Architects of Communication Scholarship

Ellen Wartella 00:02
ICA presents

Ellen Wartella 00:09
Hello, I'm Ellen Wartella and welcome to this episode of the Architects of Communication Scholarship podcast series, a production of ICA Podcast Network. Today our architect is Humero Zuniga. Humero Zuniga serves as distinguished research professor at the University of Salamanca as media effects professor at Pennsylvania State University and a senior research fellow at Universidad Diego Portales Chile. His work aims to shed an empirical social scientific light over how social media algorithms, AI, and other technologies affect society, relying on survey experimental and computational methods. His work seeks to clarify the way we understand some of today's most pressing challenges for democracies with over a dozen books and nearly 130 index peer-reviewed journal articles. He has been named a Fellow of the ICA, recipient of the Craig BAM under 40 award at the AEJMC, and has recently been identified as one of the most prolific scholars in political communication and social media, and one of the most bridging and central-node communication scholars in Latin America. Today, Homero Zuniga will be in conversation with Teresa Correa. She is Associate Professor at Diego Portales University in Chile, and Director of Research and communication. And here is Teresa.

Teresa Correa 01:28
Hello, I'm Teresa Correa. Today, I have the pleasure of interviewing Professor Homero Gil de Zuniga. I'm really excited to have this conversation.

Homero Gil de Zuniga 01:36
Thank you so much, Teresa.

Teresa Correa 01:38
So just to start, tell us a little bit about your upbringing in Madrid, Spain, in the 80s and 90s. And then your initial steps into journalism, media, and communication.

Homero Gil de Zuniga 01:51
The upbringing in Spain, I think we all had fun. There's memories of our childhood for most of us, and I assume that I'm not different in that regard. Probably, the times in Spain were times in turmoil politically speaking, because I was born in 1975, just when Franco, the dictator, just died. So my upbringing and my growing years, when I was a kid, it was the transition years. Very convulsive years, lots of protesting and political activities. And the democracy, just like me, was an infant. And it was being established in Spain. So I do remember those years, as years of freedom. I remember my parents waking me up when I was about seven years old, to indicate to me that a new political party from the left has won the elections, which was unknown, having elections and a left party, or a progressive party, being empowered when PSOE won the elections for the first time. Those are my first memories of my upbringing and Spain. And when it comes to communication, I think, as many of us, we've lived the transition of technology, particularly in having roots in Spain, as the country itself was being modernized. Technology was not immune to this trend. So I have experienced all these changes when it came to labor and education. I could feel it in my education, and upbringing too. That's part of what I was driven and interested in doing research in communication for the most part. But also my younger graduate journals, I was interested in journalism. And in fact, I worked initially in journalism, but I realized that it was not what really fulfilled my thriving goals in life. I wanted to learn more about it, but from a different angle, just rather than being a journalist, perhaps doing research on what journals do and why it matters, from the lenses of the model.

Teresa Correa 03:43
But you did two doctorate programs. First, you did one in Spain in political science. And then you moved to the US and did one in Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. So tell us a little bit about the journey from Spain to the US, why you did a political science program first and communication then, and how both have helped you in your career.

Homero Gil de Zuniga 04:12
Let me first start by saying that it was not planned. It looked like it was a very planned execution of some academic words to do the best. It just happened organically. When I finished my undergrad, and when I worked a little bit, I went back to school to study a master's in things that revolved with technology in Spain. And then an opportunity came along to pursue a PhD. By that time, the European Union and the progress of democracy and all these things that were being discussed at European level, seem to be very important in Spain. So there was a new program that was opened in a private institution, Universidad Europea de Madrid, European University at Madrid, that they were working on European politics program. So accordingly, some of my professors at that time told me that was a pretty cool initiative. If I was interested, they envisioned me as one of the potential successful students pursuing such academic tasks. So I started my PhD program. But as I advanced my political science program, I started to realize that my speed continued to be communication. It was clearly political communication. So the more I read, and the more I learned, the more I realized that I had to also continue to study this side of communication, where definitely my program was falling short. So that's why, as I was advancing and pursuing the PhD program in Madrid, I realized that I probably should continue to learn more things about communication, and what better place than the US. So I learned a language because I didn't speak any English back then. And then I tried to pursue a PhD program in the US, which ultimately happened in Wisconsin.

Teresa Correa 05:53
So just for people, or for the students who are thinking about doing such a journey, or people who don't speak English, how did you do it?

Homero Gil de Zuniga 06:03
It was hard. I first went there, and I spoke no English. So I ended up going to a very small town, just to learn English, working in anything that had to do with learning or practicing my English. I was able to live to some extent the American dream and move from job to job, and progress in my working career at that point. Learning more English and developing my skills as someone working for the private sector. And ultimately, I realized that my English had improved. So I took the GRE. Then I eventually became competitive enough for at least in my mind, at that time, I think I'm ready to start a program in a good institution, which later on, I found out that not at all because I didn't understand many of the things that I was being exposed to, and it took me a while to react. I'm convinced that half of my professors, my first year probably thought this guy is useless, or doesn’t think. Because it took time for me to understand what they were talking about, and trying to put all that in my mind. The times that I would express something meaningful, they were discussing something else. So I remained quiet for the most part of my first year. Now, as for advice, I will tell others to try and be persistent and learn. None of us know everything. In fact, none of us know much. We keep learning every day. I would invite everyone who has the drive, the energy, and the interest to pursue their dreams. And if they want to start in the US, fight hard for it and just learn the language. Very similar to what you did, Teresa, you fought very hard, then you pursued your PhD in a great institution in the US. So I would invite other international scholars to do the same. It's just a matter of persistence.

Teresa Correa 07:47
Exactly. So when you started, who would you say were your most important mentors? And what did they teach you?

Homero Gil de Zuniga 07:56
So my mentors back in Spain, I had several mentors, but they came from either political science or sociology. When I told them that I wanted to do communication, empirical communication in Spain was mostly unknown, if not completely unknown. For the most part today, I think it is picking up more universities and more programs, which devote time and energy in pursuing more quantitative or empirical communication studies. I indicated to my professors then, and my mentors that I wanted to study more communication when it comes to politics, but more communication, they would say, “Oh, so you really need Gregory Bateson,” and they would give me a book about Gregory Bateson. And I remember reading this guy, and he blew my mind. I was like, whoa, this guy is so smart and interesting. But clearly, very different type of scholarship that we used to do these days. Or similarly, I remember reading books by Karl Weick. And trying to understand what communication meant from a social psychology perspective. So those were the figures that I was reading in the beginning. And then as a secondary tool to read and learn, I learned about Lazarsfeld and other scholars. So those were initially the people that I comprehend a little bit. But the more I read, the more I realized that things were happening in the US. So when I moved to the US, and I was about to start my program in Wisconsin, in Madison, I was very excited at the prospect that maybe I was going to work with Jack McLeod who's there. And eventually, his son Doug McLeod, now a good friend of mine, took a step and said, “Okay, I'll be your mentor, I'll be your advisor”. And then after a few months, he realized that I was not learning much, what was this guy doing. Or it was me who realized that I was not learning or advancing as much as I was hoped to. I changed to a relatively unknown advisor back at that time. His name is Dhavan Shah. And now, he is a very well known scholar, but I was one of his first initial PhD students.

Teresa Correa 09:57
So what did they teach you? What do you remember? One or two things that stuck in your mind that you really practice now or you try to teach to young scholars now.

Homero Gil de Zuniga 10:07
There's something that I don't think can be taught, which is the notion of you have an interest and curiosity. If you have that, in my mind, you have 50% done. If you're curious about something, it has to be something that you like, but nobody can tell you what to be curious about. But if you have curiosity about something, it can be an abstract topic or theme, something that triggers interest to you, that you have half of the way done. And then the other half of the way is what I learned from my mentors, colleagues and students. We don't say this quite often, but also students who might be a little further up in the road in the program. And to me, I had two clear mentors that way, Hernando Rojas, a professor at Wisconsin. When I was starting my master's and my PhD program, he was already a PhD student. So he was three years ahead of me. And similarly, Jaeho Cho, a professor in University of California, Davis, he was also three years ahead of me. So I learned from them. And the things that they taught me, follow your interest, read a lot, also practice and don't be afraid of screwing up. And that's what I did. I ask questions. And if I came across as a little idiot, it wouldn't bother me because I was learning. What was clear to me is if I remained silent, I wouldn't learn anything at all. If I just know if somebody told me “Oh, this paper discussed this. And this methodology.” And I just nod, like I understood, I wouldn't learn much. But if I ask I say, “What do you mean with relation? What do you mean by regression?” Well, then they will tell me you need to take a class, but what it means is this, and I would learn more and more. So as I say, probably some of the advice that I learned from my own mentors, would be that. Follow your curiosity and feed it, just keep learning and read, and don't be afraid of making mistakes and asking questions. It's all about that. In the end, we are participants of an academic conversation with others, even when we publish, so you can't be afraid of participating. You need to talk, ask questions and keep reading.

Teresa Correa 12:06
Since you started teaching and doing research, how has your vision changed since you started in 2008?

Homero Gil de Zuniga 12:17
Probably, I'm older now and less of an optimistic guy. And part of that initial optimism has dissipated, also because of the consistent findings that we, as a field, also found, also reached. So for the most part, in the beginning of my research, I also always wanted to highlight, hopefully, positive aspects of technology to generate a better democracy and more inclusive democracy, in which all of us who have a better chance and a more meaningful chance of participating, and we found some good and interesting findings when it comes to technology, and social media, etc. But also the more research that was conducted and the different types of research and in different notions in terms of uses and effects and motivations and so forth, we realized that the effects were not so simple, they're much more complicated, and that not everything is so bright. So you demand it within time, I came to be perhaps a little bit less optimistic when it comes to sphere effects of technology and social media, for instance.

Teresa Correa 13:21
So what are the main questions that you currently have regarding that?

Homero Gil de Zuniga 13:27
I do understand that, for instance, when it comes to social media, and another technology, now we're talking about algorithms and AI, artificial intelligence, etc. There's no such thing, or just specific types of effects like this is going to be good, this is gonna be bad. We're realizing that there are many different things happening at the same time. So that's why in many instances, I talk about asymmetrical effects, because one behavior with technology or within social media, on the one hand, may actually bring upon good effects or desired outcomes on society and democracy. But those very same uses, or behaviors simultaneously, may also bring upon deleterious effects for society. So it's not that easy. The questions that occupy my mind is, how can we more efficiently highlight or isolate? What specific path will bring a better society and a brand democracy? So either way by highlighting the effects that work, or also by identifying and perhaps proposing ways to mend and correct potential negative effects that technology and social media may also bring to democracy.

Teresa Correa 14:37
Regarding your specific scholarship or expertise, which ones would you like to contribute?

Homero Gil de Zuniga 14:44
All the things that I've been doing, either theoretically or empirically, we find things when we try to explain a phenomenon when it comes to technology, and democracy. At least for me, my goal, my ultimate objective is to create a better world. So a world in which we all citizens, can participate in the value of democracy, we can all become more informed, and that we generate a healthier society. And this sometimes, in the beginning of my career, translated, perhaps even simplistically to the idea of a more participatory society. And then over the years, I realized that it was not only participation, that there are many other things behind, so we could not solely equate political participation or activity with a healthier democracy. Now, we're talking more about an informed public opinion, because otherwise, that participation may be ill-informed. What I would like to achieve is to create both solid informed theoretical models and empirical models that generate a better society, a more participatory society, but also more informed, more civic. Part of it is not only political participation, but social capital, civic engagement. So how can we also generate better neighborhoods? How do we help each other? What are the conditions in which we decide to be nice to each other? They may look simple, but they don't have a simple answer.

Teresa Correa 16:07
That's true. So this podcast is called Architects of the Communication Scholarship. And in that regard, what have you built or what have you designed?

Homero Gil de Zuniga 16:18
If you ask me, modestly, I will say I haven't built anything. But when I retire, I want to be able to say, “Look, my little brick is there.” And there are many bricks that come in, beyond me to influence, or at least open the past, so they can reach their own goals, and be there our architects of this world, of this figure that we're building. Similarly, I think I take pride in people like you, one of my best students, and some other fantastic students that I had over the years and postdocs, that eventually when I look back, if I haven't built any long-lasting theory or finding forever, at least, we've been able to contribute to a stronger discipline, just by generating knowledge.

Teresa Correa 16:58
To finish this conversation, you're a fan of classic rock, so if you have to choose a song, or a band or an album, that reflects upon the conversation that we have had regarding the field of communication or your trajectory, which one would you choose and why?

Homero Gil de Zuniga 17:17
I'm gonna go with In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, Iron Butterfly. Because this is exactly what this conversation seems to be. It seems to be a never ending conversation that at some parts of the song may even sound like it's the same thing over and over. But if you pay attention to it, particularly when you're relaxed, and when you have interest on it, you will realize that lots of different influences and parts of the song that make total sense and they go together in many different and interesting ways.

Teresa Correa 17:46
Great choice. Thank you Homero for this great conversation.

Homero Gil de Zuniga 17:50
Thank you, Teresa. It's been an honor and I can just say how proud I am of you and your career. You have become a stellar, astonishing star in the field. So I just can't wait to welcome among the fellows in ICA very soon.

Ellen Wartella 18:06
This episode of Architects of Communication Scholarship podcast series is presented by the International Communication Association Podcast Network and The Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Our producers are Jabari Clemons and Lacie Yao. Our executive producer is DeVante Brown. The theme music is by Humans Win. For more information about our participants on this episode, as well as our sponsor, be sure to check the episode description. Thanks for listening.