You are in: Central America
Change location

You are here

Resources > SAGE College Publishing > Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion > SAGE College DEI - Editor’s Desk

Sage College DEI - Contemporary Communication

From the Editor's Desk page

A More Contemporary Communication Text:
New Coauthors Add the Perspective We Knew We Were Missing 

By Jennifer Jovin-Bernstein, Senior Content Development Editor
February 9, 2022

alt=""

When we study communication, we study the methods by which we communicate, as well as the meaning behind them. Whom we communicate with and how frames the context of our messages, as do our own experiences and perspectives. Scholars analyze why people are the way they are in order to understand differences in communication styles and learn how to adapt to them.

One of the problems with this comparative analysis is that it can lead to an “us versus them” narrative that makes assumptions about who is included in “us” and “them.” Many communication theories related to different groups of people and their communication styles have been around for decades and are not as inclusive as we would expect them to be in 2022.

We received reviewer feedback that some authors had the tendency to fall back on older, more established theories in the discipline that didn't incorporate more inclusive, and recent, scholarship. The narratives were written from the perspective of the dominant U.S. white, middle-class perspective. Reviewers consistently asked for more contemporary research and scholarship on race, gender, intersectionality, and non-U.S. contexts. They advised the authors to investigate the myriad cultures that exist within national borders and transcend political borders. After much reflection and discussion, we decided that the best way to address reviewer criticism and suggestions was to add new perspectives to our author teams—scholars with specific areas of expertise who would be able to infuse the narratives with more recent scholarship and provide a voice for people who don't identify themselves as members of the dominant U.S. white, middle-class culture.

We sent some draft chapters to communication specialists last fall to gather additional feedback for the authors and to audition potential new co-authors who are both actively publishing research in trending topics related to communication and teaching these core courses. We have contracted new authors who showed enthusiasm for the projects on our list in addition to their expertise. Our existing authors were appreciative of the new authors' enthusiasm and appreciated the help in identifying areas for updating. Sometimes when we are so familiar with a work, it is difficult to see areas of improvement, so having a fresh perspective takes some of the pressure off of the existing authors, making the revision process more manageable. 

Our new “Sage College DEI Guidelines for Intentional Language Choices” encourage authors, when possible, to mention specific races and ethnicities, or use specific labels or descriptors, and to avoid using catch-all terms when describing different groups of people. We do not want to give the false impression that a study or an example is more representative than it really is. And more precise language allows for a deeper understanding of a topic; generalities do not help students grapple with unique situations and circumstances. For example, rather than focus on anti-Black racism exclusively, our texts bring in other types of racism, such as anti-Asian racism. Instead of equating the topic of gender in communication with cis women's communication styles, our authors are doing more to challenge the traditional masculine vs. feminine stereotypes prevalent in communication research. The suggested revisions bring more clarity and specificity to the narrative, which will help students navigate communication contexts more effectively. 

The revised chapters we have seen are much improved by these new collaborators. The updated manuscripts include many new sources to reference and we have seen a shift in how concepts are articulated as well as alternative ideas offered. The new authors consider activities and anecdotes that would resonate with their students and bring them into the chapters. More authors now question absolute statements and infuse more nuance into the narratives, which is more reflective of the reality of everyday encounters. 

I'm feeling very optimistic about the direction our projects are taking. Forthcoming communication books will be built on solid, contemporary scholarship, timeless teaching strategies, and inclusivity.