Suchergebnisse

La construction, et la reconnaissance du champ de recherche sur la communication est difficile depuis près d'un siècle pour trois raisons. D'abord, il ne résulte pas d'une évolution au sein des disciplines connues depuis longtemps, mais d'une interaction constante entre les dimensions humaine, sociale et technique. Ensuite, parce que la communication comme objet de connaissance est inséparable de la longue marche politique pour l'émancipation et la liberté individuelle et collective. Enfin, pourquoi s'attarder sur la communication humaine, toujours complexe et souvent décevante, alors que les artefacts sont de plus en plus performants et séduisants ? Ce sont ces trois origines du champ de recherche qui contribuent à rendre ce domaine scientifique complexe, et finalement moins légitime que d'autres sciences « plus pures », pour ne pas dire « plus simples ». Cette complexité est une richesse, mais elle est rarement vue de la sorte. Mots-clés : sciences de la communication, incommunication, carré des connaissances, altérité. ; It has not been easy, for nearly a century now, to build up and secure recognition for the research field on communication. There are three reasons for this. First, this particular field is not the result of developments within disciplines that have been well known for a long time, but of the constant interaction between three dimensions, the human, the social and the technical. Secondly, because communication as an object of study is inseparable from the long political march towards emancipation and individual and collective freedom. And finally, why spend so much time on human communication, which is always complex and often disappointing, when we have artefacts that are ever more efficient and attractive? It is this triple origin of our field of scientific research that contributes to its complexity, and ultimately undermines its legitimacy compared to other sciences that are more "pure", or perhaps more "simple". Its complexity is its wealth, but is rarely perceived as such.

International audience ; What is designated as International Communication does not, in fact, actually exist, neither as a concept, a field, a category, a theory, a school, a discipline, nor a sector. It does not provide any original methodological approach. Its area of utility remains unclear and notably flexible, since the identification attempts to specify it are diachronic in character, as its claims refer to actors that steadily become more numerous and give rise to a variable geometry as well as more and subtle discursive productions. Embodied in publication titles and university courses, mobilized by international organizations for use in classificatory objectives, called upon for terminological clarification, it can only disappoint, offering false structural syntheses that fill scientific journals. Driven by a variety of often non-visible politico-cultural interests, its terminological polysemy discourages serious and exhaustive research.However, its discursive manifestation does produce meaning effects and impact on our understanding, and it is now time to put this in perspective. Thus, the only option for illuminating this situation – one that would avoid endless description and inventories – requires the common thread of a discipline, namely the information-communication sciences. From its formal constitution in France at the end of 70's and with its progressive establishment in Humanities and Social sciences, this discipline now provides a significant theoretical corpus and epistemological anchoring. At the same time, it is still possible in provide a reasonable and accessible to initial overview. Moreover, confining ourselves to one country while simultaneously taking into account transnational scientific collaborations and productions – and not least avoiding the pitfalls of mediacentrism – an interrogation of the discipline reveals a formidable toolbox. Its epistemological, theoretical, conceptual and methodological features justify a provisional state of the art, one that stands out in a crowded academic domain, and offers useful alternatives to the problematic character of International Communication. ; Largement consacrée, l'appellation objectivante Communication Internationale n'existe ni en tant que concept, ni en tant que champ, catégorie, théorie, école, discipline ou filière et ne donne lieu à aucune approche méthodologique originale. Son domaine de circonscription reste flou et élastique, dès lors que la tentative d'identification s'inscrit dans une démarche diachronique, au fur et à mesure que sa convocation englobante renvoie à des acteurs de plus en plus nombreux et prête le jeu à des productions discursives à géométrie variable. La polysémie terminologique dissuade d'une recherche exhaustive. Pour autant, la référence produit des effets de sens, qu'il est aujourd'hui temps de mettre en perspective. Alors, la seule option possible, pour un repérage éclairant passe par le fil conducteur disciplinaire des sciences de l'information - communication (Sic).À partir de leur constitution officielle en France à la fin des années soixante-dix et avec son imposition progressive au sein des sciences humaines et sociales, les Sic offrent approches théoriques et questionnements épistémologiques, encore quantitativement raisonnables et accessibles pour autoriser un premier répertoire. Qui plus est, circonscrite à un pays en même temps que prenant acte des productions et collaborations scientifiques transnationales, structurée à partir de l'entrée exploratoire via l'information médiatisée tout en se gardant des pièges du médiacentrisme, l'interrogation de la discipline laisse apparaître des inflexions épistémologiques, théoriques, conceptuelles et méthodologiques justificatives d'un état, provisoire, de la recherche, sur un terrain par trop encombré ailleurs, y compris et surtout au niveau des organisations internationales.

International audience ; What is designated as International Communication does not, in fact, actually exist, neither as a concept, a field, a category, a theory, a school, a discipline, nor a sector. It does not provide any original methodological approach. Its area of utility remains unclear and notably flexible, since the identification attempts to specify it are diachronic in character, as its claims refer to actors that steadily become more numerous and give rise to a variable geometry as well as more and subtle discursive productions. Embodied in publication titles and university courses, mobilized by international organizations for use in classificatory objectives, called upon for terminological clarification, it can only disappoint, offering false structural syntheses that fill scientific journals. Driven by a variety of often non-visible politico-cultural interests, its terminological polysemy discourages serious and exhaustive research.However, its discursive manifestation does produce meaning effects and impact on our understanding, and it is now time to put this in perspective. Thus, the only option for illuminating this situation – one that would avoid endless description and inventories – requires the common thread of a discipline, namely the information-communication sciences. From its formal constitution in France at the end of 70's and with its progressive establishment in Humanities and Social sciences, this discipline now provides a significant theoretical corpus and epistemological anchoring. At the same time, it is still possible in provide a reasonable and accessible to initial overview. Moreover, confining ourselves to one country while simultaneously taking into account transnational scientific collaborations and productions – and not least avoiding the pitfalls of mediacentrism – an interrogation of the discipline reveals a formidable toolbox. Its epistemological, theoretical, conceptual and methodological features justify a provisional state of the art, one that stands out in a crowded ...