Talk:Communication sciences

Communication scientists as objectivists?

I'd like to see a source for this claim. When I took my intro communications courses as an undergraduate, the professor teaching the course claimed the exact opposite, that communication scientists were subjectivists and relied on research methods like ethnography as their primary tools. I know next to nothing about the field, myself, but if my old professor was properly informed about her field, then it might be more accurate to say that communication scientists employ a variety of research methods depending upon their theoretical commitments. Some are inclined towards objective approaches where as others employ a more subjective approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.248.101 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hard living lifestyles"?
What exactly are "hard living lifestyles"? Are they hard (living lifestyles) or (hard-living) lifestyles? Were the former faculty members boozing too much or just underpaid, or both?

Did the "former faculty members" who had those lifestyles become "former" because their lifestyles caused them to get fired? Or is the intended meaning that the lifestyles drove them into early graves? Or is it that the lifestyles of the former faculty members scared away new applicants? Or is it that administrative and student opinion was so adverse toward the former faculty members that the current faculty members have a tough challenge in funding and recruiting?

What about a possible meaning that the agencies which do rankings have overrated the department by failing to consider the "hard living lifestyles"?

Or is the statement vandalism on the part of a former professor or student who left East Lansing with a disgruntled attitude?

Please clarify these issues with specifics and, if possible, references, in keeping with the principles of effective communication science.

Rammer (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)