The imperative, then, for the communication discipline, is to consider the kinds of research being done, and to enter into a spirited, at times raucous, discussion of the standards or guidelines to be recommended. In this process, it will not be enough for the "respected scholars" in the discipline to involve themselves in this review; rather, it will take a group as diverse as the discipline, including untenured as well as tenured, to arrive at anything resembling a consensus that will "stick" once approved. We have not sought, in this review, to provide definitive answers. Rather, we have attempted to tease out some of the relevant issues.
Beyond this, we will suggest some actions that might be taken to carry the conversation forward
While the above initiates a process view toward the issues, what should be considered as relavant substantive topics? At the very least, what we hope to have made clear is that the review needs to move beyond an "add and stir" approach, and will need to consider not only those procedures and practices that are known and comfortable to many, but also those procedures and practices that are just beginning to be exercised within the academy. These includes, but are not limited to, the manner of handling the review process as well as how "influence" is determined with respect to the qualitative judgment of an essays merit. It is our hope that the "talking points" raised previously will also serve as reference points for such a discussion. We have not seen the last of change; nor should we limit or constrain ourselves to approving only that with which we have grown comfortable. Conventions are just that, as Bach, Blair, Nothstine, and Pym (1996) eloquently remind us. We need to remember that we didn't always value scholarship according to the standards now in place, and that these standards are not sacrosanct with respect to what may be in place in one hundred years.