Human Communication Research at a crossroads: reaffirming standards, reimagining possibilities

Abstract

As Human Communication Research begins a new editorial chapter, this note reaffirms the journal’s longstanding commitment to theory-driven scholarship while addressing recurring challenges that shape how communication research is conceptualized, designed, and interpreted. Drawing from editorial experience and field-wide observations, I identify ten patterns — such as sidelining theory, prioritizing statistical effects over explanatory mechanisms, and equating analytical complexity with conceptual rigor — that signal misalignments between empirical practice and theoretical ambition. These challenges are mapped onto Chaffee and Berger’s classic evaluative criteria to clarify where theoretical contributions often falter. In response, I outline an editorial vision centered on conceptual coherence, methodological alignment, and integrative theorizing. The editorial also introduces Commentaries and Catalysts, a new column designed to foreground theoretical insight and foster cross-paradigm dialogue. Together, these reflections aim to support authors and reviewers while inviting engagement with the standards, possibilities, and evolving responsibilities of cumulative theory-building in communication research.

Keywords

Communication scholarship, theory-driven research, theoretical contribution, methodological alignment, scholarly standards