Abstract
Communication as a field has been heavily saturated with dominant concepts, methodologies, empirical frameworks and theoretical epistemologies largely developed by and for Western contexts, systems and structures. The broader scientific community continues to uphold these established standards as the acceptable academic metric upon which all scholarly works are evaluated, regardless of the specificity of the contexts or the diversity of the realities. Thus, researchers studying indigenous and widely diverging phenomena are forced, albeit inadvertently, to adapt their works to fit into these dominant normative structures, with little room for ontological creativity.
In the early 2000s, scholarly discourse increasingly critiqued the perpetually sparse representation of non-Western research in a largely Eurocentric field (e.g. Curran and Park, 2000; Thussu, 2009). More recent debates on the internationalization of communication studies have shifted from merely challenging the hegemony of Western scholarship to calling for a more cosmopolitan approach that unifies different perspectives (e.g. Badr and Ganter, 2021; Waisbord, 2025). One of such prominent calls is the book, Cosmopolitan Communication Studies: Toward Deep Internationalization, edited by Carola Richter, Melanie Radue, Christine Horz-Ishak, Anna Litvinenko, Hanan Badr and Anke Fiedler (2025).
This book builds on the premise of deconstructing Western epistemology to advocate for the integration of more global perspectives in communication research and offers more profound approaches that prioritize universalism of scholarship. This 15-chapter compendium emphasizes the idea that deep internationalization and intellectual pluralism are subject to the level of integration of diverging epistemologies, methodologies and frameworks from different cultural contexts. Each chapter offers perspectives on how a cosmopolitan approach can provide a holistic understanding of scholarships in different communication subfields.
In the introductory chapter, the book’s editors argue that cosmopolitanism must be approached from two distinct angles: from below, by objectively evaluating how concepts, theories and methods are distinct across cultural contexts, and from within, by challenging Western scientific biases that undermine egalitarian knowledge production. The editors further elucidate on several factors that advance Western-centric approaches, one of which is ‘the Western gaze’, a phenomenon which expects Western frameworks to adequately explain indigenous contexts. They argue that non-Western narratives gain attention mainly when events or crises have significant impact on a global scale.
Chapter 1 traces the historical trajectory of the field of communication studies within the context of German, French and Brazilian research, highlighting the lack of transnational academic crossing among the three societies. Stephanie Averbeck-Leitz, Lisa Bolz and Otávio Daros question the diversity of academic cultures, normative views, and epistemological and methodological differences that hinder a cross-national dialog, rather than foster it. In Chapter 2, Barbara Thomass presents a historical analysis of the normative values and ethical standards that have served as the foundation of the field. The author elucidates on how the construct of universalism of media ethics was developed, why it remains relevant in the contemporary media sphere, and whether it conflicts with the idea of cosmopolitanism.
Christine Horz-Ishak in Chapter 3 examines the dynamics of media diversity as a key structural element for understanding cosmopolitanism within the field. The chapter explores, from the perspective of German communication research, how the diversity paradigm exposes the media’s role in shaping structural inequalities and fostering power imbalances. In Chapter 4, Kai Hafez and Anne Grüne integrate perspectives from the Global North and the Global South to address key issues of the internationalization of communication scholarship. The chapter provides an account of the ecology of non-mediated political and social communication as possible counterbalances to dominant political and media narratives.
Chapter 5 highlights the deficiencies of Western-centric points of view that prevail in media systems research and identifies the major shortcomings that must be surmounted to foster a more cosmopolitan approach to research. Melanie Radue, Johanna Mack, and Carola Ritcher advocate for the application of a more context-led research perspective and a critical examination of Western normative concepts in the evaluation of media systems. Sarah Anne Ganter advances a similar argument in Chapter 6. Focusing on media governance studies, the chapter draws on literature from diverse backgrounds to highlight how a cosmopolitan framework and epistemological transformations in the field can be achieved and sustained through cross-national, cross-institutional and cross-pedagogical interactions.
Chapter 7 focuses on the nature, causes and implications of prolonged Eurocentrism in risk and crisis communication research. The authors, Pauline Gidget Estella, Martin Löffelholz and Yi Xu contend that a genuine advance in the subfield is contingent on incorporating a diversity of perspectives and methodologies, and challenging hegemonic Western academic structures in knowledge production. Chapter 8 examines cosmopolitanism through journalism studies, analyzing typologies of prefix journalism such as advocacy journalism, Ubuntu journalism and cross-border journalism. Melanie Radue, Thomas Eckerl, Oliver Hahn, and Beate Illg argue that the diversity of these approaches within transnational collaborations accelerates the shift toward a more cosmopolitan understanding of the field.
In Chapter 9, Kathrin Schleicher and Aynur Sarısakaloğlu explore the state of cosmopolitanism in war and conflict reporting, critiquing the disproportionate visibility of research on conflict reportage in developing countries, despite war and conflicts unfolding as cosmopolitan phenomena. Chapter 10 draws attention to the digital and knowledge divide existing in bodies of literature on AI and algorithm-driven journalism from the Global North and the Global South. Aynur Sarısakaloğlu proposes a conceptual framework that bridges the gap between the North and the South and empowers non-Western scholarship to actively contribute to the discourse. In Chapter 11, Regina Cazzamatta examines the landscape of fact-checking research within Latin-America journalism and expounds on the persistent challenges faced by non-Western news organizations in implementing fact-checking practices.
In Chapter 12, Susanne Fengler and her co-authors focus on media development discourse and assesses media development initiatives in the Global South, highlighting how geopolitical power relations inevitably shape interactions among the development actors. Chapter 13 explores how hierarchical and contextual differences are negotiated in international journalism training within the Nepalese and Afghanistan journalism sphere. Mira Keßler, Kefa Hamidi and Beate Illg offer insights on how awareness of context-specific differences in journalism training can strengthen international journalistic pedagogy and research. The last chapter examines the challenges of international research collaborations in media and communication studies across diverse geographical regions and their effect on internationalizing the field.
This book provides a thought-provoking intervention that invites readers to reconsider how communication research can become more globally inclusive and intellectually pluralistic. Although many of the chapters identify several roadblocks to a genuinely cosmopolitan approach to communication studies, the book does not fully engage the structural forces and the intellectual institutions that reproduce and sustain these barriers. Furthermore, the volume’s call for deeper internationalization is undermined by its sparse representation of contributors and contexts from the Global South. Its own contributor base is largely Western and exemplifies the limited transcultural integration it seeks to challenge. These gaps, however, do not diminish the value of the profound arguments and solutions proffered in the book, rather they lend credence to the urgent need for true internationalization of communication studies.