Canadian Journal of Communication and the LaMarsh Commission

The Beginnings of Communication Studies in Canada: Concluding Comments: Canadian Journal of Communication and the LaMarsh Commission

Eugene D. Tate (Sociology, University of Saskatchewan)

Abstract: Narratives from four Canadian communication scholars describe the development of communication studies and journalism in Canada. The development of a discipline is best understood through the stories told about its growth. The story of the discipline of communication in Canada is traced with the narrative of the creation of programs at York University, the University of Calgary, the University of Saskatchewan, this journal, and the Journalism programs at the University of Western Ontario and Carleton University. A tribute to the seminal work of Earle Beattie in the creation of the Canadian Journal of Communication is provided.

Résumé: Quatre chercheurs canadiens en communication racontent le développement des études en communication et en journalisme au Canada. La meilleure façon de comprendre le développement d'une discipline, c'est de raconter des histoires sur sa croissance. Cet article retrace donc l'histoire des communications en tant que discipline au Canada au moyen de narrations sur la création des programmes à York University, au University of Calgary et au University of Saskatchewan, celle de ce périodique-même, et celle de programmes en journalisme au University of Western Ontario et à Carleton University. En outre, l'article rend hommage au travail indispensable d'Earle Beattie dans la création du Journal canadien de la communication.

Introduction by Eugene D. Tate

When three of the authors came to Canada in 1970 to teach communication there were few programs in the country. We entered Departments of Sociology (Robinson1 and Tate) and Psychology (Fouts). A few programs of communication did, however, already exist. The Department of Communication Studies at the University of Windsor had begun in 1969. At Simon Fraser University, Thomas Mallinson was putting together a program in Communication, and Dallas Smythe was directing a small program in Communication Studies at the University of Saskatchewan, Regina Campus.

In 1971, Eugene Tate sent a memo to Dean Douglas Cherry of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Saskatchewan concerning his intention to develop a Communication program in Saskatoon. He received a reply giving him permission to proceed but only if the program "was totally different from the silly program in Regina." Dean Cherry considered the discipline of communication to be an interloper in academia in direct competition with his discipline of English. He was wrong about which discipline was the newcomer to universities but he never relinquished his view of communication as an unwelcome intruder in modern universities.

In Quebec, the Communication program at Loyola College, founded by John O'Brien, S.J., in 1965, was growing steadily. Fr. O'Brien would leave the program in the mid-1970s to become Director of Communication for the Jesuits at the Vatican. The programs at Université de Laval and Université de Montreal were in their first years.

The Journalism and Mass Communication programs at Carleton University and the University of Western Ontario had begun about the same time (1945-46) and were well established by 1970. The Western Ontario program was an undergraduate program until 1974 when it converted to a graduate program. The Journalism program at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute had begun in 1949 when Edward Parker convinced Earle Beattie to leave Radio Canada International to join him in developing a Journalism program (Parker, 1982). The two-year program in Journalism at Canadore College of Applied Arts and Technology in North Bay was one year old in 1970.

In 1979, Eugene Tate organized a session on Canadian communication studies at the annual conference of the International Communication Association in Philadelphia. Panel members included Tannis MacBeth (Williams) of the University of British Columbia, Gregory Fouts of the University of Calgary, Andrew Osler of the University of Windsor, André Caron of Université de Montréal, Gertrude Robinson of McGill University, and Eugene Tate of St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon). The session was well attended and generated excellent discussion. Most of the papers summarized research done for the Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry (LaMarsh Commission).

In 1980, a panel discussion on communication studies in Canada was held at the Association for Education in Journalism's annual conference in Boston. Gertrude Robinson described McGill's Graduate Program in Communication. Wilf Kesterton, Stuart Adam, and Jay Weston presented the Journalism and Mass Communication Program at Carleton University. Walter Romanow, Hugh Edmunds, and Stuart Selby provided information about the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Windsor. Arthur Siegel described the "little" undergraduate program in Mass Communication that they were inaugurating at York University that year.

The 10th anniversary issue of this journal in 1984 contained a compilation of all communication programs and courses in English Canadian universities. The Assistant Editor of the Journal, Kathleen McConnell, created this compilation. It was the first complete listing of all programs in communication studies in the country. We listed programs from every province. We invited each program to provide a summary of their course offerings. Those summaries provided were published. The 10th anniversary issue also contained a cumulative index for the first 10 years of the Journal and its predecessor, Media Probe. The index contained contributions from some 150 scholars in communication and related fields. In 1984, communication was one of the fastest growing disciplines in Canadian universities.

To facilitate understanding of the development of communication studies in Canadian universities we present here several narratives describing the development of communication studies in this country. Narrative or story theory (Bruner, 1990; Coles, 1989; Engel, 1995; Gardner, 1995; Schank, 1990; Suganami, 1989, 1996, 1997; Tate, 1998; Turner, 1996) is a corrective to the formal approach for studying the history of a discipline. Stories of departmental development remind us that disciplines and academic departments are created by people involved in institutional politics and economics. Central to this approach is the a priori postulate that the origins of institutions do not exist independently of the stories told about them. The origins of our discipline in Canada are the stories we tell about them.

We understand the world, ourselves, and other people through the stories we tell one another (Bruner, 1990; Engel, 1995; Gardner, 1995; Tate, 1998; Turner, 1996). "Narrative imagining-story-is the fundamental instrument of thought. Rational capacities depend upon it. It is our chief means of looking into the future, of predicting, of planning, and of explaining" (Turner, 1996, p. 5). Through narrative stories we organize experience, understand the experience of what is happening, understand the past, and predict the future. Stories, then, are central to understanding our discipline and its development:

Stories are told by people to people. They reflect the values, interpretations, and ideas of narrator and listener. Jerome Bruner (1986, 1990) has argued that while we may learn about the physical world through logical rules and abstract principles, we learn about the social world through narratives. . . . People experience their lives as a series of overlapping and fluctuating stories. (Engel, 1995, p. 9)

This reminds us that the development of a discipline is social. Therefore the remembrances and stories of the development of Canadian communication studies are vital to our understanding of the field.

The Russian psychologist, A. R. Luria, argues that people understand logical propositions only in story form first (cited in Turner, 1996). People understand stories and must link philosophical principles to a story before they become understandable. We tell stories to organize our experience and to communicate that knowledge to others. We expand our understanding by "projecting" from a story we understand to new stories. Turner (1996) has defined this behaviour as "parable."

The first author (Tate) will provide a quick survey of the roots of the discipline of communication. By locating the historical roots of the discipline within such a panorama, we are able to provide a broad foundation for understanding the story of the development of the field. Each author will provide a narrative remembrance of the founding of communication studies at his university. The future of communication as a discipline in Canada depends on understanding the roots of our discipline and the branches that have grown from these roots.

All too often we teach communication and mass communication as if they sprang from nothing in the latter years of this century. The great majority of introductory textbooks give no historical perspective to the development of the discipline. If a history is furnished, all too often the author's discipline of training determines where he or she says that the roots are to be found, for example, in sociology, psychology, political science, economics, political economy, or another social science or the humanities.

In a speech delivered to a special conference on communication at St. Thomas More College in 1986, Gerald R. Miller, Professor of Communication at Michigan State University, dated the beginning of the social scientific study of interpersonal communication as occurring between the years 1967 and 1975 (Miller, 1986). The publication of The Pragmatics of Human Communication in 1967 by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, & Don Jackson gave impetus to a revision of the discipline. Based on their seminal work, David Berlo began a redefinition of interpersonal communication in an address to the students of the Department of Communication at Michigan State University in 1970. In 1975, several publications by Miller and associates, along with work by John Stewart at the University of Washington, completed this redefinition of the field. The perspective developed by Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson has continued in the research and writings of Janet Beavin Bavelas at the University of Victoria.

James Carey (1989) and others working in mass communication place the roots of that branch of the discipline in the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago in the Department of Sociology prior to World War II. Other scholars working from the perspective of journalism identify the study of journalism in work beginning at the University of Missouri and Columbia University. However, the social scientific study of communication has deeper roots in Greek philosophy; the beginnings of the discipline lie in ancient Greece.

Precursors to modern Canadian communication studies

The study of communication has roots in the fourth- and fifth-century B.C. Greek world (Harper, 1980; McCroskey, 1978). It has, from its beginning, been an applied science related to the activities of everyday life. Advertising, an applied field, may indeed be the second oldest profession. For example, as you walk down the marble street in ancient Ephesus, just down from the Celsius Library next to the Agora, you will discover carved into the marble curb a fourth-century B.C. advertisement for the brothel on the corner opposite the library.

While there are several general writings that refer to a general understanding of communication to be found in the ancient world, scholars agree that the formal study of communication began with the work of Corax of Syracuse in the fifth century B.C. (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978; Harper, 1980; McCroskey, 1978). In 465 B.C., the citizens of Syracuse, on the Island of Sicily, overthrew a cruel dictator who had seized all land and property. The democracy that replaced the autocratic government made it possible for each citizen to make a court claim for the return of his property. Corax saw that many people were losing their cases because they were not able to communicate effectively in the courtroom setting. Corax began to develop effective communication practices for court presentations. He taught the citizens of Syracuse his system of argumentation. He called this study, Rhetoric, or the Science of Persuasion.

Plato wrote two Socratic dialogues on the nature of communication. The first dialogue, "The Gorgias: A Study of False Rhetoric," attacks the flowery language and use of power demonstrated by the Sophists. Gorgias of Leontini, a Sicilian Sophist, had introduced "argument from probability and a florid style of speaking" to Athens (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978, p. 25). In this dialogue, Socrates attacks the rhetoric of Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles from four perspectives: (1) rhetoric is not an art, (2) it does not give power, (3) rhetoric as a protection against wrong or suffering has little value, and (4) the use of rhetoric to escape a deserved punishment is not commendable.

The second Platonic dialogue on communication or rhetoric is "The Phaedrus: A Study in True Rhetoric." Here Socrates develops the theme of the communicator as lover. Phaedrus meets Socrates just after hearing a speech about the speaker as lover given by Lysias, a well-known orator of his day. Lysias had argued that one ought to prefer a neutral manner of speaking rather than a type of speech that appeals to the emotions. This would lead to a value-free form of communication similar to that found today in scientific writing. Socrates divides his discussion into three parts to counter the arguments of Lysias. He argues that speech can move to evil, to good, or not move us at all. The base rhetorician is out to serve only him or herself by manipulating or controlling the other person: "The evil lover is one who uses language to enslave and deceive another. . . . The evil lover, the base rhetorician, is out to serve himself. Colourful language laden with emotional appeal and spurious arguments are the tools he uses to sell his product. Distortion and delusion typify his approach. Anything goes as long as he gets his way" (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978, p. 27). For Socrates, the "non-lover" is the one who fails to move us at all.

The third speech in the Phaedrus occurs as Socrates describes the "noble lover, the skillful user of language, as one who seeks that which is best for his listeners rather than himself" (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978, pp. 27-28). The lover never deliberately hurts the loved one but uses speech for the betterment and support of the other. Aristotle, following in the footsteps of his teacher, Plato, published three volumes of his Rhetoric (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978; Harper, 1980).

Wayne Brockreide (Darnell & Brockreide, 1976) developed more completely the paradigm of the communicator as lover. His continuum of interpersonal communication runs from "rape" through "mutual lust" to "love." Brockreide admitted that he did not consciously build on the arguments of Socrates in the Phaedrus but that it did undoubtedly influence some of his thought since he had read it as a student years before producing his own work. These two Socratic dialogues have had great influence on the development of persuasion and interpersonal communication research (Darnell & Brockreide, 1976; Harper, 1980).

Isocrates, a Greek teacher at the time of Socrates, understood that communication is basic to all of life (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978). Isocrates was a shy man who could not make a speech in the democratic assembly but was an excellent teacher. He developed a program of instruction for his school that was practical and emphasized moral behaviour and Pan-Hellenism.

Isocrates viewed communication as the exemplar social activity extending the study of Rhetoric to thoughtful deliberation. In other words, Isocrates understood that we not only communicate with other people but with ourselves. Therefore, rhetoric became the science without which people cannot survive. No human institution has developed without communication. The study of communication is basic to all of life because it develops the power to think and speak well.

Isocrates required his students to read extensively, write, revise, and discuss their ideas. He taught music so that they could develop a sense of the rhythm of speech and organization of thoughts. He sent them to observe outstanding speakers in Athens, to read speeches given by great orators of the past, and to practice their own public speaking. For Isocrates, communication is a general theory of human behaviour. It is the base study on which all other life and work depend. In this sense, Isocrates may be more important to modern communication scholars than Plato or Aristotle.

Under its Greek title of Rhetoric, the study of communication became one of the seven liberal arts on which early schools and universities were grounded. It developed and changed through the ages. The discipline expanded to the five-fold paradigm of the Roman scholars: Invention, Arrangement, Expression (Elocution), Memory, and Delivery. Through the work and debates of subsequent medieval communication scholars the field was narrowed. Invention and Arrangement were relegated to the discipline of Logic. By the time Anglo-Saxon scholars began to write on communication, the field was limited to "expression" or "elocution." The venerable Bede who emphasized only the third part of the paradigm, Elocution, wrote the first Anglo-Saxon book on communication (Harper, 1980).

A survey of colonial courses of study in the schools of Upper and Lower Canada shows that the teaching of rhetoric was an integral part of the core curriculum (Tate, 1988). The principal textbook for these courses was The Philosophy of Rhetoric by the Scottish scholar George Campbell (1719-96). His book, first published in 1776, went through 42 editions. Heavily influenced by the "faculty psychology" of his day and the work of Newton, Campbell sought to be scientific in the Newtonian sense. Communication, according to Campbell (1832), is used to "enlighten the understanding, to please the imagination, to move the passions, or to influence the will" (p. 101; quoted in Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978, p. 94). Creating a four-stage theory of the development of the study of communication, Campbell believed that a complete theory of communication could be empirically developed.

In the nineteenth century, Richard Whatley criticized the weaknesses of Campbell's work in his book, Elements of Rhetoric (1828). Whatley sought to carry Campbell's theory to its logical conclusion but limited the study of communication to the area of argumentation-the "art of inventing and arranging arguments" (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978, p. 104). The speaker, Whatley believed, does not approach the process of invention as an investigator but as a communicator who has already developed a general proposition to be advanced. The speaker must be well prepared in all subjects to use factual and inferred arguments to establish this proposition. Whatley was a Christian progressivist and these commitments went far to his creation of an ecclesiastic rhetoric (Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978). Whatley's work was very popular in North America and was used in many colleges and universities until the 1880s or later (Harper, 1980).

The excesses of the elocutionary movement arising out of the work of eighteenth-century British communication scholars led to the development of university departments of English. It was argued that scholars should study the written word instead of the spoken word because the spoken word was too ephemeral. The development of English departments represents a major revolution in colleges and universities in the Western world during the nineteenth century.

One nineteenth-century Scottish-Canadian communication scholar needs highlighting for his pioneering work in the discipline. Born in Edinburgh on March 1, 1819, Alexander Melville Bell became one of the leading communication scholars of his day (McElroy, 1951). His father, a tailor, was a private tutor of elocution. While Melville Bell was a boy, the family moved to London where his father opened a private school to teach public speaking-the mass medium of the day.

In 1838, Melville Bell moved to St. John's, Newfoundland, for his health. While there, he organized a class to study speech. He taught this class until he returned to London in 1842 to study with his father. On a trip to Edinburgh just prior to returning to St. John's he met a young woman who became his wife. She did not want to leave her family so he opened a school of elocution in Edinburgh. When his oldest son could take over the Edinburgh school, Alexander Melville Bell moved his family to London where he took over his father's school. In 1866, he lectured on communication and phonetics at University College London where he is credited with the founding of the Department of Linguistics and Phonetics at that university (University College London, 1999).

The death of his oldest son in 1868 was followed almost immediately by the death of his youngest son. This came as quite a blow to Bell. Since his middle son, Alexander Graham Bell, was quite sickly, Alexander Melville Bell decided to move his family to Ontario where the climate would be more favourable to his health.

In 1870, the Bell family moved to Ontario. Melville Bell had published his book, The Art of Reading: On the Source of the Faults of Inarticulate and Ineffective Readers, in 1845. His Elocutionary Manual followed in 1849 (McElroy, 1951). This book went through five editions, including one he prepared in Canada. Along with public speaking, Alexander Melville Bell's major interest was in linguistics and the creation of an alphabet or notation system that would allow one to describe visually any vocal sound.

From 1877 to 1880, Alexander Melville Bell was Watkins Lecturer on Elocution at Queen's College (now Queen's University) in Kingston, Ontario. His 1879 address to the Ontario Teachers Convention was published under the title, On Teaching Reading in Public Schools.

In 1881, Melville Bell followed his son, Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, to Washington, D.C. He became the founder of the National Geographic Society in the United States. In 1892 the Association of Elocutionists made Melville Bell an honourary member. In 1900, he founded the Bell School of Speech in New York City. Alexander Melville Bell died on August 7, 1905, having written 48 books and papers on various aspects of communication and linguistics. The Bell Language Notational System was recognized as a valuable tool for understanding speech sounds.

In the introduction to his play, Pygmalion, George Bernard Shaw wrote:

The reformer England needs today is an energetic phonetic enthusiast: that is why I have made such a one the hero of a popular play. There have been heroes of that kind crying in the wilderness for many years past. When I became interested in the subject towards the end of the eighteen-seventies, the illustrious Alexander Melville Bell, the inventor of visible speech, had emigrated to Canada, where his son invented the telephone.

The teaching of communication as rhetoric (the science of persuasion) continued in this century through the work of I. A. Richards, Marshall McLuhan, Richard Weaver, Kenneth Burke, Chaim Perelman, Stephen Toulmin, Wayne Booth, and others (Bormann, 1980; Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1978; Harper, 1980). Recently, the International Society for the History of Rhetoric held its annual conference at the University of Saskatchewan where its President, Professor Judith Rice Henderson, is a member of the Department of English.

In the early years of this century, American scholars pushed for the development of departments of public speaking. This movement found fertile ground in Maritime and Western Canadian colleges and universities. The Canadian Speech Association was formed in the mid-1960s. In December of 1970, this association held a meeting together with the Speech Communication Association in New Orleans. Tom McPhail, who taught communication at Loyola College, and Eugene Tate were among those attending the meeting.

Speech programs developed primarily in the Maritime and Western provinces (Campbell, 1957; Wilson, 1967). Many of these Speech programs became departments of Educational Communication within colleges of Education. Speech programs remain in many community colleges in Alberta and British Columbia and at the University College of Cape Breton in Nova Scotia.

In a review of Liora Salter's 1981 collection of papers from the second Canadian Communication Association conference in Montreal, Eugene Tate critiqued the two brief histories of Canadian communication studies presented by Liora Salter, then at Simon Fraser University, and David Crowley of McGill University. He noted that since

they ignore completely the Rhetorical movement which has been particularly strong in the U. S. and the Speech Communication Sciences which grew from it . . . . They fail to recognize that the Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model, along with the emphasis on the effect of message, come from Aristotle and the early Greek rhetoricians or communication scholars. A social science with roots in Aristotelian and Cartesian thought develops exactly as the Communication Sciences have in the United States. (Tate, 1982, pp. 83-84)

Summing up, he wrote:

What Salter has presented to us is a "Central Canadian" history of Canadian Communication Studies. In Ontario and Quebec communication scholars found a home in sociology, literature, history and political science programs. However, when Campbell (1957) conducted her survey of communication programs in the mid-50's she found Speech Communication being taught in Western Canadian universities and teachers colleges. These programs are the forerunners of the Educational Communication departments of today. Similarly when Lew Wilson (1967) conducted his cross Canada survey of Speech Communication programs in the 1960s, he found that Speech Communication programs were strongest in Maritime and Western universities. The only Central Canadian programs were at McGill and Concordia, which was just beginning then. (Tate, 1982, p. 85)

Experience at Canadian Communication Association meetings during the 1970s and 1980s showed that when learned societies met in the Maritimes or on the Prairies, there were more papers from the speech communication traditions than when they met in British Columbia or Central Canada. Regionalism is a fact of life in Canada. Working on the prairies, Tate was all too familiar with the regional disparities at that time in research funding and in historical perspective. Certainly Salter's 1981 history of the discipline in Canada derives from a political economy model rooted in sociology of the media along with an "Innisian" version of dependence theory that focused on power and institutions, but the lack of attention to variant roots in the Maritime and Prairie provinces caused her perspective to miss an important part of the roots of communication studies in Canada. Story theory with its focus on the narratives of persons involved in the development of the discipline can serve as a corrective to this tendency to highlight any one theoretical paradigm.

The York University Program in Mass Communication by Arthur Siegel

The panel discussion on Canadian mass communication and journalism studies at the Association for Education in Journalism conference in 1980 brought out the common dimensions of communication studies programs in Canada while clearly illustrating the different building blocks being used to define the discipline. The programs had developed out of various disciplines: journalism at the University of Ottawa; English, film, and sociology at McGill University; communication studies at the University of Windsor; and media studies with an emphasis on new technologies at York University. In a large part, the focus for all was on mass communication but the discussion that followed showed there was a strong interest in cultural studies, interpersonal communication, organizational communication, advertising, and speech-centred studies.

This mixture of a unique Canadian quality as well as a heterogeneous perception defining communication studies carried over into the board meetings of the Canadian Communication Association in its early years. It gave rise to a dynamic debate in which Gertrude Robinson and Donald Theall, both at the time at McGill University, played key roles in papering over the differences in outlook. Contributing to this dynamic debate throughout their writings and their involvement in conferences and meetings of the Canadian Communication Association were such pioneers in Canadian communication studies as Annie Mear, Gaëtan Tremblay, James Taylor, Walter Romanow, Earle Beattie, Liora Salter, Eugene Tate, William Melody, William Gilsdorf, Paul Rutherford, and Garth Jowett, among others. The politics of the Canadian Communication Association was grounded in the search for an answer to the very definition of communication.

While York University described itself as a "little program" in 1980, with good reason for modesty, it has evolved as a major player over the past two decades. In fact, it became a big-league player almost from the start. York had about 20 faculty members who had taught communication courses or carried out research in the field. They were located across the university in Environmental Studies, Business Administration, Osgoode Hall Law School, Computer Science, Sociology, History, Political Science, Social Science, Humanities, the night school at Atkinson College, and the bilingual Glendon College campus. Many of these faculty members did not know each other.

The late 1970s, when the program was being planned, was a time of financial restraint at York University. At the request of the Dean of Arts, Harold Kaplan, an advisory committee was created to develop a Communication program in 1979. Arthur Siegel, Department of Social Science, was appointed chair of the committee. Other members of the advisory committee included: Earle Beattie, Professor of Social Science (Atkinson College); Alice Courtney, Associate Professor of Marketing (Administrative Studies); Jerome Durlak, Associate Professor of Social Science (Arts); Stephen Kline, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science; Michael Lanphier, Professor of Sociology (Arts); and Frank Zingrone, Associate Professor of Humanities (Arts). The committee reported to Dean Kaplan on March 29, 1979, recommending that the program begin in the 1980-81 academic year.

The administration, including President H. Ian Macdonald and Dean of Arts Harold Kaplan, was highly supportive of the program but made it clear that there would be no new monies for communication studies. The program would have to piggyback on existing faculty. The absence of financial support was not a deterrent in establishing the program. It did, however, set the parameters of operations that in the long term proved beneficial in limiting the scope and sharpening the focus of the program.

The diverse faculty interests at York University set off internal debates that reflected the overall search for a sense of direction in the Canadian Communication Association. The first hurdle was whether York would embark on graduate or undergraduate studies in communication. In 1976, Thelma McCormack (Sociology) and Fred Fletcher (Political Science) submitted a report that presented convincing arguments why York should go the graduate-level route. The Dean of Arts was more interested in exploring the viability of undergraduate studies. This gave rise to university politics that required the intervention of the Dean of Arts and President Ian Mcdonald.

Mass Communication (Media) Studies began in 1980. The York University program was, and remains, housed in the Division of Social Science. It began with six full-time faculty members in the Division devoting most, if not all, their teaching and research to communication studies. In addition, there were offerings in many departments, especially Sociology, Political Science, Anthropology, and at Glendon and Atkinson Colleges. The program provided for a four-year honours degree where students combined mass communication studies with studies in a discipline such as political science, sociology, English, and psychology. While initially some departments were hesitant in combining with Mass Communication, today students can link up with any department at the university.

The interdisciplinary program, housed in the Division of Social Science, relied on faculty strength across the university and served as a catalyst for interactions that provided a model for later academic initiatives at York. From the start, a special effort was made to stimulate research interests at the faculty level and to foster links with the communication industry. Since the focus of the program was on mass communication (media) studies, York's location in Canada's English-language media capital and the university's bilingual campus at Glendon College, provided an environment where a program that has a strong Canadian focus with a cross-cultural perspective could flourish. The strength of the York University program is reflected in the many books, studies, and articles that focused on the broadcast policy of media institutions; French-English differences and similarities in media content; concentration of ownership; public broadcasting; the politics of Canadian film; media and elections; and freedom of the press.

The York University Mass Communication Studies program successfully capitalized on its location in one of the most competitive and dynamic media markets in North America. The location factor helped to stimulate research opportunities. It made it possible for the university to develop links with media organizations and enhanced prospects for student access to job opportunities. Toronto also has a pool of experts in communication ranging from news editors to broadcasters and legal authorities who could be called on for guest lectures or adjunct appointments.

One of the important support structures for the program in its earliest days was provided by Earle Beattie, the Founding Editor of the Canadian Journal of Communication. Beattie, with his wife Gisele, created the pioneering journal that relied heavily on articles from Beattie's York University colleagues who also served on the Editorial Board. The establishment of the Journal helped to enhance the quality of the program.

While the York University program gave much attention to media institutions and practices seeking to close the gap between academics and media professionals, the emphasis was always academic. The program was bolstered in the first year (1980) with the visiting appointment of the British sociologist and noted scholar on media theory, Denis McQuail. Wilf Kesterton of Carleton University, a pioneer in the study of the history of journalism and press law in Canada, was a frequent visitor who provided advice in shaping the curriculum. The list of Visiting and Adjunct Professors is impressive: Catherine Murray (culture and politics), Peter Newman (editor in residence), David Baskin (communication law), David Walker (policy), Eric Koeh (broadcasting), and Uriel Domb (satellite expert). They all made lasting contributions to the program.

The Mass Communication Studies Program was brought to national public attention through the Gerstein Conference on Mass Communication and Canadian Nationhood, organized as part of the launching of the program that coincided with York University's 20th anniversary celebrations. It was a small, one-day conference featuring three speakers: John Meisel, Chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission; Jean-Louis Gagnon, the renowned former editor of some of Montreal's most famous newspapers; and Gordon Fairweather, the Commissioner for Human Rights. The conference, open to the public without charge, attracted a large audience that included the publishers and senior editorial staff of Toronto newspapers, magazines, and the national television networks. All three speakers provided insights on mass communication as part of the national identity equation that drew coverage on the front pages of Toronto newspapers and national coverage on the television networks. It was, as University President Ian Mcdonald put it, a proud day in the history of York University and an auspicious coming out event for the Mass Communication Program.

The program did encounter some difficulties. Student interest was always higher than faculty resources. Consequently students were often disappointed in not having access to courses of their first choice or primary interest. This created "university politics" on the question of limiting enrolments, an issue not fully resolved after 20 years. Furthermore, the allocation of new faculty was always a difficult balancing act between program needs and the broader interest of the Division of Social Science in which Mass Communication Studies is housed along with a number of other programs. There were a host of other growing pains. On the whole, however, the program has flourished, first under the leadership of its first head, Arthur Siegel, and later under Ted Magder and Fred Fletcher.

The popularity of the program is of some importance, but is, in itself, not a particularly good indicator of its strength. The York University achievements are better measured by the research productivity of its faculty and the accomplishments of its graduates. Fred Fletcher (Fletcher & Bell, 1981; Fletcher, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c) has written and edited a series of books including the media and election series of the Royal Commission on Election Reforms. Fletcher's numerous writings appear in learned journals and readers in communication. Arthur Siegel (1977, 1979, 1996a, 1996b) has written a number of books on media and politics, broadcasting, a history of Radio Canada International, and a content analysis of television broadcast news in Canada. Stephen Kline (1993; Leiss, Kline, & Jhally, 1997), now at Simon Fraser University, published books establishing him as an authority on advertising. David Bell's (1975, 1992) books on linguistics and communication, Ian Jarvie's (1970, 1977, 1978) books on film and the impact of television violence on children, and Ted Magder's (1993, 1998) path-breaking books on film in Canada are some examples of faculty achievements. Furthermore, Fletcher has served as senior researcher for the Royal Commission on Electoral Reforms and the Royal Commission on Newspapers. Siegel was a researcher for the Inquiry into National Broadcasting and the Royal Commission on Newspapers. Earle Beattie conducted the research on magazines and violence for the Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry (LaMarsh Commission). Jerome Durlak has been focusing on new technology through York's CulTech Centre. Fletcher and Liora Salter, now at Osgoode Hall Law School, have both served as President of the Canadian Communication Association while Siegel served on the founding Executive Board.

Graduates of the York University program gained important hands-on experience through the field experience course organized by Lillian Lerman who was instrumental in the organizational structure of the program. These placements have often resulted in full-time employment in the communications industry. Others have used the communication background for their further studies in Law Schools and in MBA programs. They are now specialists in communication law and in the corporate sector of the communications industry. York graduates have achieved considerable success in Masters and PhD programs in Canada and the United States.

In this millennium year, York University is inaugurating, jointly with Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, graduate MA and PhD studies in communication after two decades of building a strong undergraduate infrastructure that complements and provides a support structure for the emerging graduate program. In a sense, this resolves the 20-year-old graduate/undergraduate controversy that was part of the growing pains of the little program that grew to establish a strong presence in Canadian communication studies.

The Canadian Communication Association and the Canadian Journal of Communication: Some Reminiscences and Trends by Gregory Fouts

Those were the days

As a young media researcher in 1975, I remember becoming excited about the announcement of the formation of the Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry (chaired by Judy LaMarsh). Imagine, a government commission dedicated to studying the contents of media and their effects within the Canadian context while attempting to extend the theory and research of a similar project a few years before in the United States (the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, and the Pastore hearings which were well documented in an excellent National Film Board production, "A Question of TV Violence"). Little did I know at the time that this royal commission would have important collateral effects that would, in part, affect communication studies programs and research in Canada for decades to come.

As a psychology professor, I wanted to be a part of it! So I wrote a letter to the Director of Research for the Commission, Ken Marchant, expressing interest. I wanted to capture his attention and interest, so I made some rather unconventional suggestions, for example, that perhaps television violence might have some positive effects! For example, perhaps violence was the only type of television content that criminals attend to and enjoy, so watching television violence keeps them off the streets and in their domiciles and interferes with their commission of crimes. Or, a little less provocative, that children really do actively process television violence and that given the right kind of parental involvement, that watching television violence can be used as a morality play and used to teach children what not to do, that is, a model to diverge from! As a result of this rather controversial letter, I received a call from Ken Marchant wanting to meet with me and other researchers across Canada to organize an integrated, national approach to research on the contents and effects of media violence.

Twenty-eight independent projects across Canada were funded and dozens of researchers were involved in important media research. For example, Tannis MacBeth (Williams) conducted leading-edge content analysis of television programming in Canada, Anthony Doob and Glenn MacDonald looked at news media and violence, Dick Moriarity and Ann McCabe examined television and youth sports, and Eugene Tate assessed adult viewer perceptions. I looked at television viewing patterns, susceptibility, and effects in children between 5 and 14 years of age. All of our research resulted in seven volumes, some 2,650 pages, of the Report of the Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry. Dozens upon dozens of publications and conference presentations resulted from this joint endeavour.

But in my mind, one of the major, if not the most important, outcomes of this national, collaborative effort was the bringing together of media researchers from across the country. It was, in fact, a heady time! We were doing something important for the country, for media studies, and for the careers of our students and ourselves. A consensus, a sense of "family," and a common purpose emerged from our shared activities. Why not form a national association of people interested in the media and communication, researchers and practitioners alike? This nicely dovetailed with other developments in Canada such as the establishment of Media Probe (now the Canadian Journal of Communication) by Earle Beattie in 1974. Feeling the pulse of this growing consensus, people like Don Theall, Walt Romanow, Arthur Siegel, Earle Beattie, Bill Melody, Liora Salter, Gertrude Robinson, Jay Weston, and Eugene Tate took the reins and started dialoguing with the people who conducted research for the Royal Commission as well as other academics and practitioners in the communications industry. They suggested forming a communication association. So, in 1980, we all met at the Université du Québec à Montréal and the Canadian Communication Association became a reality.

My singular memory of this meeting was the common purpose and integration of people interested in communication. That is, there were people from the media, academic researchers, practitioners who taught communication skills, and many others who had a passion for understanding what and how we communicate. I can remember feeling giddy and having found my "home." My only frustration was not being able to attend all the sessions; I wanted to learn from everyone! I went back to the University of Calgary totally enthused; totally immersed in communication theory, research, and practice; and motivated to help develop a communication studies program at the university.

A bit of history

As early as 1974, there had been interest at the University of Calgary in establishing an interdisciplinary graduate program in communication studies. A committee of academics from, for example, economics, education, and biology, and community media practitioners from, for example, print and broadcast media, was formed by the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies to develop such a program. The proposal was approved by the Board of Governors in 1977, with the main purposes of the program being (a) to encourage the responsible use of communication by practitioners, (b) to develop critical judgment in the selection and presentation of information in all types of communication, (c) to teach higher levels of technical skills in communication, and (d) to foster the generation and dissemination of communication scholarship. It is interesting to note that the initial program was not developed by communication scholars wishing to establish an academic program (as is traditionally the case); rather, it was in response to recognizing a community and academic need for a high quality program in communication in Alberta.

The proposal for a new graduate program was submitted to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Government of Alberta, for approval and funding. It languished in Edmonton for almost four years, but was finally approved and funded in early 1981. At that time, a committee was struck to guide the development of the program and hire its first director. The committee consisted of both academics and communication practitioners from the community. The academics were Jim Hyne, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies; Alan Robertson, Dean, Faculty of Fine Arts; Marsha Hanen, Department of Philosophy, knowledgeable in broad issues in communication; Bill Wynn, Department of Educational Curriculum and Instruction, knowledgeable in communication technologies and program development; and myself, Department of Psychology, media researcher. The practitioners on the committee were: David Gell, CBC radio; Jack Donoghue, a well-known pioneer in Canadian public relations; and John Hamilton, marketing.

As the only member of the Canadian Communication Association on the committee, I lobbied for hiring a director of the program who was a member of the association, a recognized communication scholar, and skilled in obtaining external funding. I also argued that he or she should have a major role in the formation of the program. After casting a broad net and interviewing several excellent people, the nod was given to Tom McPhail from the Journalism program at Carleton University.

Upon his arrival in early Winter 1982, the development/hiring committee became the Executive Steering Committee. The Committee developed a productive dialogue between scholars and local media practitioners, established a curriculum that reflected this exciting collaboration, and developed admission procedures that encouraged diversity in its applicants. The program offered a Masters in Communications Studies (MCS), a course-based, non-thesis professional degree. It was the only academic program within the Faculty of Graduate Studies. This was done to give it a "protected home," since this was deemed necessary for an interdisciplinary, as opposed to departmental, program.

In the fall of 1982, the first graduate students were admitted into the graduate program. The initial courses were taught by Tom McPhail and Seymour Hamilton, a newly hired communication scholar; communication faculty from other departments, for example, Sociology, Management, and Psychology; and professionals from the community, for example, a communications lawyer. This combination of expertise ensured a truly interdisciplinary approach to communication and balanced the program in terms of scholarly and practical experience.

In 1984, Tom and I submitted a successful grant application to the Alberta government that extended the program to include an MA (thesis-based) degree and expanded the faculty and number of students in the program that serves as the basis for the present program.

The present program

The Graduate Program in Communications Studies is now located within the Faculty of General Studies and currently has 10 faculty members. Since its inception 17 years ago, there have been 122 MCS and 52 MA graduates. It currently has 35 MCS and 25 MA students. In the past two years the faculty have obtained over $600,000 in research grants and recently David Mitchell has been named editor of the Canadian Journal of Communication. The University of Calgary also offers an undergraduate major (BA) in Communications Studies.

The formation of the Canadian Communication Association in 1980 directly and indirectly influenced the development of the graduate program at the University of Calgary in three important ways. First, the networking that occurred at the founding and subsequent meetings facilitated the search and hiring of its first director who significantly shaped the focus and uniqueness of the program. Second, through the Canadian Communication Association, the program became immediately visible which resulted in many excellent students and several visiting communication scholars participating in the program. Third, the program intentionally incorporated the diversity of approaches and contents reflective in the Association at the time.

The only thing that is certain is change

One of the benefits of attending the founding meeting of the Canadian Communication Association and later serving on the Board of Directors and Editorial Board of the Canadian Journal of Communication is the privilege of observing some of the changes in communication research in Canada. I remember when Eugene Tate took the helm as the Journal Editor in 1982. He wanted the Journal to be academically top-notch, to be inclusive and representative of the diverse theories and research strategies within the broad rubric of communication, and to be challenging, yet supportive of Canadian scholars. Thus, the articles in the Journal came from a wide range of approaches, for example, from experimental research to critical theory, from "think" pieces to historical reviews, and from surveys to critiques and book reviews. The Canadian Journal of Communication became the major "voice" of academic communication research and theory in Canada.

From this vantage point, let me now make a few brief observations regarding some of the trends that have occurred in the past 20 years, some of which not only characterize communication studies and research, but also parallel changes in sister research disciplines (e.g., sociology and social psychology). These observations are not meant to be critical, but rather, descriptive statements of change, perhaps reflecting a dynamic and growing body of researchers and knowledge in transition. When any area is in flux, it is difficult to accurately gauge whether the changes are part of its necessary evolution or represent barriers to growth. It is up to the reader to judge whether these are trends and/or challenges.

Probably the most salient change has been the shift away from experimental research in which "causes" and/or "underlying processes" are examined. Today we see researchers focusing almost exclusively on survey and correlational research and theoretical models to explain the many communication phenomena. Although this latter approach is certainly an important and sophisticated one (e.g., computer modelling, path analysis), I worry that the balance of research has tipped a bit too far away from the tradition of two decades ago in which a variety of theoretical approaches and research strategies were embraced, respected, and mutually supported by all of us as a community of learners. I say this because the students that I have come across lately (and some communication scholars) have recently expressed a growing frustration with the state of our knowledge, asking questions that require more rigorous research strategies to illuminate our understanding. I worry that there may not now be enough "science" in communication research. On the other hand, perhaps we have needed this temporary shift into survey research, model building, and the rethinking of theory in order to determine future research questions, paths, and the strategic approaches necessary to answer these questions.

Last year, while attending the annual Canadian Communication Association meeting in Ottawa, I overheard the following interchange between two of our colleagues. One individual was asking the other if he was going to attend a particular session. He responded, "No, I don't think so, 'cause I don't know anything about that area." My immediate impulse (which I did not obey) was to interrupt them and ask, "But isn't that the reason you should go? To learn something?" This illustrates another trend: communication research has become more compartmentalized and fractionated, euphemistically referred to as "diversified." It is no longer clear that Canadian communication theory and research is headed toward a unified and integrated understanding of communication phenomena. In the first decade of the Canadian Communication Association's annual meetings, it was common (if not expected) that scholars and their students would attend sessions outside of their own areas of interest or expertise in order to expose themselves to new ideas, to support one another, and to stimulate interdisciplinary growth. I remember some great (and occasionally heated) discussions, giving us all opportunities to challenge and expand ourselves. But deep down, we all knew we had a common goal, that is, to foster communication research and practice as a unique, multidisciplinary area; this reflected our rather transcendent notion of going beyond our individual circumstances. In the past 10 years, however, I have witnessed more separateness and narrower focus of research programs, rather than researchers thinking about the broader issues and integration of communication research. Of course, maybe we need this individualistic approach to research in order to ultimately develop a better integration and understanding of communication theory and research. Perhaps this ebb and flow of integration and separateness is natural and reflects a path that will ultimately result in an emerging grand theory of communication. I am not so sure.

A third trend has been the shift away from a multidimensional model of communication that integrates the knowledge and experiential bases of both academics and industry practitioners. I wonder how much of our academic theory and research is of interest or even relevant to individuals working in advertising, television/radio/movie production, or the teaching of interpersonal communication skills. How much cross-fertilization is actually occurring? How many opportunities are lost by not systematically working at and being challenged by the interface between theory/research and practitioner? Although there are examples of academics and their students who have taken this challenge and are involved in this exciting research, simply put, there are far too few in Canada. And as a result, communication texts and journal articles are quite inadequate in presenting an accurate picture of the complexity of communication phenomena and their interrelationships, why the relationships exist, and how different kinds of communication effects are affected by individuals as well as society. Thus, when I teach classes in communication, I increasingly have to ask students to get their "hands dirty" by becoming mindfully immersed in communication in order to learn about what is really going on. In a society that is becoming more conscious of communication and its impact, students require increasingly sophisticated integrations of theory/research and ecologically valid experience.

And finally, we live in a society that perceives itself as the most advanced ever in terms of communication. I ask two simple questions: Do we as individuals have a greater level of life satisfaction at the end of the day; are our relationships with others more mature and meaningful as a result of the contributions of communication theory and research? Has our theory and research contributed to greater cohesiveness in Canadian society and support for one another; has it promoted psychological and physical health for all its members; has it uniquely enriched our lives in a way that no other discipline has? The answers to these questions are unclear and open to serious debate. The fact that strong differences of opinion exist suggests that it is time to reflect upon and discuss the current directions of communication research and theory and the challenges we face in the next millennium. I would like to suggest that we rededicate ourselves to a broader understanding of the whole of communication and the complexities and patterns of media use and effects within Canadian society. Because we are multidisciplinary and have excellent theories and research tools, we are now ready to make communication research and theory much more relevant to our everyday lives.

This is one of the directions in which future research is going. We are poised to initiate the systematic examination of (a) patterns of media use and their impact rather than focusing upon rather simple uses and effects; and (b) how different processes within individuals (e.g., cognitive, emotional, health) and societal variables combine to influence communication patterns. For example, it is well known that particular variables are individually related to body distortion and eating disorders in young women, for example, personality, family pressures to diet, and media. However, we do not know which combinations of these variables make particular girls more susceptible to media exposure (modelling and reinforcement of the "thin ideal" on television and in magazines), while the vast majority of young women are relatively immune to such exposure. Longitudinal research, that is, following young women before entry into puberty and assessing these variables as they enter and progress through puberty, will identify which configurations of variables put some young women "at risk" for an eating disorder. This research is currently being conducted by my students and myself.

Similarly, large-scale projects mapping the changing patterns of media use, culture, personality and temperament, and individual abilities and skills (e.g., communication, problem solving, relationships) will help us identify how media and personal development interact in influencing who we are, how we regulate our emotions, and our degree of life satisfaction. Such research is much needed in understanding adolescents, adults, and seniors, and in finding ways to optimize their developmental progress.

Rather than focusing on the "ooh's and ah's" of recent advances in communication technologies (e.g., Internet, virtual reality) and the perceived efficacy and entertainment they add to our lives, researchers are beginning to ask serious questions and developing complex methodologies and theoretical models to determine whether such technologies actually do contribute to what it is to be human, whether certain technologies significantly add to or subtract from meaning in our lives, and whether they promote the overall well-being of individuals and the societies in which they live.

These are truly exciting times to be a communication researcher!

Royal Commissions, Journalism, and Communication Studies by Andrew Osler

Journalism education in Canadian universities is longest associated with the programs at Carleton University in Ottawa and the University of Western Ontario in London. Both universities launched their formal programs in the years immediately following World War II, with Carleton first off the mark by several months. The program at Ryerson Polytechnic University was launched in 1949 when Ryerson still functioned as a non-degree-granting technical institute. It has since become the third historically important centre of journalism education in Canada.

W. H. Kesterton (1967) records that journalism classes in credit courses began at Carleton in October 1945, and that "in 1946 three class members, who had completed arts requirements for the journalism programme through earlier studies, became the first graduates to be awarded the bachelor of journalism degree" (pp. 164-165). Kesterton also tells us that the rival program at Western was not established until 1946, with the launching of several experimental classes that winter, and a full program up and running in September. University of Western Ontario historian John R. W. Gwynne-Timothy (1978) notes that Arthur Ford, a former editor-in-chief of the London Free Press and one-time Chancellor of the University of Western Ontario, taught a journalism course at Western in 1922, thus making the question of who came first rather less clear.

What is certain is that substantial undergraduate Journalism programs were in operation with excellent faculty in place from 1946 at the two pioneering universities and in many ways the two experiences were quite similar. Both, for instance, had strong support from their senior administrative people and from media leaders. At the University of Western Ontario, President Sherwood Fox and the university's librarian, Dr. Fred Landon, worked closely with Ford of the London Free Press, along with such local media leaders as Hugh Templin, Editor of the Fergus News-Record and President of the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association (Fox, 1964). Together, they brought in George W. McCracken as Chair. McCracken was a graduate of Queen's coming to Western straight from World War II military service as Director of the External Branch of the Wartime Information Board (McCracken, 1985). Prior to the war, McCracken had been Editorial Assistant to B. K. Sandwell, editor of Saturday Night, and later an editorial writer and editorial page editor of the Kingston Whig-Standard.

McCracken remained Chair until 1952 when he left the university. During his time, Journalism was established as a four-year honours undergraduate program with a curriculum in which journalism course requirements were framed with extensive requirements from the arts and sciences. While the early Western program did not offer formal graduate studies until the 1970s, it did provide a one-year diploma for a few students each year with excellent undergraduate degrees from other institutions.

Requests from veterans seeking permission to apply their education credits at American journalism programs was one stimulus behind the near simultaneous establishment of the programs at Carleton University and the University of Western Ontario. Symbolically, the program at Western was housed during its first years in the elegantly named Fingal Hall, a set of weather-worn Quonset huts liberated from a nearby wartime air training base and hauled to Western's campus to help meet a postwar population explosion there.

At Carleton University, Kesterton (1967) notes that pressure from veterans inspired H. M. Tory, President of then Carleton College, to work with interested faculty and Ottawa media leaders to generate the program. Its first full-time Director, Wilfrid Eggleston, was appointed in 1947. Eggleston already had a rich journalism career behind him by the time he arrived at Carleton. His first reporting job was with the Lethbridge Herald, and later he worked for the Toronto Star. This experience he shared with Western's McCracken who had reported for the Star in 1930. As McCracken's wartime career involved information, so did Eggleston's. He became Director of Censorship in 1944 under the provisions of the Defence of Canada Regulations of that era (Kesterton, 1967).

The Carleton University program evolved quickly through a succession of directors. Joseph Scanlon (another Toronto Star hand) became the program's second Director in 1966. It was during his tenure that the Master of Journalism degree was added in 1974. Stuart Adam, now Carleton's Academic Vice-President, was Director during the 1980s, followed by Peter Johansen in 1991 and Christopher Dornan (the current Director) in 1997. An undergraduate stream in communication studies was added in 1977, with the MA and doctorate added to the mass communication stream in 1991 and 1997 respectively. More than 900 students are now registered in Journalism and Communication at Carleton University.

Western has followed a different path in later decades. J. L. (Bud) Wild chaired the program uneventfully for many years following George McCracken's departure to the federal civil service in 1952. During Wild's tenure, the Western program was gifted with a number of outstanding teachers, notable among them being Isobel Dingman, who died prematurely in 1960, and Earl Beattie, who later taught at York.

In 1972, Andrew MacFarlane, a former Managing Editor of the Toronto Telegram, was brought in to head the Journalism program and later became its first Dean. The undergraduate program was eliminated in 1974, and a new one-year MA was established as the prime activity in the newly established School of Journalism in Western's Faculty of Graduate Studies (Gwynne-Timothy, 1978). Outgoing Chair J. L. Wild explained the shift rather cryptically to the Kent commissioners with reference to a pattern, for many years at Western, that saw large first-year classes dwindle to handfuls by fourth year: "We were spending a good deal of time with people who weren't destined to be journalists" (Royal Commission on Newspapers, 1981, p. 155).

Illness obliged MacFarlane to step down as Dean in 1980. He was replaced by former Global Television news anchor and reporter, Peter Desbarats. Desbarats' tenure was a time of highs and lows. The former included a special CIDA-funded relationship over a number of years with journalism educators at the University of Nairobi, and the operation of the Special Program in Journalism for Native People. The great low point came in 1993 when the university announced its intention to close the Journalism School. In a letter to Journalism faculty members, then-President George Pedersen cited the financial crisis being faced by all universities in Ontario: "given the 13% budget cuts that have occurred at Western in the past three years, it must be recognized that we simply cannot continue to support all of the academic endeavours in which we are currently engaged." The University Senate supported this decision in a vote taken on September 29, which would have been a sad end to things, except that the university's Board of Governors took the unheard of step of narrowly overruling the Senate in its vote exactly a month later on October 29.

Despite this vote, the Graduate School of Journalism was eliminated in 1996. The MA program continues with reduced faculty strength and without its own administrative structure as an offering of the new Faculty of Information and Media Studies, largely built on the strengths and culture of the university's former School of Library and Information Science. An MA thesis option selected by occasional journalism students over the years and the graduate essay-in-journalism written by all others, have been eliminated. The required month-long internship program has been made voluntary. Officials at the University of Western Ontario offer assurances that journalism education will continue there, and that they support it with enthusiasm. In 1998, they increased the number of available places in the program from 40, which it had been since the mid-1970s, to 50.

In many ways, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute offers the most interesting and varied program history. The entire institution began life in the mid-1940s as an answer to the challenge of providing a range of job-training opportunities in addition to meeting more sophisticated educational needs of returning veterans. Journalism was a part of all of that, beginning under the initial direction of Ed Parker, not as a journalism program so much as an amalgam of courses and instruction in graphic arts and printing with some journalism rudiments.

In 1950, Parker hired Earl Beattie as Ryerson's first true journalism instructor. E. U. (Ted) Schrader came along a year later, and became Director of the program in 1955. Under his guidance, the program clarified its focus on journalism and related radio, television, and media management skills. Ryerson Polytechnical Institute became a degree-granting institute in 1971, and the first Bachelor of Applied Arts degrees were awarded in 1973.

Since 1980, Ryerson has offered the standard four-year degree, plus a two-year degree available to students who have degrees from other universities. There are currently 118 regular undergraduate places at entry level in the program, and 60 for the special two-year program for those with degrees. The Ryerson Journalism Review provides important comment on media ethics and related matters. Ryerson's current Chair is Professor Vince Carlin.

In his 1970 report, Keith Davey suggested that with Carleton University, the University of Western Ontario, and Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Ontario probably had enough journalism schools, "But we should like to see a good school in the Atlantic provinces, one in Quebec and one in the prairie provinces and one in British Columbia" (Special Senate Committee on Mass Media, 1970a, p. 127). The Davey wish generated what the Kent commissioners of a decade later described as the "second wave" of journalism programs. As noted previously, the communication program with strong journalism provisions became available at Laval at about the time the Davey hearings were getting underway. Concordia began a bit later, perhaps as a response to Davey, in 1974.

In Halifax, the University of King's College established its program in 1979 with the concept of building journalism studies on a solid basis, in the early years, of courses in the humanities and social sciences. Over the years, King's has attracted such well-regarded journalist-professors as Eugene Meese from Saskatchewan and, in their time, George Bain and David Oancia, both long-time hands at The Globe and Mail. In the west, the University of Regina offers Bachelor of Journalism and Bachelor of Journalism and Communication degrees. First classes were held in the Regina program in 1980. It continues strongly under the Acting Directorship of broadcaster Roy Bonisteel.

Finally, the most recent addition is the Sing Tao School of Journalism newly opened at the University of British Columbia. Offering a two-year MA degree, Sing Tao accepted its first class of about 15 students in September of 1998. The program director is Donna Logan.

One of the authors of this article, Eugene Tate, has described the importance of the LaMarsh Commission as "one of the most complete mass media research projects [ever] undertaken." In the same article, he notes that the commissioners' interpretation of their mandate was remarkably ambitious, as sponsoring research "into all forms of media, thus making it more comprehensive than, for example, the [U.S.] Surgeon General's Report on Television Violence" (Tate & McConnell, 1991, pp. 310-311). Though in specific reference to the LaMarsh Commission, his words complement those of J. E. Hodgetts, the political institutions theorist of a generation ago, who was one of the first to recognize the unique and important place of royal commissions and similar investigatory bodies, not only in Canadian political life but also in the growth of mature scholarship and teaching our universities. In his words, "they become temporary research institutes, assembling the best available outside (non-governmental) talent to carry on sophisticated analyses of complex social and economic problems" (Hodgetts, 1976, p. 217).

Something of an apparent paradox is generated here. Outsiders looking in at the Canadian scene for the first time might conclude, in the case of communication and journalism studies, for example, that independent scholarship has been slow to develop here. Only a handful of books in the field had been published as late as the mid-1970s, and the appearance of such works remained infrequent well into the 1980s. The output of journal articles also was less than impressive; in fact, for many years, and as discussed elsewhere in this article, there were no Canadian journals dedicated to communication themes.

What tends to be invisible in the equation is precisely the important role, as inferred by Hodgetts and Tate, which royal commissions and other government-created study groups and task forces have tended to play in our scholarly life. Focused stimulus, funding, and collegiality are generated that tend to give structure to new and emerging areas of organized scholarship. Arguably, it is not coincidental that both the Canadian Communication Association and the Canadian Journal of Communication (in its evolved form as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal) were established in the wake of the LaMarsh Commission.2

There are two aspects to this process of influence: First, these "temporary research institutes" automatically cause the issues they treat to be given high place in the national agenda. Thus, universities may be inclined to develop parallel interests in creating and funding their own agendas, especially when the experience is repeated a number of times, as in the case of the large number of Canadian royal commissions and task forces over the years with communications-related mandates. Second, by commissioning research, receiving interventions, and so forth, these bodies can give enormous impetus to the actual development of scholarship in the focused field. Ironically (and here is the nub of paradox) scholarly work done for these commissions and task forces is rarely given important place in formal academic listings of scholarly output, and thus to a degree it becomes invisible to those in our institutions who keep accountings of such things. Nonetheless, the consequence, as in the case of LaMarsh Commission most certainly, can be the generation of seminal literature and the stimulus to put in place mature disciplinary infrastructure.

The early Journalism programs at Carleton University and the University of Western Ontario, as the first manifestations in Canada of scholarly commitment to communication studies, benefited from the royal commission stimulus effect a full quarter century before the LaMarsh Commission, with the publication in 1951 of the Report of the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts Letters and Sciences in Canada. Vincent Massey's commission consulted faculty members at both the two pioneer Journalism programs, including the first Chairs at both Western and Carleton, George W. McCracken and Wilfrid Eggleston respectively (McCracken, 1985). The main effect of the Massey Commission, however, was not so much that it directly engaged media scholars in its work, but rather that it affirmed the importance of the media as national institutions and thus worthy of scholarly interest. Dealing widely in Canadian cultural issues, Massey actually said rather little about the media, but given the enormous national prestige of the commission, and especially of its chair, those few words were very important ones.

When Massey said that, despite its great cost, television was vital to the national cultural interest, that it should receive significant government funding, and that the CBC should become the country's exclusive television broadcaster, it was as though he had given the government of the day permission to make it all happen. Where there had been great political controversy, especially relating to the cost of the venture, suddenly there was none; the CBC was up and running with channels in both Toronto and Montreal by the fall of 1952.

The nation's political agendas were similarly altered by Massey's other words of media consequence where he described newspapers as "the chief source of knowledge to Canadians of their country," functioning in a general circumstance where "a vast and disproportionate amount of material coming from a single alien (American) source may stifle rather than stimulate our own creative effort" (Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts and Letters and Sciences, 1951, pp. 38, 61).

The Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting (1929), chaired by Sir John Aird, was of historic consequence comparable to that of Massey in that it established the general policy direction of Canadian broadcasting for the balance of the century. But it preceded the arrival of journalism/communication studies in our universities by nearly two decades, and thus its influence on our scholarly growth is more historic than immediate in nature. Aird and Massey nonetheless share honours as precursors to a remarkable list of subsequent royal commissions and other sorts of prestigious study groups which both continued to place journalism/communication studies high on the national agenda, and to stimulate and engage the academic community in the process. First, generally or specifically focused on broadcast policy development, these have included the Royal Commission on Broadcasting, chaired by Robert Fowler, which reported in 1957. The Broadcasting Act of 1958, and the Board of Broadcast Governors, predecessor to the present-day Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, were generated from Fowler recommendations. Fowler also reviewed his own work as Chair of an Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (1964), which was important in that it paved the way to the influential White Paper on Broadcasting tabled in 1966. Attributed to Judy LaMarsh, then Secretary of State and the federal minister responsible for broadcasting, this White Paper led directly to the Broadcasting Act of 1968 and with it the establishment of the CRTC. (Originally simply the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, the CRTC's title was changed to its present convoluted wording with the addition of its telecommunications responsibilities in 1975.) Early in its corporate life, the CRTC convened an important symposium on television violence in Kingston in 1975, and in 1977 at the direction of the Prime Minister's Office, the CRTC established its Committee of Inquiry into the National Broadcasting Service which reported in the spring of that year.

The Consultative Committee on Implications of Telecommunications for Canadian Sovereignty (the Clyne Committee) reported to the Minister of Communications in 1979, and the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee (Applebaum-Hébert) reported to the same ministry in 1982. Finally in this incomplete list, there was the massive report in 1986 of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, co-chaired by Gerald Caplan and Florian Sauvageau. The Caplan-Sauvageau report importantly influenced the design of the current Broadcasting Act, passed into law in 1991. Canadian communication scholars are everywhere to be found in association with virtually all of the cited projects, even co-chairing one of them in the case of Florian Sauvageau and the 1986 Broadcasting Task Force. (He is a Professor in the Département d'information et communication at Université Laval.)

Another cluster of four royal commissions, task forces, and other sorts of government study groups has focused attention on the printed media, having the effect of placing these media, as well as the electronic ones, at the centre of the national agenda. As a group, and for whatever reasons, these seem to have been more dramatically perceived and have had higher public profiles than those primarily focused on the electronic media.

Chronologically, the first of these is the Royal Commission on Publications chaired by Senator Grattan O'Leary which reported in 1961. O'Leary was the first to incur the wrath of American publishers and the U.S. State Department with his protectionist recommendations regarding magazines. Intimidated by the Americans, the Liberal government of the day settled for window-dressing legislation, and it was not until 1976 that effective changes relating to ownership and advertising, directly reflecting O'Leary's recommendations, were included in amendments to the Income Tax Act. All of this was to become the substance of further controversy with Canadians, pressed once again by the Americans to open the domestic magazine market to foreign competition under the new 1990s rules of economic globalization. In the modern context, Senator O'Leary's words in his report of 1961 take on a poignant quality: "Only a truly Canadian printing press, one with the `feel' of Canada can give us the critical analysis, informed discourse and dialogue which are indispensable to a sovereign society" (Royal Commission on Publications, 1961, p. 2).

Second of the print-oriented foursome was the Task Force on Government Information created by the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau in 1968 as one of its first acts in office. It recommended the creation of Information Canada, the Trudeau government's short-lived experiment with a national information agency, and much hated by the mass media as a propaganda mill intended to circumvent the natural course of journalism. Joe Clark, then still some years away from the prime ministership, and a backbench member from Alberta's Rocky Mountain riding, described Infocan as "an attempt to get around the normal filters of democracy; an attempt not to present information, but to manage it" (Hansard, July 23, 1973).

But of the four print-focused commissions and task forces, it is the latter two that stand out as being of particular consequence. The first of these was the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media, chaired by Senator Keith Davey, which reported in 1970. The other was the Royal Commission on Newspapers chaired by professor Tom Kent; its report was submitted to the Governor General in Council on Dominion Day, 1981.

Davey, who had been much involved in media-related work all his life, and who had contributed his extraordinary personal media talents to the strategies of the Liberal Party in various "backroom" capacities over many years, took good advantage of his place in the Senate to unleash his long-standing passion as an inveterate media watcher. In effect, his three-volume report (Special Senate Committee on Mass Media, 1970a, 1970b, 1970c) constituted the first detailed sociological photograph ever taken of Canada's media, all of them but especially the printed ones. The Kent study a decade later focused entirely on Canada's newspapers, and where Davey had offered 21 gentle suggestions by way of recommendations, Kent was far more draconian. In 1970, Davey most importantly urged the creation of a federal Press Ownership Review Board as a device to control ownership concentration. He also called on everyone involved in the work of the nation's press to look, voluntarily, to their ethics and purpose. In the words of his report's last recommendation: "To absolutely everyone in the media: Get together and set up a Press Council; you do have something besides profits to protect" (Special Senate Committee on Mass Media, 1970a, p. 257).

The Kent Commission was much more urgent in its sense of purpose a decade later, established as it was in response to an extraordinary set of sudden manoeuvres to consolidate the holdings of the major newspaper chains of the era. Two dailies had died in that process, The Journal in Ottawa, belonging to Thomson Newspapers, and Southam's Winnipeg Tribune. Southam was thus left alone with no competition with its Citizen in Ottawa, and Thomson had free rein in the Winnipeg market with its Free Press. For journalists across the country, the day of these economic earthquakes and a number of related aftershocks, August 27, 1980, became known in press-club folklore as Black Wednesday. Kent thus opened his report 11 months later with the words: "This Commission was born out of shock and trauma"; he ended it some 250 pages later calling for, among other draconian measures, the creation of a Canada Newspaper Act under which the affairs of the nation's press might be regulated to the general good (Royal Commission on Newspapers, 1981).

It is interesting to note that both these studies tend to be narrowly interpreted in much of the literature as treating purely economic matters: ownership questions and the like. In fact, economic considerations cloak a deeper concern for the quality of journalism and other forms of content. While Kent's newspaper act proposal had much to do with ownership, it spoke more eloquently about, for example, creating mandatory contracts between editors and publishers in order to guarantee journalistic quality. There would have been a mandatory press council structure as well, and it is interesting to note in passing that legislation based on the Kent recommendations reached second reading in the House of Commons before it died on the Order Paper with the death of the government of the day in 1983.

Both studies and the reports they generated did much to stimulate growth of journalism and communication research and teaching in Canadian universities. It has been pointed out that prior to the Senate study, journalism education was conducted at three Canadian institutions-Western, Carleton, and Ryerson-but, as the later Kent Commission report notes, a "second wave came after the Davey report" and at least in partial response to it. Université Laval, responding to the problems Davey was to describe, anticipated his report, if not his influence, by setting up its program in 1968. But the report clearly had a direct stimulus effect in the other cases. These were: Concordia in 1974; King's College, Halifax, in 1979; and Regina in 1979. Planning also began at that time, at least partially in response to the Davey stimulus, for a program at the University of British Columbia (Royal Commission on Newspapers, 1981).

A gesture indicating the Davey Committee's awareness of the importance of journalism education may be seen in their placing of papers and research materials generated by the committee in the libraries at Carleton and Western, this done specifically because of the journalism programs located at these universities. Many academics contributed to the work of the committee. Professor Joseph Scanlon of Carleton, and later Chair of Journalism there, contributed a major commissioned analysis of wire service content. Important interventions were provided by Professor Thomas McPhail, then at Loyola College in Montreal, and by York University's Professor Thelma McCormack. A decade later, the involvement of journalism and communication academics in the work of the Kent Commission was impressive. Peter Desbarats, later Dean of Journalism at Western, served as Associate Research Director. Contributors included Robert Fulford, now at Ryerson; George Bain, later Chair at King's in Halifax; Laval's Florian Sauvageau; Arthur Siegel and Fred Fletcher at York; and Murray Goldblatt at Carleton.

Concluding Comments: Canadian Journal of Communication and the LaMarsh Commission by Eugene D. Tate

Several of the contributions above have mentioned the significant role of Earle and Gisele Beattie in the development of Canadian communication studies when they created this journal. While the Journal published a biographical tribute to Earle in 1982 (Parker, 1982), it is only proper that we take a moment in this anniversary issue to recognize the career of the person whose vision led to its founding.

Earle Beattie was born in Vancouver and raised in Winnipeg. He began writing for the Free Press's Young Authors' section at the age of 14. He studied at United College (University of Winnipeg) where he became the college correspondent for the Free Press. Between his third and fourth year of university he took a year sabbatical to work for the first Thomson newspapers: he was a reporter for the Timmins Daily Press and editor of the Val d'Or Star.

After finishing university, where he won the Chancellor's Prize, presented to him by John W. Dafoe, he went to Montreal to work for British United Press and the Gazette. The British United Press transferred him to Halifax where he was Maritime Bureau Manager during the early years of World War II. In the latter years of the war, he was drafted into the infantry. After his discharge, he bought a printing plant in Nova Scotia and edited The Maritime Commonwealth, a C.C.F. weekly paper. The failure of this venture led to a year as news editor at the International Service of the CBC.

In 1949 he moved to Ryerson Polytechnical Institute (now Ryerson University) where he joined Edward Parker in creating the Journalism program. He was soon Chief Instructor in Journalism and served as second department head until he temporarily left teaching in 1955. While at Ryerson he began writing for Maclean's and Saturday Night, where he co-authored an article on stock swindlers on Bay Street. While at Ryerson, Earle and another instructor had begun to gather data on Toronto slum landlords. The publication of these articles in the Toronto Telegram in 1956 captured the front page for 13 days. The series led to convictions and prison sentences for two slum landlords, with police using the writers' investigative reporting for the convictions.

In 1960, Earle accepted a professorship in the School of Journalism at the University of Western Ontario. He taught a broad range of courses in the department. At the same time he pursued his graduate education at the University of Iowa and Columbia University. In his studies, he focused on communication theory and the media in society. He appeared before the Davey Commission in 1969 with a pioneering study of the weaknesses of Canadian education and journalism. He was an expert witness in the monopoly trial of K. C. Irving media holdings.

While at Western, Earle played a minor role in one of the stranger moments of the development of media studies in Canada. He was instrumental in the hiring of Brian Wilson Key, the subliminal advertising guru, as an instructor at Western (Beattie, 1975). Professor Beattie was the only member of the Journalism program at Western to attend the Association for Education in Journalism conference in San Francisco. He was asked to interview methodologists so that one could be hired at Western Ontario. He interviewed several candidates and was most impressed by an ex-marine with a major in research methodology. His name was Brian Wilson Key and on Earle's recommendation he was hired to teach at Western Ontario.

Once secure in his job, Key turned his attention to the subliminal messages of sex to be found in advertising, paintings, art, and North American culture. His singular obsession with sex and lack of attention to research methodology in his classrooms finally led to his dismissal from the Journalism program at Western. Key defined his dismissal as persecution for his research or ideas and made this the topic of his third book. Earle's version of Key's time at Western is a corrective to a small chapter of journalism history in Canada (Beattie, 1975).

In 1972, Earle moved to Atkinson College at York University where he created and taught four courses on communication and the mass media: Communication and Mass Media, Theories of Communication, Television as a Social Force, and Public Media and Social Policy. He co-chaired, with Dick MacDonald, Founding Editor of Content, the "Media 75" conference at York on media ownership, control, and decision-making. This led to his interest in media co-operatives based on his developing view that media ownership should function through a democratic co-operative structure. In 1979-80 he conducted a research project where he visited media co-operatives in France, Scotland, Denmark, Holland, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.

In 1974, Earle and his wife Gisele founded the magazine Media Probe as a town and gown periodical. The magazine aimed at bridging the gap between academic analysis and media professionals with an investigative journalism perspective. The name was changed to Canadian Journal of Communication and the Editorial Board expanded with William Melody, then at Simon Fraser University, as the first Chairperson. Eugene Tate served as the second Chair of the Editorial Board beginning in 1979.

In February of 1982, Earle asked Eugene Tate to buy the Journal from him and become Editor. (They had met when both of them conducted research for the LaMarsh Commission. Earle had presented a report on violence and magazines. Tate had conducted adult-television research for the Commission, which had been co-ordinated with television content analysis conducted by Tannis MacBeth and children-television research conducted by Gregory Fouts.)

When he retired from Atkinson College, Earle Beattie began to investigate problems with pension funds in Canada. This led to his last book, Canada's Billion Dollar Pension Scandal: How Secure Is Your Future? (1985). Earle Beattie died in Vancouver in 1992. His vision for the journal was broad and creative. Without the vision, great effort, and financial contributions of both Earle and Gisele this journal would not exist today.

Editorship of the Journal

I purchased the Journal from Earle Beattie for the nominal sum of one dollar. I immediately moved to create a federal corporation to publish the Journal. Ernest Hawrish, a Saskatoon lawyer who had written his MA dissertation on the nonverbal cues used by Canadian lawyers to select jury members (Hawrish & Tate, 1975; Tate, Hawrish, & Clark, 1974), did all the legal work for the corporation and the application for charitable foundation status for gratis. The establishment of the corporation necessitated the creation of a Board of Directors. I asked Walter Romanow, Gregory Fouts, Andrew Osler, and Donald Theall to join me as founders of the corporation. At their first meeting, the Board of Directors expanded their membership to include: Junichi Kawashima, Vice-President of Research and Development for T. V. Alberta; Linda Christiansen-Ruffman, St. Mary's University, Halifax; Annie Mear, Université de Montréal; and Tannis MacBeth (Williams), University of British Columbia.

During the first couple of years of my editorship, the Journal received funding from the Board of Governors of St. Thomas More College and the President's Publication Fund of the University of Saskatchewan, with smaller grants from the University of Windsor, the University of Western Ontario, the Department of Communication at the University of Montreal, and from subscriptions through the Canadian Communication Association. We received grants from St. Thomas More College each year the Journal was edited there. At times the Journal was off cycle because I made sure to pay for each issue before printing another. Along with the financial grants in the first year, I established a blind review system for all articles received by the Journal.

Space does not allow a further discussion of the Journal's development during the years of the second editor, but let me make a few observations. The first thing that struck me as I worked with the Journal was the power an editor has to determine the direction of a field. I remember George Gerbner, Editor of the Journal of Communication, saying many times, "Only I know the future direction of this discipline." While there is a bit of egotism in Gerbner's statement, it became apparent to me that any editor does have a certain amount of power to determine which scholars receive recognition in a discipline.

Secondly, while this may seem minor to some, to me it is one of the most memorable lessons learned as Editor: Good manuscripts were rare during my years as Editor; therefore, I was surprised by the number of manuscripts that we would have published if the authors had made the few revisions the referees requested. All too often we would send a manuscript back for minor revisions and never hear from the author again. Often these were the best manuscripts that we had received. We wanted to publish them but the author did not co-operate. I have never understood this failure by authors to complete revisions so that their manuscript could be published immediately.

When I took over the Journal, I began to experience déjà vu. When I first began to attend conferences of the International Communication Association, I sat through numerous sessions in which the question was asked, "Why don't communication scholars publish in communication journals?" Now I was asking myself the question, "Why don't Canadian communication scholars publish in Canadian communication journals?" The reasons-low credibility, does not count for tenure or promotion, more prestige in U.S. journals, and so forth-were the same reasons I heard at sessions on publications at International Communication Association and Speech Communication Association conferences a decade before my editorship.

When I first learned about the Canadian Journal of Communication, I made a personal commitment to only publish in Canadian communication journals. When it came time for promotion, I made a case for the quality of the Journal and solicited an additional affirmation from Dr. Barry Brown, head of the Department of Educational Communication in Saskatoon. The Promotion Committee accepted our argument that one must publish in the national journal for one's discipline.

As Editor, I realized that all too often an author could not get tenure or promotion by publishing in "our" journal. By appointing a national Editorial Board, improving the review system, and asking for careful revisions, I attempted to raise the quality of the Journal so that authors who published with us would receive promotion or tenure. The quality of the Journal did improve, and gradually we were able to attract more manuscripts. We received our first Social Science and Humanities Research Council Grant during my editorship.

The LaMarsh Commission

Several scholars have mentioned the LaMarsh Commission as a pivotal event in the establishment of communication studies in Canada. The Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry was one of the few royal commissions that hired researchers from across the country. In their three research consultation meetings, Ken Marchant, Director of Research for the commission, and the research advisors to the commission, Donald Gordon and Percy Tannenbaum, brought together scholars from all regions of the country. By awarding research contracts to scholars across the country they affirmed the validity of scholarship outside of the Quebec-Ontario core.

Elsewhere (Tate, 1999; Tate & McConnell, 1991) I have provided some generalizations based on the work of the Royal Commission. Briefly much of the research conducted for the LaMarsh Commission meets the requirements now affirmed by scholars in the field. For example, in the studies with adults and children, when we interviewed our respondents we let them set the categories of the content they viewed. Instead of using recall data, we took television programs to respondents, observed them as they viewed the programs, and discussed their interpretations with them. In England, David Morley (1993), David Buckingham (1993), Virginia Nightengale (1996), Sonia Livingstone (1995; Livingstone & Hunt, 1994), Shaun Moores (1993, 1996), David Gauntlett (1995, 1996), and many other scholars argue that this is precisely the way researchers must conduct media research. It was done for the LaMarsh Commission in the 1970s.

The recommendations of the LaMarsh Commission for a video system incompatible with the system used in the United States, a 40-channel CBC, and a powerful Press Council were derisively rejected when the report came out in 1976. Yet, as one considers them, these draconian measures are really the only way to protect Canadian content and Canadian identity in this media-saturated world (Tate, 1998). Technological advances with the Internet have made some of the recommendations irrelevant but the strong Press Council might possibly have guarded against the "Blackinization" of Canadian media.

The Commission brought together communication researchers into "a family," as Greg Fouts points out in his portion of this article. There was a special bond between researchers for the Commission. This group of scholars, along with those who had attended the 1975 Innis conference at Simon Fraser University (see Melody, Salter, & Heyer, 1981), were brought together at the University of Windsor by Walter Romanow and the Windsor Department of Communication Studies in April 1978. At this meeting, Arthur Siegel made the motion that established the Founding Executive Committee of the Canadian Communication Association. Again, scholars from across the country came together to establish a new enterprise to give direction to our discipline. As Secretary of the Founding Executive, I met scholars who came onto the Editorial Board of the Journal when I became Editor. The LaMarsh Commission gave impetus to this movement by bringing together a diverse group of scholars from all regions of the country in a common cause.

Summary comments

There are many Canadian programs that we have not mentioned in this article. The work of Robert Pike and his associates at Queen's University is noteworthy, especially Pike's history of the Canadian postal system. The Communication Studies program at Brock University began in 1982 and grew under the guidance of W. H. N. Hull. We have mentioned the Windsor program founded by Walter Romanow, Hugh Edmunds, and Stuart Selby, but have not been able to provide a detailed history of it. It is interesting that both Romanow and Edmunds are Saskatchewan natives while Selby taught at Saskatoon before going to Windsor. In the early 1970s, they brought Mary Gerace, James Linton, and Andrew Osler into the department. Similarly, we have mentioned the program at Simon Fraser University but not in detail. Certainly Tom Mallinson, William Leiss, Rowland Lorimer, William Melody, and Dallas Smythe gave impetus to the development of the program there. This article is only a small beginning that could grow into a major project.

If one needs any measure for the growth or increasing importance of communication in Canada, one needs only check the increase in publications in communication studies. As Gertrude Robinson has noted, in 1970 there were few textbooks in the field. Donald Gordon had published Language, Logic and the Mass Media in 1966. John A. Irving's Mass Media in Canada came out in 1969. Works by Peers (1969), Weir (1965), and Shae (1963) documented the growth of broadcasting in this country. In 1971, Donald Gordon published his book, The New Literacy. The following year, Walt McDayter's A Media Mosaic appeared on the scene with Dick MacDonald's The Media Game and Benjamin Singer's Communications in Canadian Society. The growth in communication studies publications began in earnest. As a footnote, Andrew Osler remembers as a graduate student being asked by J. E. Hodgetts to put together a paper on media and politics. The only book he found in the University of Toronto library was Underhill & Ferguson's Press and Party in Canada: Issues of Freedom (1955). In the new millennium, students will find hundreds of books to help them in their research.

All of the programs described above have suffered from financial constraints in the last decade. We never fully developed a formal communication program in Saskatoon because both Barry Brown and I realized that there could be no new funding for such a program. However, six graduate students completed an MA with a communication major through the Department of Sociology between 1970 and 1992. An additional dozen undergraduates had papers accepted for presentation at the Undergraduate Honours Seminar in Communication at Memphis State University. Several of these undergraduates have gone on to complete PhD's in communication. From 1972 to 1992, we offered a distance education course in communication through the University of Saskatchewan. The course utilized the audio-tutorial design-this being the days before the Internet-serving students in all provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the United States, Australia, and Great Britain.

Yet my major regret as Editor of the Journal was the inability to develop an adequate endowment fund that would provide for future funding of the Journal. Financial constraints are a real factor limiting the growth of communication studies in Canada today. In spite of the financial restraints, new programs are developing, such as the new joint PhD program at Ryerson and York University.

Jerome Bruner (1990) warns that when a narrative perspective of history is accepted, a problem arises with the temptation to accept one story as the "official" story. I noted in my opening comments the regional disparities in histories of communication studies in this country. There is nothing wrong with this if we do not begin to accept an "Eastern" (Ontario-Quebec) history as the only correct history. The Canadian Communication Association founding meeting was in 1979 at St. Thomas More College in Saskatoon. That is where the first Founding Executive was elected and the establishment of the Association set in motion. Most histories of the Association never mention the Saskatoon meeting, but place the first meeting of the Association at the Université du Québec à Montréal in 1980.

The Canadian historian W. L. Morton argued that the study of regionalism is valid but, he said, to write Canadian history one needs to be balanced in approach to benefit not only the regional but national and world interests. "Regional history of itself can only augment the evils of national history if it is not written to serve a larger context, the context of the nation and the world" (Morton, 1980). As we seek to develop an historical perspective on the growth of communication studies in Canada, we need to take Morton's advice seriously. We need to stay away from a history that seeks to understand this growth only from the perspective of one region of this vast country.

As we have demonstrated here, the roots of communication studies in Canada are diverse. Programs were developed at all universities with the co-operation of scholars from many disciplines. In many cases, one person of vision brought them together to develop a new focus in their work and teaching. As Gregory Fouts points out, the 1970s and 1980s were an exciting time in communication in this country. We learned from one another and with one another. The Canadian Journal of Communication and the Canadian Communication Association provided the vehicles necessary for the growth of the discipline. There has never been a dearth of students. Students have flocked to the programs as they have developed. As Arthur Siegel notes, too often the problem has been the lack of faculty for the number of students who wish to study communication.

Canadian communication studies in the English-speaking universities have most often been limited to the study of mass communication and the mass media. As Gertrude Robinson points out, this is where the funding is in this country. The royal commissions and the CRTC have provided a focus for communication studies programs in English Canada. The French Canadian programs are broader in scope, covering all of the communication arts and sciences. English Canadian programs are poorer for the lack of focus on other dimensions of communication. There is a breadth of perspective that links all of the various dimensions of communication together.

Yet the growth of the discipline continues. The election studies of the Windsor team, of Fred Fletcher at York and Bill Gilsdorf at Concordia, have broadened our understanding of political communication in Canada. Canadian perspectives have expanded into the field of cultural studies (Blundell, Shepherd, & Taylor, 1993) and the political economy of the media.

At the grass-roots level, work continues in media education. The Ontario government's decision that media education should not be taught in schools as a separate area but only in English courses is deplorable. Yet one understands that if children are taught to understand the media, they begin to see through the electronic, media-managed campaigns such as recently witnessed in that province. Such a perspective is dangerous to a politician who hires advisors to manipulate the media image while dodging the issues. Communication, as a discipline, provides a different focus on life that possesses a liberating power for the people. That was the focus and teaching of Isocrates in ancient Greece. That, it seems to me, is one of the basic lessons that another Canadian pioneer, Dallas Smythe (1994), tried to teach us all.


Professor Robinson was one of the original contributors to this article. Her contribution has been incorporated into her 1999 Southam Lecture published in this issue.
The argument touching communication and journalism studies is developed here. But it is interesting, by way of comparative example, to note that Canadian political and economic studies had similar experiences. A generation earlier than the LaMarsh era, for example, the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, which reported in 1940, involved the discipline-shaping work of a number of economists and political scientists.


Beattie, Earle. (1975). Professor Key and his sex book. Media Probe, 2(2), 12-17.

Beattie, Earle. (1985). Canada's billion dollar pension scandal: How secure is your future? Toronto: Methuen.

Bell, David V. J. (1975). Power, influence and authority: An essay in political linguistics. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Bell, David V. J. (1992). The roots of disunity: A study of Canadian political culture. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Blundell, Valda, Shepherd, John, & Taylor, Ian. (1993). Relocating cultural studies: Developments in theory and research. London: Routledge.

Bormann, Ernest G. (1980). Communication theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bruner, Jerome. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, Jerome. (1990). Acts of meaning. London: Harvard University Press.

Buckingham, David. (1993). Children talking television: The making of television literacy. London: Falmer Press.

Campbell, George. (1832). The philosophy of rhetoric. Boston: Charles Ewer. (Originally published in 1776)

Campbell, Pearl Read. (1957). Speech education in the English-speaking teacher training institutions of Canada. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI.

Carey, James. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Coles, Robert. (1989). The call of stories: Teaching and the moral imagination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Darnell, Donald K., & Brockreide, Wayne C. (1976). Persons communicating. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Engel, Susan. (1995). The stories children tell: Making sense of the narratives of childhood. Oxford: W. H. Freeman.

Fletcher, Frederick. (Ed.). (1991a). Election broadcasting in Canada. Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Financing. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

Fletcher, Frederick. (Ed.). (1991b). Media, elections and democracy. Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Financing. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

Fletcher, Frederick. (Ed.). (1991c). Reporting the campaign: Election coverage in Canada. Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Financing. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

Fletcher, Frederick, with Bell, David V. J. (1981). The newspaper and public affairs. Ottawa: Royal Commission on Newspapers.

Fox, William Sherwood. (1964). Sherwood Fox of Western: Reminiscences. Toronto: Burns & MacEachern.

Gardner, Howard. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. London: HarperCollins.

Gauntlett, David. (1995). Moving experiences: Understanding television influences and effects. London: John Libbey.

Gauntlett, David. (1996). Video critical: Children, the environment and media power. Luton: University of Luton Press.

Golden, James L., Berquist, Goodwin F., & Coleman, William E. (1978). The rhetoric of Western thought. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Gordon, Donald. (1966). Language, logic and the mass media. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gordon, Donald. (1971). The new literacy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Gwynne-Timothy, John R. W. (1978). Western's first century. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.

Harper, Nancy. (1980). Human communication theory: The history of a paradigm. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Co.

Hawrish, Ernest, & Tate, Eugene D. (1975). Communication variables in jury selection. Saskatchewan Law Review, 285-292.

Hodgetts, J. E. (1976). The Canadian public service: A physiology of government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Irving, John A. (Ed). (1969). Mass media in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Jarvie, Ian C. (1970). Toward a sociology of the cinema: A comparative essay on the structure and functioning of a major entertainment industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Jarvie, Ian C. (1977). Window on Hong Kong: A sociological study of the Hong Kong film industry and its audience. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press.

Jarvie, Ian C. (1978). Movies as social criticism: Aspects of their social psychology. London: Scarecrow Press.

Kesterton, Wilf H. (1967). A history of journalism in Canada. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Kline, Stephen. (1993). Out of the garden: Toy, TV and children's culture in the age of marketing. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Leiss, William, Kline, Stephen, & Jhally, Sut. (1997). Social communication in advertising: Persons, products and images of well-being. London: Routledge.

Livingstone, Sonia M. (1995). Making sense of television: The psychology of audience interpretation. Oxford: Butterworth-Hermann.

Livingstone, Sonia M., & Hunt, Peter. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.

MacDonald, Dick. (Ed.). (1972). The media game. Montreal: Content Publishing.

Magder, Ted. (1993). Canada's Hollywood: The Canadian state and feature films. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Magder, Ted. (1998). Franchising the candy store: Split run magazines and a new international regime for trade in culture. Orono: University of Maine Press.

McCracken, George. (1985). Unpublished biographical notes given to Andrew Osler on the establishment of his Emeritus Professorship.

McCroskey, James C. (1978). Rhetorical communication: An introduction (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McDayter, Walt. (1972). A media mosaic: Canadian communications through a critical eye. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

McElroy, Estelle Lorene. (1951). Alexander Melville Bell's importance as an elocutionist and a phonetician in the history of speech education. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Melody, William, Salter, Liora, & Heyer, Paul. (Eds.). (1981). Culture, communication and dependency: The tradition of H. A. Innis. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Miller, Gerald R. (1986, March). The development of interpersonal communication. Paper presented to "Communication: Step Into the Future" conference, St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon), SK.

Moores, Shaun. (Ed.). (1993). Interpreting audiences: The ethnography of audiences. London: Sage.

Moores, Shaun. (1996). Satellite television and everyday life: Articulating technology. Luton: John Libbey Media.

Morley, David. (1993). The gendered framework of family viewing. In Shaun Moores (Ed.), Interpreting audiences: The ethnography of audiences (pp. 173-185). London: Sage.

Morton, W. L. (1980). The possibility of a philosophy of conservatism. In A. B. McKillop (Ed.), Contexts of Canada's past: Selected essays of W. L. Morton. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada.

Nightengale, Virginia. (1996). Studying audiences. London: Routledge.

Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry [LaMarsh Commission]. (1976). Report of the Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry (7 vol.). Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Parker, Edward. (1982). Tribute to Earle Beattie. Canadian Journal of Communication, 8(3), 1-6.

Peers, Frank. (1969). The politics of Canadian broadcasting. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts and Letters and Sciences [Massey Commission]. (1951). Report. Ottawa: King's Printer.

Royal Commission on Newspapers [Kent Commission]. (1981). Royal Commission on Newspapers: [Report]. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.

Royal Commission on Publications [O'Leary Commission]. (1961). Report. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.

Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting [Aird Commission]. (1929). Report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting. Ottawa: F. A. Acland, Printer to the King.

Salter, Liora. (1981). Communication studies in Canada/Etudes Canadiennes en communication. Toronto: Butterworth (Canada).

Schank, Roger C. (1990). Tell me a story: A new look at real and artificial memory. Toronto: Collier Macmillan Canada.

Shae, Albert. (1963). Broadcasting the Canadian way. Montreal: Harvest House.

Siegel, Arthur. (1977). A content analysis. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Similarities and differences of French and English news. Commission of Inquiry into the National Broadcasting Service. Ottawa: CRTC.

Siegel, Arthur. (1979, February 22). Public opinion, mass media and plebiscites in Canada. House of Commons Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Proceedings (Appendix JLA-7), 13, 1-19.

Siegel, Arthur. (1996a). Politics and the media in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. (Originally published in 1983)

Siegel, Arthur. (1996b). Radio Canada International. Toronto: Mosaic Press.

Singer, Benjamin. (Ed). (1972). Communications in Canadian society (1st ed.). Toronto: Copp-Clark. (Later editions in 1983, 1991, 1993, and 1995)

Smythe, Dallas. (1994). Counterclockwise: Perspectives on communication (Thomas Guback, Ed.). Oxford: Westview.

Special Senate Committee on Mass Media [Davey Commission]. (1970a). The uncertain mirror (Vol. 1). Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada.

Special Senate Committee on Mass Media [Davey Commission]. (1970b). Words, music, and dollars: A study of the economics of publishing and broadcasting in Canada, by Hopkins, Hedlin Limited (Vol. 2). Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada.

Special Senate Committee on Mass Media [Davey Commission]. (1970c). Good, bad, or simply inevitable: Selected research studies (Vol. 3). Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada.

Suganami, Hidemi. (1989). The domestic analogy and world order proposals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suganami, Hidemi. (1996). On the causes of war. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Suganami, Hidemi. (1997). Stories of war origins: A narrativist theory of the causes of war. Review of International Studies, 23, 401-418.

Tate, Eugene D. (1982). Review of Communication studies in Canada/Etudes Canadiennes en communication [Salter, 1981]. Canadian Journal of Communication, 8(3), 80-86.

Tate, Eugene D. (1988). Audio-tutorial syllabus for Sociology X234: The communication process. Saskatoon: Division of Extension, University of Saskatchewan.

Tate, Eugene D. (1998). The search for Canadian identity(ies): The importance of stories for defining identity. The 60th Canada House Lecture. London: High Commission for Canada, Division of Academic Affairs.

Tate, Eugene D. (1999). The Ontario Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry: Twenty years later. British Journal of Canadian Studies, 13(1), 148-163.

Tate, Eugene D., & McConnell, Kathleen. (1991). The mass media and violence. In Benjamin Singer (Ed.), Communications in Canadian society (3rd ed., pp. 299- 321). Toronto: Nelson Canada. (Also published in 1993 and 1995 editions)

Tate, Eugene D., Hawrish, Ernest, & Clark, Stanley. (1974). Communication variables in jury selection. Journal of Communication, 24, 130-139.

Turner, Mark. (1996). The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Underhill, Frank, & Ferguson, George. (1955). Press and party in Canada: Issues of freedom. Toronto: The Ryerson Press.

University College London. (1999). Bulletin. London: University College London.

Watzlawick, Paul, Beavin, Janet, & Jackson, Don. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Horton.

Weir, Austin. (1965). The struggle for Canadian broadcasting.Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Wilson, Lewellyn Lee. (1967). Speech education in Canada: Curricula, facilities and personnel. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

  •  Announcements
    Atom logo
    RSS2 logo
    RSS1 logo
  •  Current Issue
    Atom logo
    RSS2 logo
    RSS1 logo
  •  Thesis Abstracts
    Atom logo
    RSS2 logo
    RSS1 logo

We wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for their financial support through theAid to Scholarly Journals Program.