisciplinary integration is the greatest challenge for strategic communication

scholarship in the future.

References

Abernathy, B., Hanrahan, S., Kippers, V., Mackinnon, L., & Pandy, M. (2005). The Biophysical

Foundations of Human Movement (2nd ed.). South Yarra, AU: Palgrave Macmillan.

Alvargonzalez, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the

sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(4), 387-403.

Augsburg, T. (2009). Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. Dubuque,

IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Augsburg, T., & Chitewere, C. (2013). Starting with worldviews: A five-step preparatory approach

to integrative interdisciplinary learning. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 31, 163-180.

Bachmann, P, & Ingenhoff, D. (2017). How do media companies gain legitimacy? An

experimental study on the (ir)relevance of CSR communication. International Journal of

Strategic Communication, 11(1), 79-94. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2016.1249282

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines.

Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2012). Methods for

Transdisciplinary Research: A Primer for Practice. Berlin: Campus.

36
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and

output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204-213.

Chen, Z. F., Ji, Y. G., & Men, R. L. (2017). Strategic use of social media for stakeholder

engagement in startup companies in China. International Journal of Strategic Communication,

11(3), 244-267. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2017.1298114

Choi, B., & Pak, A. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health

research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of

effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351-364.

Christensen, L. T., & Svensson, E. (2017). The nature of strategic communication: A rejoinder to

Nothhaft. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(3), 180-183. DOI:

10.1080/1553118X.2017.1318883

Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2018). Strategic Communication: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining

strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3-4.

Hamrin, S. (2016) Recontextualizing communicative leadership: The interplay of discourses in a

Swedish multinational organization. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(1),

18-35. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2015.1073733

Harrington, J. (2017, Oct. 6). Study reveals global PR gender gap and points finger at women’s

‘lack of confidence.’ PR Week. Retrieved on 20 June 2018 from

https://www.prweek.com/article/1446689/study-reveals-global-pr-gender-pay-gap-points-

finger-womens-lack-confidence

37
Heath, R., & Johansen, W. (Eds.). (2018). Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication. Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2008). Strategic communication. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International

Encyclopedia of Communication (Vol. 10, pp. 4848–4855). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Holtzhausen, D. R., & Zerfass, A. (2013). Strategic communication: Pillars and perspectives of an

alternative paradigm. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J.-N. Kim (Eds.), Public Relations and

Communication Management: Current Trends and Emerging Topics (pp. 283-302). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Holtzhausen, D. R., & Zerfass, A. (2015a). Strategic communication: Opportunities and challenges

of the research area. In D. Holtzhausen, & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of

Strategic Communication (pp. 3-17). New York, NY: Routledge.

Holtzhausen, D., & Zerfass, A. (Eds.). (2015b). The Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Ikonen, P., Luoma-aho, V., & Bowen, S. (2017). Transparency for sponsored content: Analysing

codes of ethics in public relations, marketing, advertising and journalism. International

Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(2), 165-178. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2016.1252917

Ki, E-J., & Hon, L. (2009). Causal linkages between relationship cultivation strategies and

relationship quality outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(4), 242-263.

DOI: 10.1080/15531180903218630

Kim, S. (2013). Corporate ability or virtue? Relative effectiveness of prior corporate associations in

times of crisis. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 241-256. DOI:

10.1080/1553118X.2013.824886

38
Klein, J., & Newell, W. (1998). Advancing Interdisciplinary Studies. In W. Newell (Ed.),

Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: College Board.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Lacy, S., Watson, B., Riffe, D., & Lovejoy, J. (2015). Issues and best practices in content analysis.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 791-811.

Luo,Y., Jiang, H., & Kulemeka, O. (2015). Strategic social media management and public relations

leadership: Insights from industry leaders. International Journal of Strategic Communication,

9(3), 167-196. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2014.960083

Mahoney, J. (2011). Horizons I strategic communication: Theorizing a paradigm shift. International

Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(3), 143-153.

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W-H. S. (2013). Toward an integrated model of public engagement on

corporate social networking sites: Antecedents, the process, and relational outcomes.

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 257-273. DOI:

10.1080/1553118X.2013.822373

Mishra, S. (2017). The importance of “consumer type” in the attribution of crisis responsibility:

The case of the Maggi Noodles crisis in India. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 11(3), 224-243. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2017.1307843

39
Nothhaft, H. (2016). A framework for strategic communication research: A call for synthesis and

consilience. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(2), 69-86. DOI:

10.1080/1553118X.2015.1124277

Nothhaft, H., Vercic, D., Werder, K., & Zerfass, A. (2017, May). Future Directions of Strategic

Communication: Towards the Second Decade of an Emerging Field. Program of the

preconference conducted as part of the 67th Annual International Communication

Association Conference, San Diego, CA.

Ragas, M., & Roberts, M. (2009). Communicating corporate social responsibility and brand

sincerity: A case study of Chipotle Mexican Grill's ‘Food with Integrity’ program.

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(4), 264-280. DOI:

10.1080/15531180903218697

Repko, A. (2008). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Repko, A. (2012). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Repko, A., Newell, W., & Szostak, R. (2012). Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rim, H., & Song, D. (2013). The ability of corporate blog communication to enhance CSR

effectiveness: The Role of prior company reputation and blog responsiveness. International

Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(3), 165-185. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2012.738743

Sandhu, S. (2017). Heading for Mars while we haven’t been on the moon: A reply to Nothhaft.

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(3), 184-188. DOI:

10.1080/1553118X.2017.1319837

40
Schmeltz, L., & Kjeldsen, A. K. (2016). Naming as strategic communication: Understanding

corporate name change through an integrative framework encompassing branding, identity

and institutional theory. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(4), 309-331.

DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2016.1179194

Schwarz, A. (2008). Covariation-based causal attributions during organizational crises: Suggestions

for extending Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT). International Journal of

Strategic Communication, 2(1), 31-53. DOI: 10.1080/15531180701816601

Simorangkir, D. (2011). The impact of the feminization of the public relations industry in

Indonesia on communication practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(1),

26-48. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2011.537602

Smith, B. (2013). The internal forces on communication integration: Co-Created meaning,

interaction, and postmodernism in strategic integrated communication. International

Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(1), 65-79. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2012.734883

Smith, B., & Taylor, M. (2017). Empowering engagement: Understanding social media user sense

of influence. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(2), 148-164. DOI:

10.1080/1553118X.2017.1284072

Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The

Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1-14.

Stichweh, R. (2001). History of Scientific Disciplines. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.).

International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Science (pp. 13727-13731). Oxford:

Elsevier.

41
Sweetser, K. (2015). Exploring the political organization-public relationship in terms of

relationship, personality, loyalty, and outcomes among first-time voters. International Journal

of Strategic Communication, 9(3), 217-234. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2014.979350

Szostak, R. (2013). The state of the field: Interdisciplinary research. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies,

31, 44-65.

Tao, W., & Ferguson, M. A. (2015). The overarching effects of ethical reputation regardless of

CSR cause fit and information source. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(1),

23-43. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2014.954285

Verhoeven, P., Zerfass, A., & Tench, R. (2011). Strategic orientation of communication

professionals in Europe. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(2), 95-117. DOI:

10.1080/1553118X.2011.561080

Werder, K. P. (2008). The effect of doing good: An experimental analysis of the influence of

corporate social responsibility initiatives on beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intention ,

International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2(2), 115-135, DOI:

10.1080/15531180801974904

Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Nothhaft H., & Werder, K. P. (2018). Strategic communication: Defining

the field and its contribution to research and practice. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 12(4), xxx-xxx.

Zerfass, A., & Werder, K. P. (2018). Aim and Scope of the International Journal of Strategic

Communication. Retrieved on 20 June 2018 from www.tandfonline/toc/hstc20/current.

42
Zhao, H., Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2017). Revisiting a social constructionist approach to crisis

communication: Investigating contemporary crises in China. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 11(5), 364-378. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2017.1363758

43