Vol. 10 No. Especial (2023): Tradition and progress in Communication research. Transformation and creation of theories and methods towards the new challenges of digital convergence
Coordinators: Eduardo Francisco Rodríguez (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Gloria Josefina Rosique Cedillo (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Marian Blanco Ruiz (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos) y Luis Gallardo Vera (Universidad Complutense de Madrid).
Meta-research in Communication in Spain is a self-reflective activity of the disciplines that are encompassed by the term "Communication" —Journalism, Audiovisual Communication, Advertising and Public Relations, as established in the Libro Blanco de Títulos de Grado en Comunicación, drawn up by ANECA in 2005—. Self-reflective activity from within a scientific discipline is a symptom of its maturity (Martínez-Nicolás& Saperas-Lapiedra, 2011); however, until reaching this self-reflective stage, Communication in Spain has gone through different phases: emergence —1960s-70s—, consolidation —1980s—, and development —from the mid-1990s onwards— (Martínez-Nicolás, 2009). The last stage involves a mature consolidation of communication disciplines (Martínez-Nicolás, 2008), and its beginning coincides with the appearance of the first study on communication research in Spain (Cáceres & Caffarel, 1992).
It is therefore advisable to study the research practices that take place in the disciplinary field of Communication from a systemic and critical-self-reflexive prism, in order to detect the contradictions that occur in its dialectically interrelated structural, infrastructural and superstructural components —following the classic Althusserian classification— and that hinder its progress. The meta-research studies on Communication in Spain in recent times have captured a systemic scenario that understands that Spanish research in Communication has undergone a substantial change since the turn of the century (Reig, 2014). There has been an increase in the number of articles, journals and researchers (Castillo-Esparcia & Carretón-Ballester, 2010; Fernández-Quijada & Masip, 2013). Research centres have also tried to adapt to new procedures, production times and scientific quality assessment criteria (Díaz-Nosty & De Frutos, 2017; Ibáñez, 2016).
However, the interference of the institutional measures adopted, both public investment in education and R&D (Civil & Reguero, 2008) and the austerity policies arising from the economic crisis (Bustamante, 2018), have affected the development of scientific production, evidencing an ambivalent maturation process. On the one hand, the number of centres offering degrees in Communication, researchers and specialised scientific journals has doubled (Piñeiro-Otero, 2018; De Pablos, 2010). On the other hand, a path of growth based on intensive production has become evident, where false authorship (Saperas & Carrasco, 2017), scarce methodological transparency (Martínez-Nicolás & Saperas, 2011) and scientific immaturity (Piñuel et al., 2011) seem to be the essence of an insufficient functional model of evaluation, which is incapable of eradicating bias, eliminating preferential treatment or establishing rigour and knowledge transfer as standardised values (Rodríguez-Gómez & Goyanes, 2020).
Part of the practices of scientific-academic production in Communication is methodological innovation for the treatment of new objects of study that emerge in the context of the post-modern and post-industrial information society; methodological innovation that can be approached through the sociological tradition or through genuine creation within Communication itself. This is precisely the object of study undertaken in this issue, entitled "Tradition and Progress in Communication Research. Transformation and creation of theories and methodologies in the face of the new challenges of digital convergence". As a critical self-reflexive initiative of the Communication research system itself, the issue has two aims: (1) to reflect on which theories and methodologies are the most relevant when investigating the symbolic, material and algorithmic structure of the large media and digital platforms; and (2) to envision scientific frameworks and cultures that reveal the imbalances of the system and promote transformative agendas of work, communication and networked communality.
We hope that this issue of RAE-IC will contribute to the firm realisation of these aims.
