Articulating global in communication research as subject and as practice

This contribution considers ways to improve our conceptualization of global communication given considerable challenges in communication research practices. Following a discussion of some of the issues to consider in the articulation of global communication as a research subject, I offer global strategic communication as a more specific venue for recognizing the value of global context in critical scholarship. In conclusion, I propose ways to improve our research practices in order to advance the global significance of our work

The privatization of development through global communication industries: Living Proof?

Development is meant to alleviate problems in the interests of the public good, yet the growing dominance of private donors problematizes this conceptualization. Working through a political-economic analysis of development, we see global communications as an industry that channels wealth from citizens into the hands of few corporate moguls, who then have the resources to assert their agendas in a global development context. We begin by conceptualizing development and social change within communication studies, paying attention to the privatization of aid within global capitalism. Next, we contextualize our case study, describing the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and ONE, promoted by Bono, as the funding and management settings of the Living Proof campaign. We analyze the initiative's construction of development problems, its articulation of how communication is expected to work toward social change, and its conceptualizations of success. The dominant theme of Living Proof program is that "real people" have achieved development success, which can be shared as "proof" with website consumers. We conclude by considering how such a framing serves the agenda of privatized development within a neoliberal project

Advocating with Accountability for Social Justice

In this chapter, I propose a conceptual approach to accountability that advocates for social justice. Accountability refers to the importance of informed and engaged decision-making, building on critical approaches to research and on dialogic approaches to listening and learning, understanding the value of voice. Advocacy in this framework references a comprehensive and critical approach to inquiry. Advocating with accountability for social justice is grounded in perspectives of development that privilege social justice, of accountability that focuses on critical inquiry, and of advocacy that highlights the politics of intervention. Given this conceptual framework, I propose building a Social Justice Institute for Critical Engagement (Just-ICE) as a way to engage learning and addressing significant social problems