ABSTRACT
In an age of information overflow, the word “communication” seems to have reached a buzz-status. From persuasive communication, to the importance of good communication, to communication skills for bridging gaps, the term and domain of “communication” has become increasingly obscure and even confusing. The space between neurons and socio-cultural spaces—populated by the technologies of mediation and social practices of meaning-making humans—is what gives shape to our information architecture across the series’ four volumes—Meaning, Experience, Action, and Mediation. Partially due to the wide range of perspectives and approaches, the field of communication studies still lacks distinctive disciplinary boundaries. The reconsideration of binaries becomes complex when it comes to institutionalized dichotomies in the historical record—such as the debates related to the categorization of communications in the academy as a field or a discipline, where such categorizations are often suspended between institutional forces of “cohesion and fragmentation”.
