Laughter echoed out of Room 056 in the Texas Tech University College of Media & Communication building as Jakob Jensen, University of Utah professor of communication and sarcastically self-proclaimed futurist, began his high-energy lecture.
Jensen initially remarked he was asked to give a “big talk” for his Center of Communication Research Colloquium, so he came to the university with a few “big questions” in his presentation, “The Future of Communication Research: Five Pathways for the Next Generation.”
Of those, one inquiry was brought to the forefront of the lecture. The professor questioned why the community of communications is studying fields such as mass communication, health communication, rhetoric and interpersonal communication, instead of integrating into fields of biology, engineering, computer science and mathematics?
“It’s meant to help us be creative, to push us outside of our box,” Jensen said, disclaiming his lecture. “What it’s not meant to do is step on toes. It’s meant to help us be better scholars.”
Above and below, Jakob Jensen, professor of communication at the University of Utah, speaks during a Center for Communication Research Colloquium in the College of Media & Communication on Wednesday.
Jensen mentioned when looking for a place to eat earlier, his phone recommended Lubbock venues, and specifically a noodle restaurant, because his mobile device knows his current location and preferences.
“Artificial intelligence is everywhere.” Jensen said as a rationale for his futuristic speech. “It’s not something that’s going to happen, it’s already happening.”
Examining the direction scholars should take in the future, they must outline current problems today, according to the professor, who dubbed these problems “the medicine.”
“We spend way too much time trying to find little problems,” Jensen said, identifying the first issue, “and then proving that those little problems exist.”
Jensen admitted he is an offender of this issue, and put the problem into perspective by referencing larger concerns such as mass poverty, drought and pollution.
“Meanwhile, we’re trying to say,” Jensen began, playfully mocking researchers like himself, “‘did you know that we did this huge correlational study and there’s evidence of a 1-percent relationship between two variables and we think it’s real and if it is, oh, it could be so important.”
Aside from being too problem-focused, another problem of communications is that the field has built bridges with psychology, sociology, philosophy and history, but not engineering, computer science, biology and math, according to Jensen.
“I would go so far as to say one of the most important things in the next century with us is to dig deeper with these fields,” Jensen said.
Problem three is scholars’ pace, Jensen claimed.
“We’re too slow at doing research,” Jensen said. “We’re too slow at publishing research. We’re too slow at presenting the research. We’re too slow at building on the research.”
The professor outlined the final problem he discovered as methodological divides. He equated this issue with a charade, receiving a wave of laughter from the audience, as he walked around a metaphorical construction job with an invisible hammer, proclaiming multiple times he is a “hammer guy,” asking everyone if they needed something hammered.
“You’re allowed to be methodologically diverse,” Jensen said. “That’s not to say you’re not trained in an area, it’s just to say, don’t be dogmatic about it.”
After identifying these issues, the professor clicked to a slide with common communications areas, and marked them out. He replaced these with five new fields, communication engineering, communication disparities, message features, communication biology, communication and imagination. According to Jensen, the future of communication is not limited by these five, but they are examples of a few new areas of study.
Within communication engineering, smaller sects such as biotechnology, human-robot communication, artificial intelligence and human centered design could be improved upon, according to Jensen.
He mentioned robotics are no longer an invention of the future, but are used today.
“Your smartphone is essentially a primitive robot,” Jensen said. “It’s not even that primitive. All it can’t do is walk around, and eventually when you drop it, it will come running after you.”
The need for improvement of human-to-robot communication, as well as improved automated communication is essential as the technology is developed, according to the professor. Under the same umbrella of communication engineering, Jensen discussed biotechnology, such as transplants and breakthroughs in the medical realm, that should also be studied from a communication aspect.
“Our problem isn’t mass communication, our problem isn’t public relations,” Jensen said, introducing the next new communication sphere, communication disparities. “Our problem is disparities.”
Messages do not diffuse equally to all communities, the guest said.
“The less educated you are in this country,” Jensen said, “The less likely you are to comprehend messages about health, about your rights, about money.”
According to Jensen, Internet access and speed is an indicator of these disparities.
The professor defined the third topic, message features, as an aspect of a message that can be changed and might have varying affect.
“When you’re out interacting with practitioners, say in the public health department or in a political campaign environment,” Jensen said, “one of the things they think communication people will bring to the table is a toolbox full of message features that matter in particular situations.”
He claimed if an individual were to gather 10 scholars of communication and ask them the important message features that exist in a situation, they would all give differing answers, because communications have not evolved to a specific goal. Jensen challenged communication researchers to create a taxonomy, a complete list of features in communication.
“Every issue of every journal in our field produces research that is completely disconnected and random, issue after issue,” Jensen said, describing the need for categorical organization.
Announcing communication biology, the speaker asked what part of the brain governs communication, how does it function and why do graduates not know the answer.
“Why are we so human-centric in communication?” Jensen asked. “There are lots of things that communicate. Why are humans the only thing that we are allowed to study?”
According to Jensen, a rational person can deduce that other species in the universe exist. Following that notion, studies should discover how to communicate with extraterrestrials.
“It’ll seem crazy up until the moment we have to do it,” he said. “Someone should be studying how you communicate with species that might not be human. Good news: our planet is full of them.”
The final suggested field of communication from Jensen was communication and imagination. He said researchers need an area of communication without boundaries, to grow.
“In this area, there are no rules, you just get to play,” Jensen said. “One of the most important parts of intellectual health is imagination, creativity.”
He depicted imaginative, energetic graduates who undergo training and methods that destroy creativity and wear down individuality.
“Let’s take everything out of them, that’s professionalism,” Jensen mocked with a laugh. “By the time you’re done, they say, ‘no, that’ll never be published.’ And you’re like, ‘now you’re a professional. Now you know what we’re about. You’ve given up on all your dreams and you’ve decided all you can do is marginal research that will get published. Good job,'” he said sarcastically.
The professor concluded his lecture with suggesting researchers stop mindlessly grinding out publications, but instead go into the future with imagination and collaboration.
About Allison Terry
