Search results

This informal collection is designed to further a dialogue about the relationship between communications research and policy making. In particular it focuses on the impact of academic research on communications policy, and whether, and how, policy draws upon research (if at all). As quasi-editors (and commissioners of these essays) we have been highlighting various assumptions in the process. These assumptions mark every stage of the question (of the relevance of what academics do to what policy makers do). They mark an idealized mode of thinking about policy-making—an idealized mode sometimes articulated in legislation or judicial decision (or agency practice). The assumptions include the following: Good and democratic policy making should be based upon an informed deliberation, and include relevant research findings. Policy making involves problem solving, guided change and conflict resolution. Communications research should be (designed to be) an important input into policy making. Policy makers have an appetite for (or can be compelled to have an appetite) research There is room for "disinterested research" and possibly academic research has that quality Academic research has a kind of methodological purity or excellence or at least strives for that There is a disconnect between the demand and supply of policy relevant communications research. In part, this is a problem of access to research and data (although with the Internet, this has become more a "translation" and "communications" problem, i.e. researchers fail to communicate timely and for a broader audience). In part, the disconnect is a result of the difference between academic research and policymaking with regard to: Incentives (e.g. tenure/peer review vs political viability) Timetables (e.g. journal deadlines vs immediately) Format preferences (lengthy vs succinct) Agenda and relevance (old vs new challenges and technologies) Quality and validity standards (neutral vs political) Information about demand and supply In part, the problem is related with the ignorance and capacity of policy makers vis-à-vis using research. What this effort hopes to do is to deepen and challenge these assumptions, as they relate to communications research and policy.

"Featuring specially commissioned chapters from experts in the field of media and communications law this book provides an authoritative survey of media law from a comparative perspective. The handbook will not simply offer a synopsis of the state of affairs in media law jurisprudence. Rather it will provide a better understanding of the forces that generate media rules, norms, and standards, perpetuate them, and foster change in them against the background of major transformations in the way information is mediated as a result of democratization, economic development, cultural change, globalization and technological innovation.The book addresses a range of issues including: media law and evolving concepts of democracy network neutrality and traffic management public service broadcasting in Europe Interception of communication and surveillance in Russia State secrets, leaks and the media. A variety of rule-making institutions are considered, including administrative, and judicial entities within and outside of government, but also entities such as associations and corporations that generate binding rules. The book assesses the emerging role of supranational economic and political groupings as well as of non-Western models, such as China and India, where cultural attitudes toward media freedoms are often very different. Monroe E. Price is Director of the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for the University of Pennsylvania and Joseph and Sadie Danciger Professor of Law and Director of the Howard M. Squadron Program in Law, Media and Society at the Cardozo School of Law.Stefaan Verhulst is Chief of Research at the Markle Foundation. Previously he was the co-founder and co-director, with Professor Monroe Price, of the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy (PCMLP) at Oxford University, as well as senior research fellow at the Centre for Socio Legal Studies"--

The Researching Attitudes towards Peace and Conflict in Darfur project seeks to inform the ongoing peace process in Darfur by providing the various institutions involved in the mediation efforts with a deeper understanding of Darfurians' perspectives on the causes of the conflict, its impact on their lives, and the role of the international community in its resolution. The project was initiated at the request of Albany Associates (www.albanyassociates.com), which was contracted by the UK's Department for International Development in 2006 to engage in communication about the Darfur peace process among the population of Darfur and other key stakeholders on behalf of the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) and later United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). The project is a partnership of the Center for Global Communication Studies (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania) and the Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research, and is funded by contributions from the Dutch Ministry for Development Cooperation and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The guiding premise of the project is that complex, seemingly intractable conflicts cannot be effectively resolved without taking into account the positions and opinions of those most directly affected.