James D. (Jimmy) Ivory is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (a.k.a. Virginia Tech), where he has worked since 2005. His teaching and research at Virginia Tech is primarily focused on media effects and communication technologies. Ivory recently founded the Virginia Tech Gaming and Media Effects Research Laboratory (VT G.A.M.E.R. Lab) a small research facility where students and faculty investigate the content and physiological, psychological, and social effects of video games, virtual worlds, and other media technologies. For 2008-2009, Ivory serves as the head of the Communication Technology (CTEC) Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC).
Before joining Virginia Tech, Ivory earned a Ph.D. in Mass Communication from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as an M.A. in Communication and B.S. in Journalism from the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Wyoming. Ivory lives in Blacksburg, Virginia, with his wife Adrienne.
How do you define mass communication?
I suppose I am not particularly concerned about any distinction between “mass communication” and any other categories of the communication pantheon (interpersonal, group, public, etc.), primarily because research seems to find time and time again that a lot of communication processes and effects occur in surprisingly similary ways across “levels” of communication. Whether we are talking one-on-one, watching television, reading a book, etc., there are consistent trends in our responses to messages and their sources. I think there are distinctions between the levels of communication, and they matter, but I guess they don’t bother me a lot given that there are often as many similarities in communication phenomena across levels as there are differences.
That said, I don’t buy into the idea that mass communication is dying or dead. Talk of social networking and user-generated content and things might prompt some to write an obituary for mass communication, but at the end of the day a lot of these formats still result in one person or corporation raking in cash generated via a lot of individuals’ media use in one way or another. Hmm. Maybe that’s a good definition of mass communication right there.
How do you keep your students excited about working in the field of communications in light of shrinking job opportunities?
Surprisingly, not many of the students I’ve visited with have been having a lot of difficulty getting work and internships…yet. That’s probably not representative of the atmosphere among the students I am around, though. I may not be hearing about such difficulties because the students who are having trouble are the same students who aren’t taking time to reach out to me as an instructor, advisor, etc. Then again, I imagine I’ll hear more as times get tougher. At that point, I’ll definitely need to think hard about how to get students excited about the field, but for now most of them seem excited enough about it already. That enthusiasm makes my line of work a lot of fun.
What changes do journalism and mass communication programs need to make in order to stay relevant today?
There are a lot of changes that people have proposed and will, and I suppose it remains to be seen which of them are good ideas. One suggestion I would make is that programs think conceptually in terms of their courses, faculty, curriculum tracks, and all other structures instead of letting current media patterns dictate their institutional organization. For example, thinking about the field in terms of “print,” “online,” “television,” etc., makes sense at the time, but a focus on these media “objects” in defining organization guarantees obsolescence. The media objects and technologies change, but the important concepts are more immutable. We should remember that when we think about how our programs are structured.
If you could save one journalism and mass communication course from extinction, what would it be and why?
Undergraduate Research Methods. It’s a gateway to a big part of the work going in the departments, colleges, and schools that the students attend, but too often students don’t get enough exposure to the research atmosphere in which they are immersed. At the multiple institutions that have looked after me during my short career so far, I’ve encountered too many students who are stunned to find out that their professor in “X” course also happens to have done some important and interesting research on “X” communication topic. That surprise is quickly followed by curiosity about this part of their professors’ work. Aside from teaching skills that are invaluable to both academic and industry careers, introductory research methods courses expose a lot of students to the excitement that discovering new knowledge can bring.
Honorable mentions are Newswriting and Media Law. The first could easily get compromised (e.g., too-large enrollments, too few assignments) during tough times given the resources it requires to maintain enough attention on grading, etc. The second is not always popular with students. Neither is an acceptable reason to reduce emphasis on these courses. In fact, they’re probably good reasons that the courses should be guarded jealously.
What new media tools or applications do you incorporate in your teaching? Why these in particular?
A lot of the technology I use in teaching is freely available stuff that anyone can use. I like to show clips from video sites like YouTube and things like that, mess with Facebook groups, etc. I use tools like PowerPoint and Blackboard now, but was reluctant to do so for a few years and made simple WWW sites as substitutes for both because 1) it felt awkward to be in a field emphasizing competence in media production, etc., while using leased boilerplate-style tools to deliver media content pertaining to courses, and 2) it seems like some technology applications marketed to educators are unnecessary expenses that get sold to institutions when more accessible tools could suffice. But a simpler explanation might be that I’m probably just too cheap to innovate sometimes.
If you could offer a piece of advice to both your fellow educators and media professionals in the field, what would it be?
Ask me again in a couple of decades or so. Having been on the planet for 30 years and having probably wasted a fair chunk of that, I feel like I have a lot more learning to do before I can hope to dispense too much advice to media educators and professionals.
What do you see for the future of journalism and mass communication both in general and in higher education?
I hope that communication focuses on its interdisciplinary roots and doesn’t become too insular. An advantage of the field has been its willingess to learn from other disciplines and industries and its ability to contribute to other other disciplines and industries. That’s probably easier to do when a field is very young, and I hope things don’t change as the field “matures.”